The Birmingham age-herald., 1922-10-01
ID BE B|G ISSUE BEFORE
 OHIO ELECTORATE
Voters Will Pass Directly Upon Question of Light Wines and Beers in the
 November Election
Rr NAIu GROoTK
Special Correspondent of The Age Herai Copyright. 1921. by The Age Herald)

Copyright 1ssl. by The Age Herald)
 Cincinnati, September 3o.-The de- cision of the state supreme court un- der which, at the November election the voters of Ohio will be the first Americans to pass directly upon the question of mild beer and light wines has given a zest to a campaign. in which candidates for office had be- gun to languish even before it got started good.
 The approaching referendum on whether the state constitution, not withstanding the federal limitation of one-half of one per cent shall be amended to recognize as intoxicating wine and beer only when It's alcoholic content exceeds 2.75 per cent, and further to protect citizens from search and seizure without legal warrant is the talk of the state
 The merits of the case are begin nlng 10 be discussed wherever men and women meet. in the business houses, clubs and tea rooms of the cities and around the cracker barrels In the crossroads stores. Already the proposed modification of prohibition has attracted more attention from the voters than did the Eighteenth amendment to the federal constitu- ton when it was presented to the state legislature for ratification or rejection, and politicians are pre- dieting that before the last speech has been made on the hustings and the final campaign skyrocket shot into the alr the issue will have at tained such prominence that the races for office will attract public attention only insofar as the candi- dates are affected by the way they line up on the question of wine and beer.
 Center of Interest
 With the referendum made a cer- tainty by the action of the courts on Thursday both vets and drys are preparing for struggle which will engulf all other considerations before the voters and determine whether Ohio, of all the states in the union, shall be the first to repudiate or to indorse the spirit of drastic inter- pretation and enforcement of the na- tional prohibition law. It is con ceded on all sides. even by tho vets, that the drys due to the intensive or ganization of the Anti-Saloon league. N4@A iaNt NiAC d0N sAIl3B6 III appealing to the electors, at the start at any rate. That the leaders of the vets are awake to the situation is evident from the preparations made by the association against prohibition amendment. the organization through whose efforts the monster petition, containing 24so0o names was carried through.
 The day after the decision of the Ohio supreme court ordering the ref erendum a leader of the association, c. C. Hinllley, left Washington to as- sume active control of the campaign for the amendment and also to tour Indiana and Michigan to organize for similar campaign in those states
 The supreme court decision was defeat for the Anti-Saloon league felt keenly and which was all the more poignant because so unexpected. Con- trary t. expectations, Harvey C. Smith, secretary of state of Ohio, who had long been under the ban of the Anti Saloon league as too lenient toward the vets refused to authorize the referendum when the petition for the proposed amendment was pre- scented to him, taking the ground that such referendum would be illegal because in conflict with ssderal law In ruling the amendment out Sec retary Smith pulled the props from under a writ of prohibition which the Anti-Saloon league was preparing to seek in the courts to prevent him from placing the amendment upon the ballot.
 MarcoIin Leads Vets
 The wet forces, led by Frederick W. Marcolin of Cleveland, who headed the petition for a referendum, a &..f, . preme court, sitting at Columbus, for writ of mandamus to require the secretary of state to order the ref erendum. This applica ton was bit terly fought by the Anti-Saloon league, whose leaders. including State Superintendent James A. White, were permitted to appear as friends of the court to argue against 1t. In it's decision, which was handed down by a vote of 5 to 2, the court held that the secretary of state had<>no power to withhold a proposed Con stitutional amendment from the suf- frage of the people when a petition in proper form and with the required number of signatures was filed with him. The court took the view that 1t was not within the province of the secretary of state to pass upon the constitutionality of the proposed amendment nor upon a possible con- flict with the federal constitution or federal statutes.
 George s. Hawke of Cincinnati, dry leader, acting in behalf of the Anti-Saloon league, appealed to the state supreme court but met with no better success there, the higher court upholding the lower. which had ruled that for an inferior court to issue an order contrary to ono made by superior court would be . bad law and breed disrespect for law en- forcement
 Under the Ohio law, when . pro- posed constitutional amendment is referred to the electors, the secretary of state shall see to it that the voters are informed of the arguments on each side of the question. Conse- ouently. Secretary Smith is appoint ing committees of vets and drys to prepare their arguments and will send them broadcast to the voters in pamphlet form.
 While the Anti Saloon league ae- clared at one time that the referen- idum was a serious assault upon na- tiona1 prohibition and at another that 1t could be nothing more than "a straw vote.' inasmuch as the pro- posed modification in any event would be intellectual, wet leaders de- clare that the amendment. If carried. will have much more than moral ef- feet because it will require modifica- tion of the state prohibition enforce ment laws and force the federal gov erninent to assume the entire bur- den of making prohibition effective in ti.fs state.