The Greeneville daily sun. (Greeneville, Tenn.) 1918-1920, 1919-07-25
THE DRY LIMIT.

THE DRY LIMIT.
There is limit to the fanatcism of the ultraradical
prohibonists in Congress That fact demonstrated
when the House. having under consideration the prohibit
ton enforcement BILL refused to incorporate provision
making crime to possess liquor. An amendment for
bidding possession of intoxicans defeated with but
three votes in the affrmatve-hree done dry democrats
Raker of California; Banton, of Texas, and Upshaw, of
Georgia Chairman Vostead inc barge of the BILL him
self liberal the booze question, opposed the amend
ment it was altogether strong for him to stomach
So unless the Senate changes the provision it will be
permitted man to keep his supply of liquor for the
personal use of himself and family and guests in his own
home without running the risk of being sent to the pen
tertiary And furthermore he is not obliged to report
to the commissioner of internal the amount and
kind of goods he has hand Thus the private caches
laid so carefully away in thousands of cellars against the
long drought impending safe from legal seizure and
those provden citizens who have taken time by the fore
lock may well pride themselves upon their prudence
One unsympathetic member doubtless inspired by envy
at the reports of many welstocked cellars suggested an
amendment limiting the amount of liquor which might be
stored for personal to $50 worth But as colleague
remarked that would amount than zone white
chip steamboat poker game mere trife, worse than
none What thirsty individual could face the future with
compacency with only two laid aside? Bet
ter nothing than that.
The search and seizure provision of the bill is very dras
TIC and leaves the way open to widespread abuse. 1t
provides that "nosearch warrant shall issue to search
private dwelling occupied such unless it is being used
for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors or unless
is in part used for business purpose such as
store shop saloon restaurant hotel boarding house.
casual glance at this clause shows that it is susceptible
to abuse. fanatic person with grudge by merely
alleging that another mans home is being used for the
sale of liquor that restaurant hotel or boarding
house is serving drngs would be able to secure an off
ca search of the premises and subject the to great
annoyance and possibly business ruin.
But as has frequently been pointed out during the
consideration of this BILL the drys in the saddle,
and they rode roughshod over all opposition The ire
mendous vote upon the passage Of the b-287 to 1O1-
was evidence of the prohbn strength and indicates THAT
even if the President should veto the because of
its unduy stringent provisions, the drys would muster
enough votes to override the veto handily
That the dry sentiment is predominant in the Senate
we'll known but whether it is strong in the House
remains to be Prohibition leaders claim that
full poll shows that the Senate will accept the bill in prac
tcaly the form that it from the House, and that
pass it the Presidents veto if that becomes
necessary The vets believe there is hope in the courts
that the extremely drastic provisions will not stand the
constitutional That may be- but the opinion of many
observers is that the pendulum of public sentiment with
respect to the liquor question has swung to the dry
IRENE. At some future time it may drop back to posi-
ton of moderation between the two extremesW ashng
ton Post.