The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1925-01-16
Prohibition Controversy.
Looms Following Drink
ing Revelations,
By CHARLES P. STEWART
NEA. Sernicc Writer

vi
Wt of the worst congressional
- fights in this country's his
tory is impending. 1t probably will
settle the prohibition question for
good and all
The Frank ID. Scott divorce case
brought the situation about.
Individuals mentioned in connec-
ton with this case may or may not
be able to establish satisfactory per-
sona1 alibis, but the Nations law
makers are very well convinced the
country is going to accept as true
the picture presented of official So
ciety life in the capital-a life not
only extremely gay but unrestrain-
eddy wet
There are three kinds of Senators
and Representatives
l. The vets.
2. Those who vote dry but drink,
wet.
3. The honest.to-goo dness drys.
The Scott case Testimony pleases
the vets. They consider 1t a black
eye for prohibition.
Vote Dry and Drink
Those who vote dry but drink wet
care nothing about prohibition in
prinsiple, Of course. %
They support dry measures and
oppose wet ones only because they
believe it is good for their political
health. "A
Probably they would reverse them
selves with as good or a better will
If they thought a majority Of their
constituents would approve.
The Scott case testimony does not
pain them on account Of it's disclos-
ure Of the fact that the very men
who make the country's laws nu-
merousIy violate the prohibition law,
They know that already. They are
merely scared lest they be found out.
The honest-to-goodness drys are
thoroughly enraged They realize
that drinking Congressman and 9TH
err Government officials make pro21i-
bition ridiculous.
Their resentment against bibulous-
ness in official circles has been in
creasing for long time as they
came more and more fully to find
out how general it was. The Scott
case has brought this anger to a
head.
Impeachment Proposed
One plan has taken pretty definite
shape.
This is the impeachment and ex-
pulsion of any Senator or Represen-
tative who can be proved to be a
consumer of anything with an alco-
holic content in excess Of "a OF
per cent.
In dozens of cases such proof will
be easy enough to get.
But the question is,
Proof having been furnished, will
it be possible to get the necessary
votes to throw the offenders out?
At first thought it may seem as if
the answer should be-yes. The dry
majority in both houses is liberal
one.
The trouble is. those who vote dry
but drink wet probably will have to
be counted out. They're dry on any
question of wet-and-dry lawnaking
but they hardly can be expected to
vote to expel themselves from Con-
gress.
The honest-to-g goodness drys and
the wet drys, taken together, are in
a majority, but how about the hon
est-too-goodness drys counted alone?
It's more than doubtful If there's a
majority Of them.
Nevertheless, it's practically GER
tain they will make the attempt.
The leaders are counting heads now.
They're doing their hest to get
pledges from doubtful ones.
SoLle are promising. Many are
sidestepping. It's too soon yet to
tell how the opposing forces will line
up.
Big Fight Ahead
When the dry leaders are con-
WINGED their group has reached its
maximum of obtainable strength
they will launch their attack.
That there will be terrific fight
goes without saying. Even an at
tempt at the expulsion of dozens and
scores of members of both the SEN
ate and House OF Representatives of
the United States viii be sensation
Of proportions to compare with the
outbreak of a war. An attempt to
expel nobody but the avowedly wet
vets would be that.
If the honest-to-goodnes drys sue
coed they'll have scored a victory
for prohibition that will count II
they fail-if Congress virtually ad-
rnits that it's dry for the country
but intends to stay wet so far as
itself is concerned-it will be about
the finish Of so much as a semblance
Of prohibition enforcement, whether
he.law stays in the code book or