Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-11-10
RaskOb's Referendum Plan
For Wet-Dry Test Debated

Suggestions made over the radio on
subjects Of national interest by John j.
Raskob, chairman of the Democratic
National Committee, are widely dis
cussed, particularly the plan for a
referendum on prohibition. While 1t Is
suggested that an accurate referendum
might be difficult without being made a
part of political contest, the subject Is
seriously considered. One objection
raised in various comments is that Mr..
Raskob, as a wet, has an interest in
only one side Of the question.
His proposal for national refer
endum," says the Roanoke Times, rs
interesting and will have the support
of a great number of citizens who are
not particularly interested as to whether
the country is wet or dry, but who are
thoroughly disguised with existing con-
ditions and anxious to see the situation
Strengthened out That paper, how
ever. believes that Mr.. Raskob is not
the right man to lead the way, Tor his
leadership will not be followed oy
many people who are willing to assent
to some reasonable modification Of the
prohibition law, provided it is effected
by the friends, and not the enemies, OF
prohibition Mr.. Raskob can
not qualify" -
The referendum, in the opinion OF
the Columbus Ohio State journal,
"would show beyond controversy how a
majority of the people feel on the SUD
iect." The State Journal also makes
the comment: mo informed citizen
will pretend to be satisfied with existing
conditions, rampant bootlegging, open
and fragrant violation of the law, ana
the general disrespect for many laws
which has followed in the wake OF pro-
hibition enforcement.
X 4 X X
"Not alone among Democrats, but
equally among Republicans, ACCORDING
to the Richmond News Leader, tnere
is a feeling that the time is approach
ing when the country should be asked
to restate it's Judgment of prohloltlon,i
in the light of 10 years experience.
The News Leader continues: II ma
iority in Congress be found Tor a Ie1-
erendunn, a way of having referendum
will be devised. 1t would not be bind
ing on Congress Not one dry state
might be impelled by the registration
of a wet majority in other States 10
modify its own prohibition code or 10
consent to the repeal of the eighteenth
amendment. A referendum might De
held and might produce no change
whatever in the status quo. yet many
now contend that the country mas a
right to speak as unit on policy tnat
is being applied to the country as a
whole; and there is belief that II II
showed a wet majority, the referendum
would be persuasive with many Con-
gressmen and, in time, with legislators
in the dry States
While observing that Mr.. Raskob's
suggestions for the 1882 campaign IN
clude action on the dry law, the san
Bernardino Sun remarks: Actually he
did not demand repeal of prohibition.
He suggested referendum. However,
his previous utteranceS on the subject
make it plain what he means-he VIII
require the Democratic party In 1882
to pledge repeal Of prohibition.
In San Francisco, the other day, 1t was
suggested that the proposed new city
charter make provision for the regula-
ton of the saloon-in the event the
saloon comes back. That shows how the
wind is blowing 1t is not moderation
of prohibition that the vets really ex-
pect, but actual repeal and that means
the return Of the saloon. That is why
many people, who are not particularly
impressed with the defects of the pres
eiit prohibition set-up-and it must be
admitted that there are defects-refuse
to get excited over the wet program.
What the wet leaders propose to give
would only make worse the evils of pro-
hibition that do exist"
In criticism of the wet program, the
Lincoln State Journal believes that the
purpose is ito continue agitation until
prohibition is abolished; that ''tfe vets
want only referendum that will &C
complish what they want not one to
determine what the sentiment Of the
public is" The State Journal also asks:
IF the people by referendum abolished
the eighteenth amendment there would
be nothing left for the drys to 90 but
acquiesce IN the result, but if the people
by Referendum refused to abol sh con-
stitutional prohibition, who is there -
guarantee that the vets viii abide IL