Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1919-07-30
DRY MEASURE PASSED
s. CONGRESS LARGE MA
JORITY.
2S7 Members of National
House Voted FOR Prohi En-
forcement Law and 100
Against.


its enforcement, with provisions and
penalties so drastic as to bring from
the men who framed it the prediction
that it would forever suppress the
liquor traffic on American soil. Mem
bers opposing the measure, however
declared it was so drastic that it
would probably invite presidential
veto.
Exactly one hundred-fifty-two
democrats and forty-e;ghI:tt republi-
cans-refused TO support ii: Against
this even hundred, the prohi5itionists,
putting up Z sclid front to the very
last, polling 2S7 votes and just as the
result was announced, little. girl in
the gallery, too young to know what
it was all about, leaned over the FAIL
ing and waved tiny flag. 1t was not
signal for that, but the house broke
into applause, the galleries, only half
filled, meanwhile looking on in 81
lence.
A broad smile spread over the
faces of the prohibition leaders, for
their work in the house was ended
and the measure was ready for the
senate, where many of its restric-
tions may be modified or stricken out.
The cloakroom rumor persisted that
all of this legislative effort might end
on the shoal of presidential veto,
although the general view was that it
would be signed as passed.
One Feeble Hand Lifted.
Before the house put the bill on its
passage, one final but feeble hand
was reached forth to strike it down
and put in its place a briefer and
more liberal measure. This took the
form of a three-paragraph bill by
Representative Igoe, democrat, Of
Missouri, introduced some days ago,
and offered to-day in the form of a
motion to recommit, which meant its
substitution for the general enforce
ment measure, if the house saw fit.
But the house did not. Mr.. Igoes' mo-
ton was defeated, 255 to 1876, and
this vote, analyzed, meant that at
least thirty-six members who favored
a more liberal bill took the more
drastic one later when there was no
other choice.
What Bill Provides.
The prohibition enforcement bill,
as it passed the house, provides:
After January 26, 1920, eevry per-
son permitted under the law to have
liquor in his possession shall report
the quantity and kind to the commits
sioner of internal revenue, (This ap-
plies to chemists, physicians etc.
After January 26, 1920, every per-
session of any liquor, other than as
authorized by the law, shall be prima
facie evidence that it is being kept
for sale or otherwise in violation of
the law.
1t will not be required, however,
to report and it will not be illegal to
have in ones possession liquor in a
private dwelling while the same is oc-
cupied and used by the possessor as
his private dwelling and the liquor
is used for personal consumption by
the owner, his family or his guests.
The possessor of such liquors,
however, bears the burden of proof
that the liquor was acquired and is
possessed lawfully.
Intoxicating liquors is defined as
beverage containing more than u
of one per cent of alcohol.
Any house, boat, vehicle or other
place where liquor is manufactured
or sold is declared nuisance.
Everything Forbidden.
No person shall manufacture, sell,
barter, give away, transport, import,
export, deliver, furnish or receive
any Intoxicating liquors.
Liquor for non-beverage purposes
and wine for sacramental use may be
sold under specific regulations.
Denaturel alcohol, medicinal prep
arations (including patent medicines)
unfit for beverage purposes, toilet
articles, flavoring extracts and vine
gars are exempted.
Registered physicians are author
lied to issue prescriptions under
strict regulations for the use of Ii
quor in cases where it may be consid-
cred necessary as medicine.