The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, 1919-06-06

The fight on the law enforcement
in the lower house OF the Legislature
was the most strenuous, intense and
dramatic in the history OF anti-liquor
legislation in Illinois. For weeks the
dry forces had been working to make
certain OF a majority in favor OF the
bill, and the vets did all in their
power to keep the vote on the bill
below the required seventy-seven.
The vote on ratification gave each
side a fairly definite idea Of the line
up, and for this reason the battle for
votes was even more intense than
on the question of ratification.
Public interest in the law enforce
ment vote was not quite as great ap-
parcntly as in the vote on ratification,
for the galleries filled more slowly,
By the time the debate started, how
ever, all the seats were taken and
many were standing. Interest in the
measure before the House was. with
the exception noted above, greater
than on any other measure before the
Legislature this session.
Brewer Calls Up Bill
At about 1890 Representative
Brewer called up Senate Bill No. $50,
the law enforcement bill. 1t took sew
era minutes for the clerk to read the
bill, and as soon as he had finished
Representative Brewer took the floor
to lead the debate. Frisch of Spring
field, asked whether the proposed
law would prevent the keeping of
feInon e&tIacts by gfocers,~ trffd~ ex-
pressed the opinion that every grocer
would be made saloonkeeper by the
terms of the bill. Truman A. Smell of
Carlinville then took the floor and
explained various legal aspects of the
bill. Referring to search and seizure
he said the present statutes on gam
bling are more harsh than the pro-
visions of the law enforcement bill.
Druggists Fight Bill
Lyon asked a number OF questions
which were answered by Smell, and
then Frisch again brought up the
question of drugs. His attacks on the
bill from the druggists standpoint
were part of the most shrewd and
persistent scheme to defeat the meas
ure that the dry forces had to con-
tend with. The druggists had sent
letters to all members of the Legis
lature urging them to defeat the bill
on the ground that it would compel
them to handle liquor. A copy of one
OF these letters appears elsewhere in
this number. In his remarks Repre-
sentative Frisch stated that alcohol
had been taken out of the u. S. phar-
macopaie, that it was no longer con-
sidered as having medicinal value, and
therefore the druggists did not care
to handle alcohol at all. There was
nothing in the bill, of course, to COM
pei any druggist to handle alcohol if
he did not care to, so the attack
based on this phase of the question
fell fiat.
Lyon Speaks Again
Lyon gained the floor again and
made an impassioned plea for per-
sonal liberty, saying that the soldiers
fought for it across the seas only to
be denied personal liberty upon their
return. Ronalds then neatly exposed
the fallacy of Lyons argument by
calling attention to regulations pro-
hbiting the sale of liquor to soldiers.
That our soldiers fought for personal
liberty instead of political liberty
seemed rather unique to most of the
members and even some of the lead
ing vets seemed worried.
Dieterich was the next wet to speak
against the bill. He said considerable
about Washington and Lincoln, i'm
plying that they would have opposed
the bill, attacked drys as hypocrites,
and expressed the opinion that the
open saloon is doomed in this coun-
try. Douglas of Cook county then
raised his voice mot in defense of
liquor but in defense of personal lib
erty." In fact, nearly all of the wet
speakers seemed very anxious to.
make it appear that their opposition
to the bill was based on some other
consideration than friendliness for the
liquor traffic.
"People Want Enforcement"
Castle next got the floor and spoke
for the bill. He explained Concur
rent power" defended the Anti-Sa-
loon League, and told his fellow
members that the people back home