New Britain herald., 1928-06-23
SMITH AND PROHIBITION

SMITH AND PROHIBITION
 Governor Alfred F. Smith evident ly has disappointed certain class O. citizens who expected him to be a hypocritc. who expected him to be liar and 10 gain the Democratic presidential nomination by subter- iuge.
 Smiths stand on prohibition is we'll known. It has always been what it is. He sees no reason to change it merely because political convention is 10 be held al Houston. He is for states rights for pro- hibition; and this always has been his stand. If state wants prohibit ton that is the states business and it has right to have what it wants. That is the essence of Jeffersonian democracy.
 And for that matter. hasn't our Senator Bingham himself been busy- ing himself Of late about states rights: Senator Bingham. and many other Republicans, including Presi- dent Coolidge. have spoken in favor of the states retaining their rights in the face Of increasing federal l pressure for supervising this and that.
 The only difference between the Republican states fighters and the Democratic states fighters is that they differ as to what rights the states should retain.
 Senator Bingham. for instance, wants the states to maintain their rights regarding the inheritance tax. among other items.
 Senator Bingham doesn't care . boot about states rights regarding prohibition and for all practical pur- poses must believe prohibition k good enough as it is. That is to say that. for all practical purposes. he is q prohibitionist.
 | Governor Smith includes prohibit tion in his states rights doctrine and believes it has no business in the ! federal constitution. However, it be- 1 ing in the constitution he favors leaving it to the states to determine what alcoholic beverages happen te be like. and not the Nolstead law which arbrtrarily attempts to desig- l nate them for all the states and as arbitrarily attempts to enforce what ] il says.
 I Why did Connecticut refuse to rat fly the 18th amendment: Simply for 1 the reasons Governor Smith still valiantly upholds. But Connecticut attempts to enforce the federal law i clampcd upon it. And how! : Governor Smith was consistent. In Now York state the Mullin-Gage en- ! forcement law was rcscinded be- cause the public sentiment was to the effect that if the federal govern i ment insisted upon invading the 1 rights Of the state it Is the business Of the federal government to enforce it's law.
 The stand Of Governor Smith does ! not In the slightest interfere with the wishes of the dry southern state. which make up an important par, of the Democratic party. They car have their prohibition laws to thei, hearts content and enforce them a. risidly as circumstances allow. Bu' even in the south enforcement is ns : "hlt superior to that in the So-calleC
 wet northern states. The incessan
 agitation about prohibition has re,
 suited from adopting the wrong wa.
 10 attain it.
 They did better in Canada. Wht
 can claim Canada isn't better off a.
 regards prohibition? Each provinc,
 control it's own drink problem In
 democratic and efficient manner The first report just made by th'
 Liquor Control Board Of Ontario
 which has been in existence sine
 April. 1927. ie as good a campaiE,
 document as the advocates of state
 rights i'll thus country need.