Putnam patriot., 1929-10-17
Agitate for Repeal

Agitate tor Repeal
 As I have stated. you may agtate for a repeal. and argue, as some of you do, that the Amendment is out of harmony with other provisions in the Constitution, n,-and that drinking is a matter of personal choice, and shou' not be interfered with either by the Constitution or by Statute.
 But a word may be pertinent as to others of our fellow-citizens and other inhabitants of our country. We have crowded meetings in New York and elsewhere of those who do net believe in individual property. They argue that our Constitution started with the recognition of individual property in human beings. 4 slave was a chattel. After the Civil War the Constitution abolished that kind of individual property by Amend ment. thus confirming the war meas ure of Lincoln's Emancipation Pro clamation. It might have been ar gued, and, believe, was argued, that limitation or circumscribing or ab- o.ition of individual property, should have been by statute in the several states favoring such abolition, rather than by the Federal Constitution. Be that as it may. those who are today opposed to individual property argue. not only that individual property is wrong in itself, but that by Constitu- tional Amendment following the precedent of the Thirteenth Amend ment) all kinds of individual pro- perty should be abolished. In insist ing that your and my views as to in- dividual property are inde sensible and that the ingistencs upon indivi- dual property interferes with their notion of personal liberty and their conception of the pursuit of hap piness. they argue, with considerable fierce, that the Federal Constitution has already set an example as to re- s.ricting individual property. These people have. to my mind, logically, a stronger position, technically. than that taken by some of you in insist ing that the Eighteenth Amendment Gas being opposed to other Articles in that instrument is net part of our Constitution or properly in our Constitution.
 Law Violation
 At this point, a word as Co our Pro tectionist friends Gin discussing this matter cf law-violation). may be pro- per. They insist that the pursuit of happiness and a maintenance or per sonal liberty by the many, must not be regarded. but that they, the flaw ored few, must alone receive the benefits which Government can be- stow Upon this assumption they ob- tain subsidies, or what amount to the same thing, benefits by Tariff Legis- laticn. Thus organized protected in- dustrialists are favored at the eX- pense of the unorganized mass of consumers. As Win Rogers, with his usual common sense and forcible logic puts it. referring Co the pro- posed higher duty on sugar. There are 100000. 900 of us to eat it, and exactly 1 1.23i that raise it, but Reed has dedicated his entire political career to make sugar not only sweet but dear to the l20,000,0 ,000." So called Protection" it seems to me, is wicked. The injustice thus done to the mass of consumers does not, apparently, spur you and other mem bers of the bar to any serious pro test. Nor do you on the other hand. offer to defend. without charge, any violation of the tariff law, soscom- mon, for instance. amongst the well- to-do Americans returning from their holidays abroad. --- and countless others.
 My experience, as a seasoned trav- eiIer has taught me that many rich men and women, and many teachers of morality (civic and politicaD. in- cluding ministers of the Gospel, vio- Iate the Tariff Laws. just as many wealthy people openly violate the Prohibition Laws. The former ar gue. presumably, that the tariff law interferes with their personal habits and conceptions of personal liberty. and that they arg. therefore, free to disobey such law. With my view