Evening star., 1932-01-22
An Unimpressive Showing.

The showing made by the vets OF
the Senate in a vote on Senator Bing.
| hams resolution to recommend to
Governors of the States referenda with
in the States on national prohibition
was not impressive. The vote stood SIS
to IS against the proposal. with 25 not
voting and one vacancy due to the fact
! that Senator-elect Huey Long Of
Louisiana has not yet put in an ap-
pearance in the Senate. Perhaps half
dozen "wetS" are included in the
list of Senators who did not vote On
the resolution because Of their absence
! from the chamber.
The Bingham resolution was novel
proposal. The Senator from Connect
cut explained that under the Consti-
tuition of the United States there is no
possible way of holding a national
referendum, ordered by Congress, in the
popular meaning Of the term "referen-
dunn" He ingeniously proposed, there
fore, that each individual State hold
quest--not order-of the Senate. Dur
ing the debate some of the opponents
Of the proposal referred to it as ridic-
ulous. But there was really nothing
ridiculous about it. Ineffective so far
as changing the law or binding in any
way the national legislators, it is true,
but scarcely ridiculous if it is desired
to test out the sentiment OF the peo-
pie on this question. There seems to be
desire for no such test on the part
of great many people. So Mr.. Bing-
hams resolution was voted down, and
some of the Senators, not particularly
desirious of taking a stand, wet or dry,
in view of the coming elections, took
the easy way, declaring that such
resolution was ridiculous"
But irrespective of those desiring to
avoid a direct issue on the prohibition
question, it was obvious that the drys
in the Senate are overwhelmingly in
the ascendency in the present Congress.
1t was also clear that the prohibition
issue cuts across the two major politi-
cal parties to an almost equal extent
OF the IS Senators supporting the
Bingham amendment, 8 were Republi-
cans and 7 Democrats. The opposition
to the resolution also was evenly
divided between the Republicans and
the Democrats.
Senator Tydings of Maryland, Demo-
crat, created an awkward situation for
his dry Democratic colleagues, for
moment at least, when he tried to offer
as substitute for the Bingham pro-
posal his own resolution proposing con-
stitutional amendment exactly in line
with the home rule" amendment
which Chairman John j. Raskob of the
Democratic National Committee is
seeking so vigorously to have included
in the national Democratic platform.
Senator Robinson OF Arkansas, the
Democratic leader of the Senate and
recognized as a dry, stepped into the
breach, calling attention TO the fact
that the Bingham resolution was a
simple Senate resolution" while the
Tydings resolution was Joint resolu-
ton, proposing the submission to the
States of an amendment to the Con-
stitution. At the request of the Demo-
cratic leader, Senator Tydings' pro-
posal was not pressed.
Some of the States of the Union have
already held referenda on the prohi-
bition question, which have been efTec-
tive in some instances in changing
the attitude of members of the House
and Senate toward the prohibition
issue. The Bingham resolution which
came to vote yesterday in the Senate
was, after all, only one of a number of
moves which the "wets" have planned
to keep the prohibition question before
,, the public mind. But as long as the
drys are able TO make such Showings
in Congress as they did against the
Bingham resolution it does not appear
that they have a great deal to worry
about