Evening star., 1925-11-29

Continued from First Page)
our success would remove all regula
| tory restrictions upon the traffic, that
moonshining, bootlegging and SNUG
Cling would be. enormously increased
and that the transfer Of police power
| from the States to the Federal Gov.
ernment would tremendously increase
the mechanism and expense Of enforc.
| ing all anti-liquor laws.
All those predictions, at which We
! hooted, have come true. The conven
| ton at Chicago was a great wholesale
complaint against just those evil re-
suits.
No one present there ventured &c
deny that moonshine stills and boot
leggers cover the country as the To-
| Gusts did the land of Egypt. While
most of the States have adopted en-
| forcement acts in concurrence with
| the Volstead Act, nevertheless the
authorities in charge of them have
almost wholly looked to the Federal
! officers to detect chase, capture and
| convict the violators of the law.
When that condition was forecast in
! the debates over the amendment In
| Congress, the reply of its friends was
| that the States. to prevent being over
run by Federal foreign spies, 'snoop
| ers and enforcement officers sent out
! from Washington. would be foremost
| in the use of their own officers and
| in securing to themselves the fines
| forfeitures and convicts from prohi
| bition enforcement.
| But all those local benefits have not
| been experienced. On the contrary
\ the Federal forces have been planted
| all over the country and have sought
/ for either honest or dishonest pur
| poses to take entire charge of prohi
| bition enforcement. The consequence
| has not only been a food of official
| scandals. evidences of corruption. in
| stances of unwarranted outrages upon
| private rights and the demonstration
that the Eolstead act is practically
| unenforcible in it's present terms and
with all the machinery possible for
| the Federal Government to employ
| Hence, the silly demands we hear fol-
| more drastic legislation and the use
of the armed forces of the Nation.
My Personal Convictions.
l am a 100 per cent prohibitionist. ]
was wholeheartedly in the fight years
| before the present leaders got actively
| into it-even before some of them
were born and eight years before the
| Anti-Saloon League was founded BY
| DR.. Howard Hyde Russell in Ohio
! No man can discount or deny my
| devotion to the cause and I want now
| what / have wanted for those 4C
years. That is the abolition of the
| liquor saloon, and in nearly all the
States that is now accomplished
Secondly, the suppression OF the manu-
| facture and transportation and i'm
portation of intoxicating liquors fol
| beverage purposes.
4 fXl-n nhtaNtixynt, u,
| heart and lungs Of the eighteenth
amendment. Unfortunately, in my
Judgment. the Anti-Saloon Leaguers
have gone far beyond those original
! objectives and have used their in
| f1uence to enact laws that are de
! signed to control every act relating
to liquor, however private. personal
and even permissible under the terms
of the law.
was being framed it was strenuously
urged to use in It the words "alco
| holic liquors" rather than ''intoxi
| eating liquors." but on the com
mittee Of Congress who handled the
! amendment there were able lawyers
| and ex-judges who saw both the in
justice and the futility of attempting
to outlaw every kind of liquor that
| contained any percentage Of alcohol
They said iE plain speech that the
chief purpose in setting up national
prohibition was and is to delegalize
| the making of and commerce ir
, liquors that are generally and neces
sarily Intoxicating"
J Question of Intoxication.
In other words, at that time, the
| whole avowed purpose Of those who
were promoting the amendment was
| to put rational stamp of illegality
upon liquors Of any kind that are
actually Intoxicating 1t was &C
knowledged that whether any parti
cular liquor is classifable as ''in
toxicating liquor" is a question OF
fact, dependable upon convincing
proof, and is not matter Of opinion
mot whether Wayne Wheeler OF
Sam Small or any other person
| thinks it is Intoxicating" 1t Is ar
issue to be determined by expert de
flnition, by cumulative human ex
perience and by the testimonies com
ing from courts and corrective insti
tutions.
| For instance, the issue has beer
presented In the House of Representa-
tives by the introduction of So separ
ate bills to legalize the manufacture
and sale Of 2.75 per cent beer ir
| such States as may elect to have it
on the ground that such beer is not
an Intoxicating liquor"
The proponents OF those bills say
such beer is not Intoxicating" ir
fact, and therefore should not be
included in the prohibition of the
eighteenth amendment. The op
ponents of those sbills contend tina,
such beer Is "intoxicating." But wht
knows positively, irrefutably, whether
it is so, or not?
1 have, for years, sought ever,
available authority and evidence OF
that question-and yet do not know
whether or not 2.75 per cent beer
is necessarily and invariably "intoxi
eating" But I want to know the
truth about it and am ready to wei
come any investigation that will ge,
that truth and establish it incontest
ably.
! hnd all over the country mer
lwho are as pronounced prohibitionist.