Evening star., 1923-06-02

the federal government as may seem
to be suggested by portions of the
Presidents letter to pass unchai-
lenged."
The children in our public schools
have been taught to believe that our
government rests upon the founda-
tion that the states are sovereign
pressly delegated by them to the
federal government, and that while
the laws of Congress are paramount
within the delegated power, the
served power. History gives us the
reason for this. In the formation OF
the Union our forefathers In their
wisdom understood that with our vast
area and it's heterogeneous popuia-
tions. with their varying local inter
ests, what may be sound local policy
in one community may be entirely In
appropriate to the needs OF another
To any student of our government L
think it must be apparent that one
of the great elements in the strength
of our democracy is the supremacy OF
the federal government in Its own
sphere and the sovereignty OF the
several states In theirs.
Vigilance Liberty's Price.
We have been taught that eternal
vigilance is the price Of liberty, and
how far we may wander from the
thoughts and ideals of the FOUNDERS
of our government is well illustrates
by the suggestions in the Presldents .
letter that because the states nave a
larger police force than the IeueTai
government has, and because the
federal government has at TINS tline
what the President describes as an
Inadequate machinery for the en-
forcement of the Volstead act. there
fore the states are obliged seVeraliy
to enact statues duplicating the Voi,
stead act. / am unable to understand
from what source he bel1eVes TINS
obligation to be derived and ne does
not disclose 1t. The President might
with equal force suggest that at any
time Congress in its wisdom saw Mt
to withhold adequate appropriation
for the enforcement of any federal
law there Immediately devolved
duty upon e.ch state to enact that
federal law into a state statute and
make every offense against federal
law not enforced. duty upon the
states to punish 1t as state oHense
and at state expense.
am not here discussing the WIS
dom or unwisdom of prohibition:
The question is. rather. whether all
vestige of the rights of the states
guaranteed by the federal Constitu-
tion is to be driven from our political
theory of government. With all re,
spect for the President of the united
States. | must here reassert tnis
principle against his challenge, and
as the chief executive of the greatest
sovereignty in the Union 1t is my
duty to declare and MAINTAIN tnat
sovereignty in exact accordance with
the guarantees of the Constitution.
This does not mean that state mas
any right or power to enact any
law that in any way infrinSes upon
a constitutional act OF Congress, Dut
it does mean that the federal govern
Inent has no right to impose upon
the state any obligation to pass any
statute affirmatively embodylnY any
federal statute.
The whole treatment of this ques-
tion-and / speak only from history
has been marked by hypocrisy. There
should be no such thing as carrying
water on both shoulders. What the
country is looking for today, II l
read the signs of the times Alright,
is constructive, forw rward-looking
suggestion that disregards entirely
the tanatical vets and the fanatical
drys.
Urges yoIstead Amendment.
j yield to no man in my reverence
end respect for the Constitution OF
the United States and / advocate
nothing which will infringe upon the
provisions of the eighteenth amend
ment. 1t is. nevertheless, TACT that
the definition of an intoxicating beV-
erage contained in the Folstead act
is not an honest or a common-sense
cne 1t is impossible to divorce from
the public mind the impression that
the definition of an intoxicating bev-
erage as containing not more than
one-half of / per cent of alcohol was
written by the fanatical drys in de-
fiance of the general experience
of mankind and of actual fact. 1t
seems to me that common sense,
backed up by good medical opinion.
can find a more scientific definition
nf hat Intoxicating
beverage. Such definition should
be adopted by Congress as proper
and reasonable amendment of the
Volstead act and maximum alco-
holic content should be prescribed
by Congress, which would limit all
states to the traffic in liquors which
are in fact on-intoxicating within
the meaning of the eighteenth amend
ment. Subject to that limitation.
each state should thereafter be left
free to determine for itself what
would constitute an intoxicating bev-
erage.
States which then wished 20 limit
traffic TO beverages containing not
alcohol would be free to do so and
those which desired to extend the
traffic to the maximum Limitation al
lowed by federal statute would be
equally free to do so. There could
be. within the limitations of the
maximum, many differences of de-
gree, extending even to the COM
plete prohibition by some states of
traffic in liquor containing any alcohol
whatever
Offers Idea to Nation.
This would be in keeping with the
freedom and liberty of different
states with differing local conditions
to legislate for themselves, subject
always to the maximum limitatio
enacted by Congress which would be
paramount.
gestion which will relieve the coun-
try from the stress of this perplex-
ing question which affords such a
widespread difference Of opinion and
thus give our people a chance to