The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-07-12
CONGRESS- DRYS
NOW Baking ON
VOLSTEAD BILL
Revolt Threatened by Pro-
hibitionists Who Call It's
Terms Too Drastic.
WILL REFUSE TO VOTE
Moon, Strong Temperance
Man, Denounces 1t as
Destroying Liberty.
WAR LAW REPEAL URGED
Moore (Pa. )Predicts Billion a
Year Loss and New Bond
Issue to Meet It.
WILL REFUSE TO VOTE
wAR-LAw REPEAL URGED
Special DespotcA TO The sus.

WASHINGTON. July 11.-A formidable
stay at home" vote when the Vol
stead measure comes before the
House for final action on prohibition
| is threatened by those members from
dry States who object to the drastic
nature Of the proposed legislation.
In cloakroom and lobby discussions
of the hopeless state in which these
dry for home consumption statesmen
now find themselves, this offers about
the only way out available. For they
are becoming as much afraid Of the
resentment which a vote for the Vol
stead measure will stir up among the
common sense temperate people Of
their home districts as they formerly
were Of the backfire and bounding
which a wet vote would bring from
the forces Of the Anti-Saloon League.
Between the two horns of the
dilemma absenteeism seems to be
for Senate sanity when the bill
| reaches that body.
Continuation Of general debate on the
prohibition bill to-day disclosed two
strong points OF opposition--an able ar
gument against the volstead bill by
Representative Gard (Ohio). q Demo-
cratic member of the Judiciary Com
mittee. and another public acquisition to
the Southern dry revolt in Representa-
tive Moon (Tenn.). Democrat. Mr..
Noon. after denouncing the measure,
declared that unless changed he would
vote against It or refuse to vote at all.
Calls II Worse Than "Force Biil.~
II am no new convert to the cause of
prohibition" said Mr.. Moon. For
twenty-five years have stood on this
floor and supported that cause. There
has never been passed In this Congress
during that time a single Law on the
subject that has not received my vote.
I regret that the bill should be brought
form, and unless It is materially
amended shall feel It my duty, under
my oath Of office. either to vote against
1t or express my disapproval by not
! voting at all.
'It Is as impracticable and senseiess
as anything ever suggested. It should
DO opposed because It is worse In all
its features than the Infamous force bill.'
A law which is not Just Ia destructive
Of liberty"
Mr.. Gard said: yesterday the Presi-
dent told the Senate that the war ended
November IL, nearly eight months ago.
| In the face of that utterance we have
the remarkable statement from the ma
tority report on this bill that war exists
with Germany and Austria. I say there
10 no question, as a matter of fact, that
! the war ia ended. Therefore. when we
come to tho question Of war prohibition
II ts only pretense for continuation of
prohibition. which was started under the
guise of an attempt to conserve food and
fuel The President has stated that at
the earliest possible moment he will
proclaim that rehabilitation is ended
and thus end war time prohibition. but
says he cannot honestly issue that proc
lamation now. Congress should repeal
war time prohibition.
Disputes Wartime Power Now.
"As to the definition OF intoxicants. I
make the point that no matter what
powers Congress may have under the
| prohibition amendment to the Constitu-
ton. 1t does not have the power to say
that certain thing is intoxicating when
in fact 1t is not 30. Furthermore, dispute
| the power of Congress under the war
power to write something into the law
| not contemplated under the authority
for that law and which no one had In
mind.
III we admit that Congress can fix the
percentage OF alcohol at a low point we
thereby also put 1t in the power OF Con-
gress to tx the per cent. at a high point,
or any point. What we should do Is 70
write this ill IN a reasonable way. We
are legislating for reasonable men. not
for perverts to whom the chairman Of the
Judiciary Committee has referred In say
Ing that some men drink 100 glasses OF
beer a day, or became intoxicated by
drinking havoring extracts"
| II made no such statement" inter-
rupted Mr.. VoisteAd.
"Well, II was something like that" an
swered Mr.. Gard. land the point Is the
same. 1t all goes to show that naming
the percentage Of alcohol In enforcement
| legislation is not contemplated in the
Constitutional Amendment, either al
passed by Congress or as ratified by the
| States. A State In tho exercise of III
police power may have the right to place
q limitation on alcohol content, but Con-
gress has not power to invade that right
The United States as a Federal Govern
ment has no police power.
"when this bill was FIRST presented tc
the Judiciary Committee II contained q
prohibition against the use of alcoholic
beverages. Later that was stricken out
Other words should be stricken out also
we should not prohibit possession or CIV
ing away OF beverages. as the bill now pro-
poses. These words should be eliminated
| We are going far afield when We invade
the privileges OF ones liberty and the
hospitality of his home.
'.The general trend Of this bill Is radi-
cal In the extreme. Under its provisions
the home keeper who makes up her
cider or some other innocuous harmless
1 (,o,.fi,.alod 0a Third Paoa-