New Britain herald., 1919-11-06
OHIO PLAYS \ JOKE.

OHIO PLAYS \ JOKE.
 The State of Ohio, yesterday and Pday, put itself in a class with inc Iell-known katydid over the election fturns and tho sum mmarzation of the zote on the Prohibition Amendment. 8Astead of "katy did, she dicln't," t 1ccomes Ohio did, she didn't" Yes Grday she did; today she didn't We &esitate to take another chance upon Ter election returns until they are all and officially entered upon the poks of the State; but the fact that e pointed out the apparent victory pr the "drys" in these columns yes- 3rday makes it imperative that we Ike note of the shift in figures that pw seems to prove that the "wcts' hve it. Someone made d horrible istake yesterday. Secretary of 6tato nith announced that the majorit1cs h the four prohibition proposals be- Pre the voters ranged as high as 1000. We hastened to condole tic 3vets,'' who seemed to have lost Eavily, and to draw our conclusions om the action of d State which had bt long ago voted itself dry and now emiugly had voted, by much eater majority, to stay dry. We have a far different set of fig Ees upon which to base our thoughts is morning. Early reports from the ate give the wet" forces probable ctories. Fifty-ninc of the eighty ght counties give the ''Wets'' a lead
 14,000 on the repeal of the State act, of 27,000 on he vote 10 define
 5 per cent. beer as intoxicating, of 1000 on ratification of the Federal n, and of 7S,00O on the Crabbe en- rcement bil which is d local act
 prohibition. The twentY-nine unties from which there have been
 returns gave the ''drys' a majority
 32,000 last year. Providing that ey do tho same this year--and it es not follow that they Will-thc ajority will overcome the present ct victory upon two Of the propos-
 -that of ratirying the State dry act q the definition of bCer--but it will be sufficient to overcome the re- sal of the people to ratify the Con- tutional Amendment. Thus it is obable> that the Ohio State Legis- ure, undoubtedly influenced by tho oisy minority" and forced to ratify e Prohibition Amendment, is to be creditcd in d referendum vote
 & We took it for granted yesterday Rt the figures were correct and
 stated that the action of Ohio was cad which many other States would low and assumed that the Prohi- ion Amendment was certain of
 iflcation by number of States, bger dry than Ohio, in case of |
 erendum. Our idea was that Ohio d triedt tho scheme for a few pnths--it was in May, 1919. it went as a State-and thoroughly ap- oved of it. The reverse is the case.
 io does not favor the amendment, sn though it might have again voted Jeff dry as a State.
 Now, to hear from Kentucky,
 ch, as far as we know, is in the column. Should it be found that }, too, has voted "Wct," there will
 little argument as to the attitude
 the American people toward tho phibition Amendment. New Jersey
 cted @ Demo ocrat who was running
 wet" platform The great
 nber of States in the Union which Ke been dry for period of years
 v be able to enforce prohibition
 ough ratification, if it is subjected
 a referendum. Ohio seems to Dye that there might be some hope
 this. The prohibition cause has
 been lost, but it has received a
 back.