The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, 1931-04-01

e "A n 1SS L
that the prohibition question, SO much
agitated by the Republicans and Demo-
Gratis, will take a secondary place in the
1882 campaign; that the Democratic con-
vention would advocate that prohibition
be RENTED to the states on the theory
that no repeal of the Eighteenth Amend
ment is possible. So we find the Demo-
Gratis in Illinois passing the buck on pro-
hibition to the federal government and
the leader of their party at Washington is
passing it back to Illinois, which indicates
to any clear thinking citizen that there is
nothing sincere or honest in their propo-
sition: is the issue used by them simply
as political football.
Mandate? Nonsense The total vote for
United States senator in the November,
1880, election was 2,237, 104. The wet vote
on the referendum was 100000, being
53548 less than a majority. The total dry
vote was 500, 100, those not voting totaled
636036. So you see they got $4,000 less
than a majority of the vote cast. 1t is
safe to say that not more than 25 per cent
of the people of the state of Illinois voted
WET and still we hear about this huge
majority and great mandate of the people.
CITES LINCOLNS LOYALTY TO THE
CONSTITUTION
In 1856 when the question of the extern
sion of slavery was attracting as much at
tention as prohibition is attracting today
and Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A.
Douglas were debating the proposition did
Mr.. Lincoln say that we should submit
the proposition to vote of the people;
that we should submit slavery to a refer
endum, and that he would be bound by it?
No. that wasn't what Abraham Lincoln
said. What he did say was this: Slavery
shall never be extended" And he stood
by that proposition even when he had to
stand alone; and while he was defeated
by judge Douglas for United States sena-
tor, he was elected president Of the
United States four years later because he
stood fcur-square by the provisions Of the
constitution Of the United States.
[ tell you members of this senate, you
have gone at this matter in the wrong
way AS long as the Eighteenth Amend
ment is a part of the constitution any
change must begin at the top: First,
amendment of the constitution, then the
federal law, then the state law. That is
the way prohibition came into existence
and that is the way it should and must be
changed. II the state government had
worked hand in hand with the federal
government, as was originally intended,
we would not be confronted with this
problem today.
It was very splendid suggestion which
was made by Senator Roberts when he
asked in discussing Senator Searcys
amendment the other day whether or not
the counterfeiting laws were also to be re-
pealed in Illinois and the entire problem
left to the federal government. Let me
ask the question: Is there any more rea-
son why the Illinois prohibition act should
be repealed and the entire burden of en-
forcement placed upon the government of
the United States, than that the law which
prohibits the sale of opium in Illinois
should be repealed, and the entire burden
of enforcement placed onto the federal
government? Or the law which provides
against counterfeiting? Or the law which
provides against the issuing of currency?
Moreover, the Eighteenth Amendment
provides that there shall be concurrent
federal and state enforcement of prohibi-
ton, but there is no provision that there
shall be concurrent power in the enforce
ment of the law prohibiting opium, mar
cotics, or other like offenSes.
Let me direct my remarks now to the
Republican members of this body and re-
mind you of the fact that the Republican,
party came into existence in order to pre-
serve the constitution of the United
States The Republican party in all its
existence has stood against notification,
and shall it now be said that this Repub-