The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1918-07-20

observation-disclosures IN MIN
NEsoTA AT PREsENT-MAss
WINE TO BE EXEMPT.
A meeting was held on Thursday
evening, July II, to discuss the sub
iect of the proposed amendment to
the state constitution in virtue of
which Minnesota would take it's place
with the other dry states of the coun-
try The meeting took the form of a
dinner at the Minnesota Club, at which
a number of representative men of
the city of st. Paul was present Mr.
Bishop Schriber, chairman of the
Ramsey County Dry Federation, acted
as chairman of the gathering. ,Iays
and means were discussed with re-
gard to a program of operations pre-
paratory to the November election
when the question of making Mime
sofa dry will. be voted on by the citi-
zens of the state. Mr.. Schriber's ad-
dress follows:
MIR. Schriber's Address.
| do not propose to discuss before
this audience the propriety Of abolish
ing the liquor traffic. l assume that
all present are agreed that the saloon
must go.
The precise question before us is,
what is our individual duty now in
relation to the traffic."
In order to intelligently answer this
question we must first ascertain the
present status of the saloon as affected
by existing laws.
list. In Minnesota.
There are eighty-siX counties; sixty
are absolutely dry, one is dry, with the
exception of one town, fifty-six towns
in wet counties are dry.
The census of 1910 gives the total
population of the state of Minnesota
as 2,O75,7O8. According to these fig
ures the population of the territory
in Minnesota now dry is 1,082,695, and
of the territory now wet, 993,073. In
other words, SO per cent of the popu
lation of Minnesota is dry territory
and 4S per cent in wet territory.
With the exception of six counties
| covered by the Indian treaty, all OF
| this territory is subject to return tc
| the wet column by vote of the people
in the county, city or town, as the
case may be. We have no assurance
that it will remain dry without con
stitutional prohibition.
| I'd. AS to Congressional Prohibition
| On August 10, 1917, congress, as
war measure and not otherwise, pro
| hibited the further production of dis
| titled spirits for beverage purposes
and the importation into the United
States of any distilled spirits.
The same act gave the presiden
power in his discretion to prohibit tn
production of wine and beer during TIL
war whenever he deems such actor
essential to the national security an
defense.
/ The president has not yet acted III
der this authority.
This is purely a war measure.
By it's very terms the act will Ceas
to be in effect at the termination Q
the existing war.
i Neither congress nor the presiden
has any power under the constitution
to prohibit the manufacture of into1
icating liquors, except as war meas
ure during the war.
In all probability favorable col
gressional action will be had With
the next few days upon the measure
! now pending in congress for the SUI
pension of the manufacture of bee
and wine during the war, but tha
will be only war measure and wi
terminate at the conclusion of the e.
listing war with Germany.
} Do not let us be misled. The o.
| ponents of prohibition are all cage
; to assure us that we need have n
: concern in this matter for the reaso
! that the government has taken charg
and has already prohibited the man
faeture of whisky and is about to ste
| the further manufacture of beer an
t wine. They do not tell us, howeve
that these prohibitions are temporal
{ land that at the termination of the W;
i they will expire, and that unless 9th
restrictive and effective legislation