Putnam patriot., 1928-09-20
RECEIVER COFFIN
 ON MORAL ISSUE"
Buyers of Intoxicants Respon. sible to Families and Com
 munity
Consumers Abet Bootleggers in Law
 Violation

Under a caption. "Reprehendinp the -Bootleggers' Patrons at the Bottom of Moral Issue. the New York Herald Tribune recently printed the following communication from George M. Coffin, receiver of tte First National Bank of Putnam. To the New York Herald Tribune:
 Speaking of moral issues" grow ing out or consideration of the prohi- bition question Governor Smith in his acceptance speech said there was "a great moral issue involving tEe right eousness of our national conduct and the protection of our children's nor als."
 To remedy this deplorable state of affairs he recommends that the Con gress amend the Volstead law by giv- ing and fixing "a scientific definition of the alcoholic content of an intoxi- eating beverage" Then leave if to each state to fix it's own standard within the percentage so fixed by law. The Volstead law fixes the percent age now at one-half of per cert. The content of real beer is about 2.7s per cent. As whisky and other sharrl liquors" are unquestionably "intoxi- eating" no amendment of the law could possibly include them. so that oa!y beer ahd possibly light wines could be considered.
 Easily Blocked
 As to amending the Eighteenth Amendment, which was adopted with the concurrence of forty-six states out of forty-eight. thirteen states could block any amendment, and of this necessary number twelve southern states with their negro popu. iation would undoubtedly resist the leaving only one other of the thirty-six to join with them in de- teating an amendment. So much for Governor Smiths plan Go meet this moral issue"
 The vital moral issue" appears to be more clearly defined by Mir. Du- rant in his offer of prize for the best dry plan when he states that big business men of great wealth and pro minsnce and influence are the chief supporters of the bootleggers from whom they buy their liquor.
 And he has hit the nail on the head by this statement, for there is the real moral issue" of the question. The bootlegger if caught violating the law Is subject to fine and imprison- ment, but the party who buys from him goes scot free. Where is there any righteousness in the conduct of these buyers who deliberately aid and abet the bootlegger in violation of the law?
 Parents Responsibility
 And how can the "ehildren's nor aIs" be protected when they know that their parents are deliberate nor al vioators of the law which affects their moral conduct? The conten- ton of leading psychologists is that the minds and morals of children are largely nodded by home influences. which means chiefly the example of their parents. Children are very keen observers, and if they notice viola tions of law by parents, very natural ly they justify their own similar con duct.
 The Eighteenth Amendment is the law of the land well known to every one. and while this law stands on the statute books there is a moral obs ligation laid on every one to avoid aiding and abetting violation by pur- chasing from sellers whom they know to be violators subject to fine and inn prisonment.
 And the more wealthy, prominent and influential these buyers are, and the larger their families, the greater IS their moral responsibility.
 If real moral issue is to be sought, here is where it is to be found.
 GEORGE NJ. COFFIN.
 Putnam, Conn.,, Aug. S1, 1928