The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1926-05-26
A DECISIVE VOTE

Leaders in the business and professional circles
of indianapolis indorse without qualification the de-
mand of The Times that there be referendum in
this State on vosteadism.
That does not mean that these are vets
or that they will favor any change. The chances
are that majority of them would vote for even more
strict laws
But they do recognize the fact that the present
situation is nolerabe that people spending their
time talking about prohibition when they should be
thinking of fundamentals Of government and eco
nomic issues that while the battle RACES, our whole
system Of government is changing
The referendums proposed in New York and Hi
nois put the questions up the people as to whether
they want to permit each State to fix the limits of
alcoholic content of intoxicants.
vote in Indiana against any change would
silence forever the charge that the people are in
reality against the law and that its lax enforcement
is due to the fact that sentiment is not for it.
1t would or should, end condition OF affairs
where prosecutors declare that it impossible to get
police and sherffs to to get convic-
lions after occasional arrests made.
Every law must depend upon public opinion and
conscience for it's enforcement.
The changing of our form Of government under
which local police turned into Federal officials
will not create sentiment for law in which the
people do not believe and in which majority con-
nive at violations
If the sentiment, as the Vostead leaders claim,
is for that law in Indiana vote against any change
in the national law would be emphatic and give to
every official notice that the law must be enforced.
If the sentiment be in that direction, it would
still be powerful enough to retain perhaps even
broaden the Wright law.
If the sentiment be against that law, it is I'M
American to retain it and more than folly to keep
+ it In it's present form.
The answer of the professional dry leaders that
the only way the law be changed is by the
process under which it is enacted is evasion and
subterfuge.
The one and only claim for any law must always
be that it reflects the well-consdered judgment and
wellinformed conscience Of the majority.
There can be no valid reason for objection to
Statewide referendum, or a nationwide vote, upon
! this prohibition question
Any subject on which there is constant debate
and division must always be fair subject for official
expression.
No one who believes in the United States and its
government, who has any sympathy with its funda-
mental basis or principles, ever object to any
expression of the will of the people
Our whole government rests upon our ab-
ity to translate that will and opinion and conscience
into law.
\ That cannot happen until public opinion is dis
closed, and certainly one can claim any unanimous
approval Of present conditions.
& Here is program on which the leading dry Sen
aor and the leading proponent of the change agree
They are thinking men. They understand that
anarchy revolt and lawlessness are the legitimate
echildren of any suppression of the peoples power
Ito express themselves.
y Let's have vote and find out what people really
\ want to do with the most perplexng problem the
4 Nation has faced