The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1917-06-24
NEAR RIOT IN DEBATE
Advocates Surprised by
Sweeping Success and
Press Advantage.
WAR EMERGENCY, BASIS
Conservation Of Grain Ground
for Drastic Provision :,
Adopted. w W.

WARRINGTON. June 23.-Nationwide
prohibition was adopted by the House
tonight by vote of 365 to s. when the
food control bill offered by the Admins
tration was passed An amendment de-
signed to withdraw from public use the
22o,000,o00 gallons of liauor In bonded
warehouses at the discretion Of the
President practically was killed
Actual prohibition was accomplished
by forbiddng the use OF foodstufYs for
the manufacture Of alcoholic beverages
during the war. The amendment to
withdraw from public use the 10000
600 gallons now stored failed because
the House refused to appropriate $780,
000, 600 to permit the President to COM
mandeer the supply. The food bill car
ries $152,500,000 for administration.
The closing days debate found the
House in an almo { endless tangle. A
point Of order rais against the first
prohibition amendm, Mt finally resulted
In taking from the President discre-
tionary powers which the prohibition
forces originally intended to invest In
him on making the prohibition against
the use OF foodstuffs for alcoholic
beverages mandatory.
As the bill goes to the Senate the
House attitude on the prohibition ques-
tion however. 10 expected to lend suff-
Client strength to the dry element in
tion for the war. War prohibition, more
or less drastic. was generally regarded
as being assured.
Those who voted against the final pas
sage of the bill were McLemors, Demo.
crat, Texas; Meeker. Republican, Mis-.
souri, Slayden. Democrat Texas Ward,
Republican, New York; Young. Democrat.
Texas. Those voting present were Sa-
bath. Democrat, Illinois Hubert. Demo-
crat. New York; Gordon. Democrat.
Ohio: Gallagher Democrat, Illinois.
The prohibition victory. far more dras-
tic than the prohibition members had
expected to propose, was sustained In
committee OF the whole when q motion
by Representative Parker. New Jersey,
| to strike out the entire section was de-
feated on vote by tellers OF 1876 tn 1s2.
| As finally amended and perfected the
| section now reads:
No person shall use any foods, food
materials or feeds in the production Of
alcohol, except for governm ental. indus.
trial, scientific. medicinal or sacras
mental purposes, or OF alcoholic bev.
erages. Any person who wilfully vio.
hates this section shall upon eOhvic-
tiOR thereof be punished BY hRe not
exceeding $4,000. or by imprisonment
| Nearly Came to Fisticuna.
! The fight waged around the prohibi-
tion amendments was one of the bitter
est developed In recent sessions. At one
| time the House was brought to the verge
| Of fisticuifs II resulted In a most un-
dignified situation and the formal strik-
| ing from the record Of colloquy In
which "barroom bully" responded to
liar in u debate.
The wet element went into tho night
assured that prohibition legislation
would he kept out OF the bill through
points OF order prepared against the
amendment proposed by Representative
Webb of North Carolina Representative
Hamlin. Missouri, presiding over the
committee of the whole. sustained the
point OF order against Webbs amend
ment on the ground that It did not re-
late to fooc conservation. After similar
amendments were subjected to the same
! treatment Representative Barkley OF
! kentucky came to the front with Chi-
ness puzzle OF an amendment which
could not be knocked out
As a result OF the Barkley amendment
as finally perfected the use Of foodstuffs
| for the manufacture OF alcoholic bever-
ages was prohibited. The net result OF
the Barkley amendment was to give the
owners of 220. .000.000 gallons Of dis
titled spirits in bonded warehouses an
absolute monopoly of the wet goods
market as long as the supply should last
The adoption of the Barkley amend
ment when its import seeped into tho
consciousness OF the House caused con-
sternation, To a large extent the VIC
tory OF the prohibtionsts turned to gall.
| Representative Lenroot OF Wisconsin
promptly offered an amendment designed
to prohibit further dlstillation Of liquor.
but to permit the manufacture OF beer
and light wines. This proposal was
beaten. l2i TO 1874. SO were several
others OF similar import.