The sun., 1918-07-30
PROHIBITION.
Opposition TO the Proposed Federal
Amendments.


Among the grave misfortunes that befall
n country engaged in war Is that II gets
used in incredibly short time to the pas
sage Of arbitrary laws 1t quickly per-
ceives that for the period Of the war II
must practically put itself for all pur-
poses under the command Of its Execu-
tive. The prohibitionists have employed
this condition In tho United States to
do thing which. II II succeeds, is going
to give to this country incalculable
trouble, and they have done It in q way
that tends to distract public attention
from the ono subject on which attention
should be concentrated, the successful
prosecution of the war
Congress has already dealt with the
manufacture OF intoxicating beverages
as a war measure by giving to the Pres
ident, along with his other immense
war powers. authority to stop It in whole
or In part, and he has acted as far as
his advisers, among them Secretary Nc
Adoo and Mr.. Hoover. think he ought
to go. So there IL no justification for
the prohibitlonists to make the war the
hobby horse of their notion, whether It
Is good or bad. whether it IL mere hys-
terra or the height Of wisdom. We have
given to the President all the war power
he wants in respect OF liquors. and more
than. after full consultation and advice.
he chooses to exercise.
Like all other laws that Congress has
adopted. and with what may be Justly
said to be universal approval, in tenn
prorary restraint Of our liberties we
have limited this authority to the period
OF the war. Why, then. when We need
and how nightly we need ito be
thiRking only Of the war in all It's inn
mite aspects. should the prohibitionists be
permitted to take our minds from that
supreme subject to consider the numer-
Gus questions, social, economic, political.
that are involved in whether or not We
wish or can afford to adopt not war
legislation but ever enduring legisla-
ton. constitutional legislation, legislation
which Is not the assertion of a human
right but prohibition Of 1t.
Our Constitution. as originally sub
nitted to me people. was only a plan
Of government Declaring the United
States to be a nation. II created an ex-
ecutive. a legislative and a judiciary
and It defined each its functions. And
that Is all 1t did. Since its adop-
ton every amendment. from the first
to the last. has been an assertion Of
individual rights with which neither the
United States nor any State is permitted
to interfere. unless. perhaps. the amend
ment permitting Congress to tax in
comes ls not that. as certainly 1t is not
the contrary. But now it is proposed,
and for the first time in our history. and
a; a moment when our thoughts and
emotions are all fixed on the war, to
inject into the Constitution the denial
OF a certain personal right. and 1t Is so
arranged that the people themselves
have nothing to say in the matter It
If to be straishtway decided for them
by the Legislatures OF the several States.
II majority OF the membership Of
thre -fourths OF the Legislatures agree
to this amendment It will instantly and
forever thereafter deny to every one Of
a people. already 100. 900 900 in number
and growing prod giously year by year,
this certain personal right.
There are forty-eight States In this
Union. The membership OF their Leg
islatures varies. but, as | am Informed
will not average 100 persons. So this
great question is to be decided unless
the Legislatures refuse to decide it and
send it TO the people, by majority
vote Of certainly fewer than 1900 indi-
vduals As few az or fewer than 1000
persons are now empowered to take
away from 100 900, 900 persons and from
the accretion to them from all services
forever hereafter this certain personal
right.
What Is involved. and have We, the
people. or they. our representatives. op-
portunity at this time to consider It?
Say that tho right to drink may be
gravely abused Say that individual
abuses of II result In individual instances
Of crime, disorder and hardship to inno-
cent persons. wives and children. Still
there are millions Of people who drink
and who do not drink too much and
who do not create disorder or commit
crime or by drinking deprive their fam
lilies OF support. and there are thousands
cess, even II they spend too much OF
their earnings in liquor, have no incli-
nation toward crime or disorder. And
there Is the economic question TO con-
slider of the three hundred and more
millions OF dollars that our governmental
organizations annually receive in normal
times from the persons who choose to
drink and OF the thousand millions OF
capital and the hundreds Of thousands
OF employees who are concerned in the
manufacture OF alcoholic drinks. strong
or mild, and OF the farmers interests.
their growth OF barley. wheat. rye. corn,
oats, molasses and fruits. And there is
the question whether this whole matter
ia not purely State issue and whether
it Is wise to put into our Federal Con-
stitution any prohibition OF natural
human right, and what. II we once start
that kind of constitutional legislation,
II may lead to in the similar proposal
Of other restraints.
Must we stop now. at the crisis OF
this war, to examine into all these ques-
lions in order that We may render an
Intelligent judgment upon the question
that the prohibitionists have induced
Congress to present to US? Should our
Legislatures. overwhelmed with business
necessary to the war, be distracted from
that business to this? Should they be
permitted 10 settle it for US anyway, at
this or any time? Is It not question
for the people. and all OF them? Ought
not every candidate for legislative offict
in every State to whom the question is