Worcester Democrat and the ledger-enterprise. (Pocomoke City, Md.) 1921-1953, 1926-05-01
Peoples Column

Pocomoke City, Nd, Apr. 26, 1925
Editor Worcester Democrat,
Poconl.l;e City, Md.
Dear Sir:
Ke1ernng to your two column edi-
torial OF April 24th, headed Lovers
OF Lucre and Lovers OF Liquor" based
on the address of Hon. G. Walter
Mapp delivered in the Empire theatre
April 18th, l advise that / have read
and re-read same many times, en-
deavorlng, ii possible, to fully COM
prehend your meaning and to find
some justification for its publication.
Ii l have succeeded in the former l
have utterly failed in the latter, and
! regard some of your statements so
unfair to Senator Mapp, and some
other statements so misleading, that
] cannot refrain from making reply
thereto.
After taking up one-third Of your
space in narrating your opinion of the
National Prohibition Law and its en-
forcement and stating some historical
events in such language and phrase
ology as can only be construed by the
criminally inclined as justification
and encouragement to violate and
hold in disrespect and hate the consti-
Itutional laws of your country, and to
which l shall later refer, you state,
"We did not start out to discuss that
question (The fact that you did dis
cuss that question shows it to be the
real thorn in your soul.) We had
for our purpose certain criticism
made by Hon. G. Walter Mapp;
namely that all those opposed to pro-
hibition ranged themselves under two
classes; those that loved lucre and
those that loved liquor, to this we
note an exception"
l listened attentively to Senator
Mapp's address and / feel quite sure
you have Internationally misquoted
him. feel quite sure that many who
heard him will bear me out when l
quote him as having said that, "Those
who violate and encourage the viola
i ton of the prohibition law can be put
in two classes: those that love lucre
and those that love liquor" ask
you, Mr.. Editor, to classify or name
any third group who violate or en-
courage the violation of the law ex-
cept under the title of traitor or an
archist; for those who defy the law
and encourage the violation of the
law cannot be classed as otherwise;
and here / wish to remind you that
the National Prohibition Law, or the
Eighteenth Amendment, is not only
the law of the United States, but that
il was passed or ratified by the big
gest majority Of any amendment Of
the constitution.
~
Mapp further when he stated that he
ed from him on the prohibition ques-
ton, that he knew many who did not
believe in prohibition but who were
just as honest in their stand and con-
viction as he in his and for whom he
had the utmost respect? He stated
that he also held in the highest es-
TEEN those who are opposed to the
law and are trying in lawful way to
bring about it's repeal, but that he had
nothing but contempt for those who
try by propaganda and encourage
ment to nullify the law and violate it
rather than to bring about it's repeal
by lawful methods. In which class,
Mr.. Editor, in the future, shall we ex-
pect the Worcester Democrat to be,
in the one hundred per cent American
class by advocating strict obedience to
the prohibition and all other laws un-
til lawfully repealed or in the Anar-
chistic class of notification by en-
couraging disrespect and violation of
the law, simply because you personal
ly may be opposed to the law? use
the word Anarchistic advisedly, be-
cause my dictionary defines anarchy
as lawless condition of society based
on the theory of individual liberty.
You state that the most natural
conclusion to reach as to the reason
the law is violated is because so many
are opposed to it. Many are opposed
to every law. You never heard of a
law being passed by unanimous popu-
lar vote. In several presidential cleo
. tions millions of voters by their vote
declared their opposition to q high
protective tariff which so vitality af-
fected the welfare and very comfort
of practically the whole population of
. the United States. However, when
, Congress later passed a high protec-
tive act, would you have advocated a
notification and violation of that ACT
simply because you and many millions
of others happened to be opposed to
it, but in the minority? And would
you have, advocated the notification
our smuggling law because it costs
the United States government millions
of dollars to enforce that law? We
have the anti-narcotic law, passed by
Congress several years ago without
constitutional amendment. Do you
advocate the notification of that law
simply because every dope fiend ir
the country-and there are millions
are opposed to that law? What,
pray you, is the distinction?
1 again quote you as follows: "It
would be we'll to remember that the
freedom of America started in an op
position to constituted law and au
thority." That opposition was an arm
ed rebellion. Do you advocate sucl
E movement against your govern
ment? In justification of your warn
ing you cite the Revolutionary move
ment in 1776 presumably as iuStifi