The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1922-11-02
PRESS COMMENT
keuned, aud N0Isieadism


Jim" Kennedy Is stirring up quite
mess in the First Vermont district
By his energetic attack on the Vol
stead law and federal prohibition in
general II appears likely that
considerable number Of Republican
voters who agree with him on this
one issue may scratch the regular
ticket Ia 'Jim's" favor, but OF
course not enough TO elect him.
Candidate Fleetwood stands square
~ for the dry legislation. A few
Republican newspapers in the First
district. while they do not openly de-
clare for Kennedy. apparently hope
that his vote will be big enough 10
set the other side to thinking Sew
eral other journals In that district
which have no more use for or smy-
pathy with Volsteadism than Ken
nedy himself has are belittling the
issue and haunting the banner OF
party regularity. The count will be
awaited with interest.
The strongest point made against
the yolstead law is that It exceeds
the letter and the spirit Of the
eighteenth amendment. This addi-
ton to the fundamental law took
away from the several states their
previous unquestioned right to de-
termine. each state for itself, what
kind and form of regulation OF the
liquor traffic it would pursue, and
prohibited the manufacture, importa-
ton and sale of intoxicating liquor
as a beverage Cor common drink,
also giving to the federal government
and TO the states concurrent jurisdic-
ton In the matter OF enforcement.
Once the amendment were adopted,
the question Immediately arose,
what is intoxicating liquor within
the meaning of the new provision?
To the plain common sense to
which most people lay claim, "intoN-
icating liquor" means a fluid of such
alcoholic content as. taken according
TO general custom, by normal per
son. will ordinarily intoXicate him.
Common sense expected law by
Congress defining such content and
liquors containing an eX-
cess thereof. or. If not that giving 4
10 courts and iuries in particular
cases the jurisdiction to determine
whether the liquor in question were
or not
Instead of law Of this kind, Con
gress. falling completely under the |
of the ultra-dry element !
declared through the Volstead act
that any beverage containing more
than one-half of one per cent of alco-
hol by weight should be classed as I
and therefore banned.
Now inasmuch as everyone knows
that drinks OF alcoholic content up
TO two or three per cent at least are
NOT Intoxicating even IL drunk i'm |
moderately the yolstead act flies in
the face of reason. Its only excuse I
for being Is that a very wide margin I
be allowed in order to make
possible; that If a per
centage OF alcohol closely approach
ing the intoxicating point is permit f.
ted. il would be very easy to intro
duce a little more surreptitiously,
with harmful results. So the limit
is placed al safe" level.
From the standpoint Of the ultra
dry-he who believes that alcohol IN 1
any appreciabie quantity should be
banned and Stunned like deadly 1
poison-this rigid regulation salts
fees. But there are sim many people .
some Of them Of measure Of re-
spectabimty. and all citizens who
have a right 10 their own opinions
who do not 90 that far in their be-
lief They hold that beverages 81
.icht alcoholic content not intoXicat-
ng in fact should be obtainable un-
Ger the eighteenth amendwent
which only banned those that we're
In fact Intoxicating, and that meie
.ppedieucy is not sufficient reason Tor
ruling these out. Because Il might .
b. difficult to enforce a regulation
|. ainst Intoxicating liquor only y