The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, 1920-06-18

of dry delegates to the San Fran .
cisco convention, was based on the
assumption that victory by the OPP
posing wet delegates would aid the
vets in their plan to restore beer
and wine through action by Congress.
In the thirteenth Indiana District
Ralph NJ. Smith was defeated by SEN
ator Hepler for nomination as can
didate for Congress. The liquor
question was the chief issue in the
campaign. In Alabama Senator I'm
derwood, wet, defeated the dry can
didates for nomination to the United
| States Senate. In these and other
campaigns it was assumed that Con-
gress has power to permit beer and
wine through the amendment of the
| Nolstead Act.
Cardinal Gibbons on Beer
The New York World of March 4
! printed an article based on an in
terview given out by Cardinal Glib
| bons quoting him as follows:
If Congress were to pass a liberal
Interpretation upon the question of
what constitutes an Intoxicating bcv-
erage such as would permit the man
ufacture and sale of beer and light
wines yet maintain the purport of
| the Prohibition Amendment much
would be accomplished towards solv-
ing problem now acute and destined
to become more and more a basis of
unrest in America
The World commenting on Car
dinal Gibbons statement says, Tho
key to the Prohibition problem in
! the United States rests i'll the
hands of Congress" A widely quoted
press dispatch sent out from Wash
ington and printed in Chicago New
| York papers contained this state
ment: "The liquor interests have
one course to pursue and that is to
pray for the nomination and election
OF Congressman who will favor modi-
| fcation of the Nolstead enforcement
! code"
Issue Warns of Danger
A leading article in the national
edition OF the American Issue OF
! April 10. 1920, contains this para
graph: 1T is therefore we'll to keep
ever i'll mind the real purpose of the
'modihcationists' and that purpose is
the control of the next Congress so
that they may change the definition
| of Intoxicating liquor and thereby
recognize the manufacture and sale
of beer and wine" The concluding
paragraph in the leading news article
of the June 5 national edition of the
| American Issue reads as follows:
"The chief danger to the cause of
| Prohibition enforcement now is that
sufficient number of Congressman
can be elected from the formerly wet
cities to give a majority vote in favor
of amending the Volstead Code so
as to raise the alcoholic standard for
beers and wines. This danger can
| be averted if the dry organizations
remain intact and keep aggressively
in the fight
Dry Leaders on Wet Peril
National dry leaders as we'll as dry
papers in general have made state
ments implying their belief that Con
gress has power to amend the Vol
stead Act so as to permit beer and
Wine In a recent statement P. A.
Baker, general superintendent of the
Anti Saloon League said: "But the
real fight, in my judgment, is to come
| two years hence, when after this CEN
sus and the re-apportionment OF Con-
gress there will be from twenty-five
to thirty-hve additional Congressman,
probably every one of whom will
come from the cities, and can reason
ably be depended upon to favor the
liquor program of making non-effec
tive the Eighteenth Amendment, and
| thereby create demand for its re-
peal" In various newspaper state
ments Wayne B. Wheeler, general
counsel of the Anti-Saloon League,
has pointed out the danger to the
Vo1stead Act through election of
wet Congress. In one statement he
says, Every candidate for Congress
who stands for more liberal stand
ard than one-half of l per cent is
taking stand against enforcement
In another he says that the vets will
ask for a beer and wine amendment.
In recent article by Wheeler in the
national edition of the American Is
sue he gives eight reasons why beer
and wine candidates for Congress
should be opposed. In none of his
statements does he declare or insinu
ate that the Supreme Court would,
should or might declare that Con-
gress has no power to change the
present one-half of ! per cent limit :