Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-10-26
OUTCOME OF DRY LAW
REFERENDA AWAITED
Difficult to Estimate How Results i'm
Illinois, Massachusetts and Rhode Is
land Will Affect National Question.

The question on the Massachusetts, bal
lots-prepare now to smile q little about
the usefulness of the whole idea OF
referendum as q method Of making laws
reads thus:
Shall the proposed law which amends
general law by striking out chapter 1873,
Section "a, which section provides that
No person shall manufacture, trans
port by aircraft, water craft or vehicle,
import or export spurious or intoxicat-
ing LIQUOR as defined by Section 3, or
certain Misunderstanding beverages as
defined by Section !, unless in each in
stance he shall have obtained the per-
NIT or other authority required there
for by the laws of the United States and
the regulations made hereunder which
law was disapproved In the House Of
Representatives by a vote of ITO in the
affirmative and 1913 In the negative
and in the Senate by a vote Of IL in
the Affirmative and 26 In the negative.
be approved?"
Doubtless Mr.. Calvin Coolidge can
understand that-since he was for
many years a member OF the Massa-
chusetts Legislature and Is otherwise
skilled in the technical phraseology of
involved statutes. He can follow the
particularly abstruse kind of statute
which is, as in this case, an amend
ment to q pre-existing statute. But
aside from Mr.. Coolidge or persons OF
equivalent experience, how many read
ers of this article feel they can under
stand that question, or feel they can
answer "yes" or mo" to 1t in such a
way as to give effect to exactly what
they wish about prohibition. Especially
about prohibition in the national sense?
Among other obscurities, this Massa-
chuSettS referendum deals only with
two phrases Of prohibition. It includes
the word manufacture and the word
transport" but says nothing about
sale" which Is the third aspect Of
prohibition mentioned, and forbidden,
BY the eighteenth amendment to the
national Constitution. Omission Of the
word sale" from the Massachusetts,
referendum Is, Of course, intentional,
and If understood Is undoubtedly COM
pletely intelligent. Doubtless it is ex-
planned by the relation Of this partic-
ular statute mentioned in the referen-
dunn to other existing statutes Of which
the proposed one Is designed to be an
amendment.
Let us not doubt that this referen-
dunn is clear to the editors and others
In Massachusetts whose business 1t Is
to inform and guide the voter. Doubt
less the meaning Of the vote on the
referendum, one way or the other, will
be understood by them; and doubtless
their understanding will be adequately
conveyed to the public In the head
lines Of their papers on November 5.
But one would like to be sure that
the meaning Of this question as phrased
above, will be perfectly clear to every
Massachusetts voter who on November
will answer yes" or mo" to It, espe-
cially that class of voters, not tncon-
siderable in Massachusetts, who do not
ordinarily sepak or read the English
language. And one would like to be
sure that when the result Is announced
the rest Of the country will know ex-
actly and dependably what Is the true
public opinion Of Massachusetts, on the
broad question of prohibition in the
national sense.