Evening star., 1930-12-07
National Referendum.

dunn" on the eighteenth amendment to
the Constitution have split both wet
and dry forces. DR.. Clarence True
Wilson, general secretary Of the Meth
odist Board of Temperance, Prohibition
and Public Morals, has been quoted
as saying there is nothing I would 30
like to see as national referendum
on the eighteenth amendment" pro-
vided the vote is between that amend
ment and q definite alternative. DR..
Wilson doubtless was expressing his
entire faith that the country in such
referendum would strongly uphold
the eighteenth amendment. Another
ardent supporter of prohibition, DR..
Ernest H. Cherrington, general secre-
tAry Of the World League Against Alco-
holism, however, Is particularly cool to
the proposal for . national referendum.
He has issued q statement calling at
tention to the huge cost which, he esti-
mates, would be necessary for the con-
duct of referendum on the subject Of
prohibition. He mentions the modest
sum of t26,00o, 900 which would have to
be put forward BY the prohibitionists TO
conduct their campaign for the success
ful retention Of the eighteenth amend
ment.
Presumably, If the prohibitionistS
are 70 expend such o sum in q ma
tional referendum, the Anti-prohibi-
tionists may be expected to expend as
much, II not more. Political elections
for the choice Of q Chief Executive of
the Nation pale into insignihcance
alongside Of such contest as DR..
Cherrington visualizes over the wet and
dry issue. The expenditure by the Re-
publican National Committee Of five or
six millions Of dollars for the election
Of . President has been the subject of
criticism. The Democrats almost
equaled Republican expenditures in the
last presidential campaign. But 4 ten
million dollar expenditure for both
major parties in national election,
compared to fifty-million dollar ex-
penditure by the drys and the vets, Is
q mere nothing. Many persons may
dispute the suggestion that it would re-
quire such q huge fund to conduct the
dry campaign and election in support
OF the eighteenth amendment. To
some it may appear that the devotion
Of the people to the cause of national
prohibition would be almost sufficient
to carry the referendum against the
vets, even though the latter were ex-
pending large sums Of money
Representative A. Piatt Andrew Of
Massachusetts has proposed in the
House . joint resolution, which he has
described as referendum" but which
In reality Is a proposal for an amend
ment to the Constitution, striking down
| the eighteenth amendment. His resolu-
ton follows the line of the Constitution
itself for amendment to that instru-
ment. In the first place, the proposal
can be submitted to the States only by
a two-thirds supporting vote in each
House Of Congress. II that Rantlet
has been run, the proposed amendment
1 NAASAA 20 W DC 70 conventions
held in the several States as provided
in the Constitution, instead OF Leeisla-
| lures. To become an am sndment to
the Constitution, the proposal must be
ratified by conventions in three-fourths
I OF the States. In other words, the only
difference in the proposed method Of
repeal Of the eighteenth amendment
from the method of its adoption lies in
the fact that the matter Is to be sub
! mitted to State conventions instead Of
! the Legislatures of the several States.
! Mr.. Andrew contends that therein
lies the referendum; that the people
will vote not as Democrats or Repub.
hcans in electing delegates to these
State conventions. but as vets or drys.
His conception of q national refer
endum on the liquor subject, however,
differs considerably from the popular
definition Of such q referendum. 1t
has one advantage, however, in that If
his proposal were carried through cue
ceSsfully, 1t would actually change the
Constitution, whereas mere ref
erendum vote, with the popular will OF
the people expressed would be only an
advisory opinion.
| -------S-SSS-S--