Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-10-26
BY MARK SULLIVAN


Tuesday will be three State refer
enda on prohibition. Readers wish
Il ing to interpret the election in its
bearing on prohibition will want to
know just how they are worded and
what will be the meaning of the out
comes when they are announced on
November 5. Prohibition, according to
reports from every section of the coun-
try, is more discussed than any other
political issue or any other aspect Of
politics.
While these referenda are important,
while two of them occur In large States,
while the outcomes of them will be
proclaimed In great headlines, while
indeed their significance Is not to be
minimized-nevertheles one feels, as
one examines them closely, that 1t Is
going to be difficult to estimate exactly
what the several possible outcomes of
them will mean in their bearing on the
broad national question.
For one reason, the wording of at
least two of them Is obscure-obscure,
that Is, as respects what the voter Is
choosing between, obscure in so far as
they are searched for a guide toward
whatever Is to be the next phase of pro-
hibition In national sense.
Consider first the Illinois one, which
In some respects is the most adequately
phrased.
Three Questions In Illinois.
The voters of Illinois on Tuesday of
next week will answer yes" or mo" to
three questions:
First, shall the eighteenth amend
ment to the Constitution of the United
States which among other things pro-
hibits the manufacture, sale or trans
portation Of intoxicating liquor for
beverage purposes within the United
States be repealed?"
Second, shall the Congress Of the
United States modify the national pro-
hibition act to enforce the eighteenth
amendment to the Constitution Of the
United States, commonly known as the
Volstead act, so that the same shall
not TIohibit the manufacture, sale or
transportation Of beverages which are
not in fact intoxicating as determined
in accordance with laws of the respec-
tive States?"
Third. shall the Illinois prohibition
act be repealed?"
The first Of these Illinois questions
'Shal the eighteenth amendment .
be repealed Is specific and clear ILL
nois voters who write on their ballots
Yes" or mo" will presumably under
stand what they want. Yet can we be
sure that all Of them understand?
When q voter. votes Eyes," Just what
has he in mind as the thing he wants
done about prohibition? Certainly he
wants the present status changed, wants
1t done away with. But what has he
In mind, what does he visualize as the
condition he wants instead Of the pres
ent condition?
On one side Of this Illinois referen-
dunn is the present status, the condi-
ton that now Is. On the other side are
score Of possible alternatives. Prob
ably many q voter who writes Eyes"
that he wants repeal, has in his mind
as the future condition some dream or
other, some vision Of q millennium, q
utopia, in which the liquor question will
be ideally and finally solved. Yet We
all know it won't be. Experiments to-
ward solving it have been under way
for neatly hundred years In the United
States and scores Of years recently in
other countries-but the perfect solu-
ton seems not yet In sight.
Alternatives Obscure.
An of which Is to say that perfect
voter two concrete, definite, limited all
ternatives. One would be the present
status. The other should be some one
specific suggested status, proposed to
be Observation-Disclosures the Canadian
system Of government operation of the
liquor business or any other Of the sew
eral plans suggested to take the place
OF the eighteenth amendment
The second question in the Illinois
referendum II clear enough, though one
cannot be sure 1t will be clear to all
the voters. The alternatives presented
by the second question are fairly con-
crete. They have to do with figures,
percentages, the permitted alcoholic
content Of beverages. The Volstead act
now says that any beverage containing
more than one-haf Of per cent alco-
hol u forbidden. The first (tacit) al
Tentative in the second question Of the
Illinois referendum Is to keep this one
half Of per cent in the law. The other
alternative Is to substitute q higher per-
centage, presumably as high o one as
courts would sustain $50 long az
the eighteenth amendment remains)
whether 3, 4, 5 or q larger per cent.
The third alternative In the Illinois
referendum, "Shall the Illinois prohibi-
ton act be repealed?" has the same OBJ
security as the first. When q voter writes
YES" that he wants the Illinois pro-
hibition act repealed, just what has he
in mind to take its place? Does he
wish o condition Of no State law about
liquor whatever? Or does he envisage,
as Ia more probable, some different kind
Of law dealing with liquor?
The other Of the two most important
referenda on prohibition to be held on
November Is the Massachusetts act