New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1919-11-27

"Dry" Discipline Could Not
Prevent Liberal Victory
0 he Editor Of Tho Tribune.

To the Editor Of The Tribune
SIR: There has been so much comment.
editorial and otherwise. upon the mixed
results of the recent voting on pro
hibtion in Ohio that an analyeis of the
complete returns in connection with
certain circumstances not generally
known, or at least not generally consid-
cred. may not be amiss.
The chief question az issue Was, %
course. the ratification OF rejection Of
the Eighteenth Amendment and THIS
commanded the largest vote For ratif-
cation. i99.ssS votes were cast: against.
oo0.43o. A total vote of 00o.sis. with
a majority Of SAC against ratification. r.
thus Indicated.
The next question was the approval
or disapproval of the so-oalled Crahbc
enforcement act. There were s7s,oso
votes for approval and 500.s74 against
the measure. The total number OF votes
cast on this proposition s75.9l0--is al
most $4,000 less than cast on the ques-
ton of ratifying the Eighteenth Amend.
ment
On the third question, 20 permi, the
sale of beer with IN alcoholic strength
not exceeding 2.75 by weight. az a non
intoxicant. the Affirmative votes were
474903 and the negative 504.b7o. The
total poll on tins question was sTe.47s.
and the majority against the proposition
was 29 49,.
On the question of repeating stats
prohibition, the Affirmative, or "wel'
vote, was 1898, and the negative
496. 1872; a total vote Of 95l,7i5. and q
majority against repeal Of 4l.s4s.
1t is evident that both sides mustered
their full strength on the question OF
ratification, and the liberal majority on
this question while small. is significant.
With regard to the Crabbe act, the
peculiar fact develops that the vote
against is actually several hundreds
larger than the vote against ratifyinr
the Eighteenth Amendment, while the
vote IN favor is more than $4,000 less
than the vote for ratification. II is
obvious. therefore, that the >Crabbe act.
which IS a typical Anti Saloon League
measure. was so repugnant, even to
prohibitionists, that many thousands Of
them refused absolutely to vote for il.
and perhaps goo of them joined with 2he
liberal forces in voting it down.
The fact that the vote against ga
beer Is almost 5000 greater than tho
vote Tor ratification of the Federal
amendment indicates that not only was
the dry strength kept well in hand ON
this question, but that also Il good deal
OF assistance was obtained from the
wet side. 1t Is known quite we'll tina.
many persons who had been engaged in
the sale of spirtuous beverages in Ohio
joined with the out-and-ou prohibition
lists IN voting down measure which
would permit the sale of a mild nom
intoxicating beer
The return on the proposition 10 re-
peal state prohibition shows that had
the vets cast as large vots on this
referendum as they did on the question
oil ratification they would have had a
majority approaching 1000 and the law
would have been stricken from. tie
statute books,
Taking it all In all. the esectie
showed that the dry forces whose disci.
pine IN Ohio has always been .nose-
worthy were kept we'll in hand on ali
except one proposition. and that -uhe
liberals WHO had practically no organisga
ton actually could have won on all four
questions II they had been able to con-
troll their followers as effectively - their
opponents.
In other words, the liberals were II :
majority and should have won on four
instead Of Two questions
r. De II. DAVIS.
] Brooklyn, Nov. se, 1919. + /