Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-07-18

North Dakota's popular vote on the
question of eliminating prohibition from
the State Constitution furnishes mate
rial for arguments In which both vets
and drys claim encouragement.
"Majorities against repeal" declares
the Rochester Times Union. ARE larger
than expected. First reports indicated
that the drys had met a falling on IN
numbers, but later reports are TO the
effect that they not only held their
own, but have increased their lead In
substantial manner. The State thus
is shown to be consistently and safely
in favor of prohibition"
The attempt to eliminate prohibition
from the State Constitution. 1t Is point
ed out by the Salt Lake. DeSeret News.
was defeated after hard fight, North
Dakota's position geographically, con-
tinues the Utah paper. has made this
question q burning issue In that sec
ton, due to the sale of liquor in Cana
dian provinces and to the repeal In
1926 of Montana's prohibition enforce
ment act, Defeat of the referendum
is thought 70 have been due largely to
the attitude of the women, who, for
the first time. we're given an opportu-
nifty to cast ballot on this question.
LIE olhtc prior pSKlutulhtiIVS WI PAu-
hibition are interesting. North Dakota
was admitted to the Union during the
second prohibition wave In the United
States. which occurred in the decade
of the eighties When the original
Constitution OF the State was submitted
to the voters for adoption. there was
also submitted separately q proposed
prohibition clause This was approved
by a vote of 1852 to 1893.
That the State has not materially
changed its position Is evident"
~
THE prime argument of the vets.
says the Harrisburg Telegraph, sis that
If the question could be put 10, q popular
ballot. prohibition WOULD be beaten by
heavy majority. But wherever there
has been anything like such test,
prohibition has won. The issue was
clear in North Dakota. The liquor peo-
pie spent power of money and cam
paigned vigorously. II was purely
question OF for or against the legalised
sale OF intoxicants and John Barleycorn
went out for the count"
1T Is notable that while wet pro-
ponents have gained victories In New
York. the largest State in the Nation,
and In Montana and Nevada. among
the smallest" according to the Aber-
deem Daily World, they have been de-
feated elsewhere, They have tried
twice, for example, In California. where
one would think they had excellent
prospects OF victory, II anywhere. But
they were defeated both times. Yet
they clamor for national referendum,
The sincerity of the clamor is open TO
question. There Is. of course. no ma
chinery for It. for we have not reached
the point as yet of passing ON national
laws by popular vote. National
laws by national referendum simply
mean the tyranny of few great, popu-
ious States, and We should not permit
IL for the sake OF upsetting prohibition,
which the big cities do not like. or for
any other reason. II We ever should, We
can bid farewell to balance or check or
curb In American government and be
prepared to be- governed by a few huge
population eenters. The end OF that
would be dissolution"
ain view Of the hard fight that was
conducted BIZ the chiefs of the liquor
forces to put the State ON the wet side.
the victory was highly gratifying de-
clareS the Williamsport sun, while the
Grand Rapids Press, reviewing the
course OF events In the State, recalls;
In order to keep imported liquor away. |
North Dakota joins Is other states in
ratifying the eighteenth amendment, |
and now, having ratified. votes ON the |
question of repeating ITS prohibition |
clause At least. North Dakota, by i
voting mo-. has saved itself the trouble |
OF explaining this incongruity Original
dry States should be the last To 50 back |
ON the concurrent. clause. II was their !
ttilflenltv In enforcing State dry laws |
a.eh brought about the eighteenth /
lendgMent" I
l'hs Hartford Courant secs special sig |
nlfieance In the comparatively narrow /
margin against amending the Consti- !