New Britain herald., 1926-10-23
WET AND DRY AND NEW YORK STATE

NEW YORK STATE
 While Connecticut brings the wet question before the voters in the fall elections the subject is not creating much excitement; nothing seem. to be doing 80. Of course the issue Is not clearly defined in this state. While the democrats have taken 1t upon themselves to assure the voters that the candi- dates. if successful, will lend all their efforts to drawing the teeth :. form the Eighteenth amendment the republicans, who undoubtedly feel that they can afford to evade the question, are pussy-footing' waiting to see which way the cat will jump. Even though Connecu- cut did not vote for the amend ment in the first place, its repre- sentatives, ever since, have failed to register any decided preference for legislation aimed to help the return of legal alcoholic refresh ments. Undoubtedly Congressman Tilson counted himself In when he made the statement that there were 400. If we remember the figures rightly, drys in Washington and comparatively few vets. But the republicans can afford to ignore the issue created by the democrats and are doing so very consistently. Such men as they elect can vote as expediency warrants when the time comes. Senator Hiram Bingham can steal the thunder of the demo- crats, or part of 1t, in proudly pro claiming his adherence to the doc Urine of states rights and prove his belief in that doctrine. or not, as he prefers. Take that to mean what you wish.
 In New York State the question of prohibition is much hotter With an intensely popular democratic governor threatening to pull the whole ticket through on election day, and preaching the doctrine of modified prohibition, the. republi- cans are doing likewise. They dare not do otherwise. The issue is too sharp, and the result so dubious that they cannot pussy-foot. They have raised other issues, but they are talking wet just the same with what sincerity we cannot de- termine.
 Robert F. Wagner. democratic candidate for the office of Senator in New York, and former Justice of the Supreme Court, has declared himself on the pressing issue of the state campaign, at the same time to all intents and purposes giving a definition of the application of the theory of states rights. He states that the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, advocated by his opponent, Is as indefinite as the republican state platform and a thing almost impossible of reali- zation. While we lose sight of the truth of that remark it is unques- tionably so. The vets, he says, should argue for the repeal of the volstead act. the law which gives 10 Congress the power to define the Intoxicating" quality of the for bidden liquor. and there should be substituted, for the act, an act giv- ing to various states the right to determine the point of alcoholic content beyond which a beverage is intoxicating. A referendum which asks for the adoption of such a plan is before the voters of New York. According to the candidate he will vote "yes" on the refercn- dun and wishes others to vote "yes," He accuses his opponent of failing 10 declare himself until he moved from the dry section of the state, when he did declare himself as being in favor of the refercn- dunn.
 It should be, but it is not. that both parties in this state were forced to declare themselves on a similar referendum. While the vote getting possibilities of wet stand in the state are great, and a referendum on the subject would be overwhelmingly carried by the ayes" the republican leaders can scarcely dare to commit them selves too openly hereabouts, They think they will be elected without doing so. and should they declare
 4 !