The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1918-11-02
THE PROHIBITION AMEND
MENT.

Next Tuesday, November 5, the
citizens Of Minnesota will be
given their first opportunity to
vote on the question of statewide
prohibition of the liquor traffic.
The question will be submitted to
them in the form of an amend
ment to the constitution prohibit
ing the manufacture. Transports
ton, sale, etc, Of alcoholic liquors
within the state after July !, 1920,
except for sacramental, mecham-
cal, medicinal, and scientific pur-
poses.
It is the duty of each voter to
call for the ballot containing this
amendment and cast his vote for
or against it as the case may be.
If he fail to vote on the amend
ment he will be counted as voting
against it and in favor of the con-
tinuance Of the liquor traffic as it
is now conducted, because the law
provides that for the adoption of
the amendment it must receive a
majority Of all the votes cast at
the election and not merely a
majority Of those cast for or
against the amendment itself.
The friends Of the amendment
have not been idle during the past
few months, nor have the liquor
interests. The latter are well
aware of the growing public SEN
timent in favor of a. dry" state,
and have left no stone unturned to
prejudice the voters against pro
hibition. They have adduced no
new arguments, but ,contented
themselves with the reiteration of
the stock objections to prohibi-
ton which have been time and
again, refuted.
The advocates Of the liquor
traffic assert that prohibition does
not prohibit. If it does not, why
are they expanding thousands OF
dollars and using every means in
their power to prevent the adop-
ton Of the amendment? Why not
work for the ratification Of the
amendment? They know full well
that prohibition does prohibit
wherever the enforcement Of it is
under the control Of honest off
Gals and not in the hands Of their
henchmen. Prohibition, like any
other measure, is not self-enforc-
ing. 1t must be put into operation
by officials who regard their oath
of office as sacred and binding in
conscience. The liquor interests
are not above corrupting those in
high places. They do not scruple
to engineer violation of the pro-
hibition law in order that the law
itself may be brought into dis
repute. Given fair show and no
favor, prohibition does prohibit.
The foes of prohibition are
strong on temperance, at least
theoretically. Temperance, and
not prohibition, they assert, is the
ideal-a temperance, Of course, of
which they are to be judge and
jury, temperance such as that
practiced by the man who says
that he "can take a drink or leave
it alone" but who never proves
the truth Of his statement by leav-
ing it alone, a temperance such as
that advocated by every moderate
drinker, so-called, who seeks to
justify his indulgence by quoting
st. Paul's advice to Timothy to
''use a little wine for thy
stomach's sake, - but who totally
ignores the fact that St. Paul
prescribed "a little.'' One often
wonders what these topers would
do if Timothy's stomach had been
subjected to the expert medical
treatment Of today and robbed
of the frequent infrmities"
which justified st. Paul's prescrip-
ton. They forget, Of course, that
the majority of those who take
liquor fer their stomach's sake
would be much better off if they
left it alone for their soul s sake.
But this is not all. They allege
our Lords miraculous conversion
of water into wine as the supreme
justification for the use Of intoxi-
eating beverages, forgetting that
it has no more to do with the
liquor question at the present time
than the other biblical fact that
in the time of Noah God deluged
the world with water. The only
justifiable use Of the miracle of
Cana in this connection is to prove
the falsity Of the contention of a
certain class Of fanatical prohi-
bitionists who maintain that wine
and alcoholic beverages are essen
TALLY evil and that, therefore, it
is a sin to indulge in them oneself
or to sell them to others. As a
oe foa4 $50 xS,f4o ~