The Washington times., 1923-04-01

prone to believe that ma
tionai prohibition came to
this country overnight and by
some sort Of legerdemain was
made a part Of the Constitution
while the people were taking a
nap or not looking. Even some
high-brow professors have intimat-
Cd Il they have not advised that
because Of the stealthy methods
employed In its adoption the Eight
eenth Amendment 10 not binding
on the conscience Of the American
people. When q professor Graves
the umelight, I know no one 30
given to sensational and foolish
utterance.
WOMEN KEEP VOTING.
National prohibition may or may
not be an issue In the next ma
tional campaign. In my judg-
ment Il can no more be made
national issue than woman SUI
frage er-the income tax amend
ment.
There are literally hundreds of
thousands OF people who are not
converted to woman's voting or
holding office. They rail against
its being placed in the Constitu-
ton.
They tell you that the result
has disproved the contention Of
the advocates of the Nineteenth
Amendment, and, to tell the truth,
many who urged 1t have been dis
appointed at its first fruits. They
say women haven't shown even
as much sense and independence
In voting as men.
They could not say harder
thing about the dear creatures.
But who expects to live to see the
ballot withdrawn from them? The
hope is-and the faith. too-that
just as ''the cure for democracy
70 more democracy" the hope for
q wiser exercise Of suffrage by
women is longer experience with
the untamed beast.
INCOME TAX TO STAY
For every man who swears at
the Eighteenth Amendment. two
swear at the income tax law and
its administration. Everybody
abuses the income tax law, the
vets and drys alike.
AS they fill up their blanks
and write their checks they are
at unison and sing the same
song. But everybody does not
cuss about prohibition.
At least half the people, prob
ably two-thirds. favored its adop-
ton. Many more wanted it than
wanted the income tax amend
ment. To be sure, as In the case
Of woman suffrage, it has not
worked as well as they had ex-
pected, but they would not stand
for its repeal. and how many
States do you suppose would vote
TO repeal the income tax amend
ment? It Is here to stay.
ELECTING SENATORS.
The same thing is true OF the
amendment for the election Of
Senators by the people. Lots Of
folks did not wish that amend
ment. In fact, it took many trys
ut it bafore it could get the req
uisite number OF votes in the Sem
ate to submit It.
But Gabriel will blow his horn
before you'll ever see legislators
electing a United States Senator.
Has it worked well? I say
yes, though in most instances the
same men have been elected who
would have been chosen in the
old way.
NOT AN ISSUE.
There are some "drys" and some
e"wets" who can think of no other
question who would love to see ma
tional prohibition an issue in 1924.
They viii not be accommodated. 1t
viii not be permitted to take the
center OF the stage and crowd off
vital live issues.
II anybody believed last month
that the Eighteenth Amendment
would or could be paramounted,
such person must have been dis
iIlusioned by the action of the Leg
fslatures OF New York, Pennsyl-
vania, and New Jersey last week.
They are the three wettest States.
The attempt to repeal the State
law enforcing prohibition, so as
to make impossible concurrent"
enforcement. was given a prompt
interment in New York In New
Jersey Senator Edge met his Wa
terioo when he tried to secure n
referendum to weaken the law. In
Pennsylvania Governor Pinchot
routed his foes who tried to defeat
his bill to enforce the prohibition
laws.
In all three States the predic-
ton had been for three wet vic
tories. Following the more than
100000 majority in Ohio agains:
wine and beer and the majority by
popular vote for strict enforcement
A. IL q T.. hot