Five Mile Beach weekly journal., 1923-03-30
THE SHIELDS-ST0KES
CONTROVERSY

late of March 26, 1923:
1t has been called to my attention,
through the press, that former Cover
nor Stokes seriously objected to state
ments l made in an address before the
laymen and ministers of the New Jer-
sey Conference of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church at Asbury Park and
ocean Grove, March 18th and 18th, and
has wired a protest to Bishop Berry.
In his telegram he is quoted in part,
as follows:
"oThe report has reached me that Mr..
Shields before the convention made a
personal attack upon myself in refer
ence to my attitude and actions con-
corning the excise question. '
If the reports of Mr.. Shields remarks,
that have reached me, are correct his
imagination is more virile than his
sense of veracity. l suggest that the
Conference practice Christian virtue
of Withholding judgment until they
know the truth. l think I can prove
I am a better prohibitionist than any
accuser, and permit me to say that I
am not one for revenue only"
| hardly think it is necessary for me
to reply to such a statement, yet it
has been suggested that l would be
conceding that l had misrepresented
Mr.. Stokes if l did not do SO.
1t has never been a pleasant thing
for me to engage in personalities and
I never do it from choice, but only
from a sense of necessity. When l
find an influential leader among the
people pretending to defend our u
and at the same time doing every
thing he can to break down our cause,
the only thing to do is to tell the truth
about him, no matter who he may be.
Before the Laymen's Conference on
Saturday / referred to Mr.. Stokes and
Senator Edge as leaders of the wet"
forces in New Jersey at the present
time. My justification for making that
statement is that they are the two out
standing advocates at the present time
for the modification of the Federal en-
forcement law in the interest of in
creasing the alcoholic content per-
mitted under the Volstead law.
or course they cannot deny this as
Senator Edge has announced his pur-
pose to champion a three per cent
beer bill in the mex Congress. This
would be about four per cent alcohol
by volume, or just the old fashioned
high-powered beer. Mr.. Stokes has
not named the specific quantity of al
cohol, except to say it would be suf1-
cient to satisfy the appetite that God
has placed in the human being. Each
one of them claim that the permitting
OF such drinks was the absolute in
tention of the Eighteenth Amendment
as ratified by the people of the United
States. This they claim in face of the
fact that 20 states of the Union have
adopted one-half of one per cent in
their own state statutes, and Is states
have prohibited the use of liquor con-
tanning alcohol in any quantity, while
two states permit n per cent and
two states have no state law on this.
One-half of n per cent was the
standard fixed by the brewers them
selves years ago to protect their in
dustry from competition of just that
nameless, imaginary, missing link"
stuff that Mr.. Stokes is now advocat-
ing. If one-half of one percent was
good enough to protect the brewers
her it ought to be good enough to
protect the American people now.
Congress never said that one-half of
one per cent vas intoxicating when it
established it as the standard for the
enforcement of the Eighteenth Amend
ment. This was plainly set forth by
the Supreme Court Judges when they
rendered their unanimous decision up
holding the Volstead law. 1t was and
is a good point from which to start to
enforce the amendment.
AS far back as February "a, 1920,
Just a month after the Eighteenth
Amendment had gone into effect, Mr..
Stokes took the position that "If a
state can legislate under concurrent
power on the percentage of alcohol,
the United States might be dry and
the state wet You will have a con-
dition of dry 'wetter' and 'wettest.
But confusion more deplorable will re-
suit if the Federal government comes
in and arrests a citizen for doing
something permitted by the state"
In this Mr.. Stokes advocates the old
Calhoun doctrine of states rights, un-
der which slavery could be carried on
by any individual state that saw fit in
defiance of the will of the National
Government. 1t was to combat this
very idea that the Republican party
was born and came in its greatness
under Abraham Lincoln. No one can
hold the view that states rights are
above the Federal rights and be a
Lincoln Republican.
Of course the Supreme Court of the
United States knocked Mr.. Stokes
ideas into a cooked hat, but it shows
to what length he has gone in adj
vocating the things which the liquor
interests would like to see accom-
plished.
Mr.. Stokes has also gone on record