Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1923-07-05
HARDING TALKING TOO MUCH, :
IN OPINION OF WESTERNERS

a quart of whisky in all my life, but
this prohibition is terrible. 1t means
graft and Bookkeeping and the stuff
they sell the people is dangerous.
I'll tell you why it's a farce.
travel from one end of the country
to the other every year, and 1 keep
my eyes open. Within fifteen. min
utes after you reach Il hotel, you
can get all the whisky you want
And there's more high school girls
drinking whisky today than ever
was known.
'Now, tell me what's the harm
in good glass Of beer or a little
wine? That's what we are going to
get after awhile, and 1 believe it's
a mistake for the president to get
mixed up in that issue when lots of
people are changing their minds
about it every day."
Irwin said he thought there were
more whisky stills in the west to-
day than they ever had before. These
sO-called dry states unquestionably
have experienced considerable of q
change since the federal amendment
was adopted. President Harding con-
coded that in his Denver speech
when he said:
"a good deal of testimony comes
to Washington that some states are
disposed to abdicate their own police
authority in this matter, and to turn
over the burden of prohibition en-
forcement to the federal authorities.
It is a singular fact that some states
which successfully. enforced their
own prohibition statutes before the
eighteenth amendment was adopted
have latterly gone backwards in this
regard.
Leave 1t to Washington
Communities in which the pol
icy was frankly accepted as produc-
tive of highly beneficial results, and
in which there was no widespread
protest so long as it was merely a
state concern, report that since the
federal government became in part
responsible there has been a grow
ing laxity on the part of state au-
thorities about enforcing the law.
Doubtless this is largely due to a
misconceived notion, too widely en-
tertained, that the federal govern
ment has actually taken over the
real responsibility"
That may be one explanation of
it but western opinion of the type
of Charlie Irwin gives quite anoth-
er. AS long as the western states
had prohibition, they really had no
effective way to stop people from
bringing into those states in suit
cases, trucks and baggage all the
liquor they or their friends wanted.
There was always some wet state
not far away. The dry states along
the northern tier got their liquor
from Canada without much Difficult
ty. Other states got what they
wanted from California and still
others further east bought from
Missouri.
Stills Spring Up
Now those sources of supply Vir-
tually have, sheen stopped and the
local stills have sprung up and are
doing a thriving business. The
truth is, these western states never
had the same problem of enforce
ment before the eighteenth amend
ment as they have today. The ad
vocates of the eighteenth amend
ment used to say that only the fed
eral government could prevent i'm
Dortations into the dry" states. SO
the'-4atter fully expect the federal
government to make their commit
mites bone dry" and most of the
trouble is not due to laXity of state
enforcement, but to. increased vic
latlOn of the law.
Anyone who says the dry" states
of the west would vote against light
wine and beer if the people had a
referendum is merely guessing. The
only thing that can be recorded at
this time is that the sentiment is
not so unanimous for prohibition as
it used to be and there is sufficient
public disgust over 'bOotlegging"
and poisonous whisky to produce
reaction in favor of a compromise
proposition if the "drys" are ever
tactless enough to let such thing
come to a popular vote.