The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1930-12-30
CHIEF
HITS AT STATE
ANTI-DRY BILLS
Referendum Would Decide
Nothing, Prohibition
Head Declares.

Charging a state referendum
on prohibition could accomplish
nothing and would incite further
lawlessness, the Rev. G. Winders,
superintendent of the Indiana Anti
Saloon League, today attacked pro-
posed bills for that purpose and
other anti-dry bills which legislators
say they will submit to the Indiana
assembly.
Senator John L. Niblack, Marion
county Republican holdover, already
has drawn up bill for the state ref
erendum, and has declared it will
be submitted early in the 1881 ses-
sion.
Public Should Know
Seven other bills, another provid-
ing for a referendum, and the re-
mainder seeking state dry law re-
forms. are to be presented to the
assembly, Winders learned.
We have been informed that eight bills
have been prepared or are in the process
Of preparation to be introduced in the
Indiana State legislature for the purpose
of changing the Indiana prohibition law;
two of these providing for state
referendum and three others seek to re-
peal the Wright bone-dry law.
Space will not permit us to deal
adequately with these proposals. but the
public has a right to know what they
involve. We should keep in mind always,
that the eighteenth amendment, after a
long period of education and agitation,
was written into the Constitution OF the
United States and that 1t was approved
by forty-six Of the forty-eight states of
the Union.
We should bear in mind that any action
on the part Of the Indiana legislature will
not take this amendment out of the Con-
stitution.
If a majority of Indianas voters should
vote afirmatively on all four propositions
in the bill proposed by Senator Niblack.
for example. the eighteenth amendment
would still remain in the Constitution and
every citizen would still be under both
legal and moral obligation to observe its
provisions.
II the vote should be as above in
dictated. the only result following would be
to encourage lawlessness. the very thing
the loyal citizen is seeking to prevent.
Constitution Unaffected
If, on the other hand the vote should
sustain the eighteenth amendment. and
should be against all the other three
propositions contained in this bill. does
any one believe the advocates Of repeal
would accept such vote as final and
would then Join in both observing the law
and in seeking to enforce the same?
Provision is made for changing the Con-
stitution and this provision does not in
clude any Of the measures proposed in
any of these bills. II this country is as
wet as it is represented by some. it should
not be difficult to take the steps necessary
to repeal the Eighteenth amendment and
until this is done. all loyal citizens should
Join in seeing that the law is both OBJ
served and faithfully enforced.
This, If 1t means anything. means that
no reimbursement should be given to law
violators by weakening to any extent. and
certainly not BY repeating the state en-
forcement law.
No possible good can come to the state
by any referendum. Neither can any good
come by making it more difficult to en-
force the laws enacted to make this
amendment effective.