The daily banner. (Cambridge, Md.) 1897-2008, 1918-01-31

THE PUBLIC AND AS SUCH ARE
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR CON
DUCT" Those words meant a great
deal, Gentlemen, when they were
written in there one hundred years
ago. They mean no less today. They
mean that you are trustees, that the
members of this General Assembly
are the trustees of legislative power
TO be used for the benefit of the peo-
pie, and you are to be held account
able to whom? To the people who
gave you the powers, accountable for
the misuse of that power, and they
come to You after you have voted in
favor Of the adoption of this Amend
ment and say: Why did you do
1t? You say you had the power to
do it. What right have you to use
the power we gave you in any such
fashion and strip the State of the
power to regulate this thing forever?
What was the necessity for it? Who
made you do it? We did not make
you do it, We did not tell you to
do it. You know it is not necessary
to do that in order to have prohibi-
ton in this State. We have got pro-
hibition everywhere in the State
where it is wanted and we have full
authority to make that prohibition
effective in every county by keeping
every drop of liquor out of it by law,
IL necessary.
In addition to that, We have the
Webb-kenyon and the Reed laws,
which have been enacted by Con-
gress and held valid by the Supreme
Court Of the United States, to keep
liquor out OF any State which does
not desire to have it there. With
all this on the statute books, why
could You not have waited before
committing US to this dreadful step
by which you have stripped us of the
right to regulate our social life?
Personally, l certainly can speak
without any great feeling or preju-
dice on the question of prohibition.
do not think that warps my judg-
ment because L recognize the fact
that the Gentlemen who are urging
this thing so vehemently are, as far
as know them. acting with the pur-
est motives. acting under a sense of
religious duty and according to
deeply fixed convictions. don't
question their sincerity for mo-
ment. l know that some of them
could not be otherwise than sincere,
but, Gentlemen. that does not de-
eide the question. The men who
burned heretics at the stake in the
Middle Ages, thu agents of the Span
ish Inquisition, were as sincere men
as ever lived under. the. sun, and they
e believed they were doing Gods ser
vice when they took a man who re-
77fussd TO subscribe to the doctrine OF
transsubstantiation and burned him
at the stake, as much as any man
who is advocating this amendment.
THERE is NO QUESTION ABOUT
THAT, AND YOU CAN NOT TRUST
THE GOVERNMENT OF ANY
COUNTRY TO ECCLESIASTICS OF
ANY KIND WITHOUT PERIL. LET
NE DEMONSTRATE THAT TO YOU
right HERE. TAKE ANY ONE OF
THESE GENTLEMEN TO WHOM /
REFER Some of them are my per-
sona1 friends for whom 1 have the
highest regard, some of tho most in
tense Prohibitionists as I know Of,
and you take one OF them and ask
him this question, WHICH DO YOU
REGARD AS MORE IMPORTANT,
THE PRESERVATION OF THE
RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY, OR
THE ENACTMENT OF THE PRO
HIBITION AMENDMENT? And he
will vote for the Prohibition Amend
meut every time. Do you think 1t is
safe to leave the shaping of the con-
stitutional law. the organic law of
this land. in the hands of gentlemen
like that?
Gentlemen, il is the most dan
gerous thing imaginable and that is
what you are coming to just as GER
tainly as the sun that shines. You
pass this law; you have this Amend
ment ratified and made part of the
Constitution of the United States;
force 1t upon a State like New York,
for example, and what happens? You
take a community like Manhattan,
q oh Of ho
there would be probably majorities
Of hundreds of thousands opposed to
it absolutely, and look upon it as
tyrannous infliction. and you pass a
law making it a crime in that dis
trict, as 1t would be under this
Amendment, for man to make
glass OF cider or a glass Of beer. or
give 1t to his friends, or take it
across the street, and what would
happen? You undertake to prose-
cute any man for the violation of
that law and how are you going to
convict him? By jury made up,
as juries would be, of probably nine
ty per cent. of men who feel just the
same way about it as the fellow did
who was being accused? You know
you could not convict any man as
long as you had the right of trial by
jury in that district. What would
happen then?
Then they would want the aboli-
ton of the right of trial by jury, and
l put it to my friend, Mr.. Baker, or
any Of these gentlemen, and ask
them whether they would not rather
see the right of trial by jury abolish
ed than see the cause Of prohibition
fail. and they would say, Goodbye,
jury trial"
And if he does not say So he won't