New-York tribune., 1917-12-21

re the Editor Of The Tribune
Sir: II is not for tie purpose OF mercy
can.ious criticism that isolate the follow
inc sentence in your editorial entitled Inc
Prohibition Amendment" in your issue oil To-
day: "War efficiency and the liquor traine
have been treated in all belligerent coun-
tr;as AS rrcconciabc enemies
cannot believe that The Tribune. despite
its new found love for prohibition, would
Intentionally indulge in Misrepresentation;
but the proof that this statement IS AZ
least grossly misleading can be found in your
own files.
The truth is that TIE chief belligerent
countries have found il necessary to main
tain the production Of the mider alcoholic
drinks in order that their soldiers and their
workers as we'll might attain the highest
degree Of efficiency. u is an old story tnat
ratons or wine arc served to the lighting
mon Of Italy and France. In the case OF
the latter country, the practice was sup
ported by a round robin signed b. every
division leader, and the chief medical Off
GERS as veil, on the ground that it helped to
maintain morale and discipline Belgium
gives beer TO her troops whenever obtain
able. Great Britain issues a tot Of rum,
which must be drunk diluted, and wherever
possible is commuted into beer. Her gov
crnment has officially declared that brewing
is ono Of the industries that must be main
tanned in time of war, and during the pres
en-. year has permitted an increase in the
output Of beer in order that adequate sup
-. 4hn cold n
workers in munitions factories and the har-
vest hands. Orc nation which has not
adopted an analogous course is Russia, and
the unhappy state Of that country certainly
is not an argument for prohibition.
If. as The Tribune would have US believe,
the Sheppard amendment is submitted By
Congress in response to popular demand
it is strange indeed that it was not so
framed as to provide for obtaining tes:
OF public sentiment upon it in each state
Such a test could have been readily obtained
by adopting one Of the methods prescribed in
the Constitution for the ratification OF
amendments thereto. As it is now, the voter
will never have a chance 20 cast a ballot on
this question, but must await the action of
state legislatures, whose members are elected
a system that in many states gives the actual
minority control over the lawmaking body.
1t is saddening to note that The Tribune
is blind to the perils Of this amendment,
which. if adopted, would compel the national
government TO busy itself about the personal
habits and desires of individual citizens, in
matter heretofore held exclusively apart
fer local or state action, and which would
open the door 10 the adoption of many other
i'll conceived notions on a national scale.
Possibly the further study Of this amend
ment with its assault upon our Federal sys-
ten, It's legal inconsistencies, its denial OF
the right Of popular determination of great
social question, and its other bad faults will
convince The Tribune that it is not al
together good We have one Constitutional
amendment which has been nullifed By the
opposition to it Of group of states COM
prising but a small portion of the total popu-
laton Of the country. Can we afford to have
another amendment which may be forced
upon the great majority by an actual minor
ity? HUGH +. FOA,
Secretary United States Brewers Association.
New York, Dec. -. 1917.