The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1932-07-13
BY BRUCE CATION
NEA Service Writer

The amendment still was pending
the time was ripe for bringing it out
into the middle of the political
arena.
But neither Smith nor Whitman
once referred to it-nor did their re-
spective party platforms.
BY 1920, when the Democratic and
Republican national conventions
were held, the amendment not only
had been ratified, but had gone into
effect, although it may be worth
noting that the Democratic con-
vention in San Francisco has gone
down in history as one of the wet
test gatherings of its kind.
Perhaps the politicians thought
the issue had been closed. At any
rate, the subject was treated gin
gerly in the party platforms of that
year.
THE Republican platform of
l. 1920 said just this on prohibi-
ton:
With regard to the sale and
manufacture of Intoxicating bev-
erages, the Republican party will
stand for the enforcement of the
Constitution of the United States
as it shall be declared by the SUI
preme court"
The Democratic platform of 1920
failed to mention the subject at all,
although it did go out of its way to
congratulate the state legislatures
thirty-f1ve of them, at that moment
which had ratified the nineteenth
amendment, granting the vote to
women.
IN the campaign, Warren G.
4 Harding popularity was supposed
to be dry-he had voted for the
amendment--and James M. Cox
similarly was classed as a wet; but
it made little difference, the League
of Nations and general disSatisfac-
ton with the war we're the only is
sues, and prohibition played prac-
tically no part at all in the cam
paign.
AS far as congress was concerned,
1920 passed with prohibition get
ting very little attention.
Congress appropriated the money
it was asked for to enforce the
amendment-it took $4,575,O0O that
year-and voted down a very half
hearted attempt to repeal the Vol
stead act. That was all.
During succeeding years, congress
passed sundry laws to tighten up
enforcement-laws providing for de-
portation of alien bootleggers, laws
restricting the amount of medicinal
liquor a doctor could prescribe, and
so on-but in no case was the divi-
sion along party lines. The handful
of vets present came from both
parties.
TINE Republican platform in 1924
Il treated prohibition even more
lightly than that of 1920. The
amendment nowhere was referred to
by name.
Two brief paragraphs demanded
respect for law, asserted that viola
lions of the law threaten govern
ment itself" and pledged the party
to enforce the Constitution and all
laws.
In the Democratic party prohibit
ton tried valiantly to emerge as a
party issue, and what happened at
the Madison Square Garden con-
vention still is remembered.
The two chief candidates were Al
fred E. Smith, wet, and William G..
McAdoo, dry. After 103 ballots, the
convention found itself unable to
agree on either, and nominated
John w. Davis.
The Democratic platform that
year had this to say on prohibition:
The Republican administration
has failed to enforce the prohibition
law. is guilty of trafficking in liquor
permits and has become the pro-
tector OF the violators of this law.
The Democratic party pledges it
self to respect and enforce the Con-
stltution and all laws"
THROUGH the next four years.
Il congress continued to handle
prohibition matters on what
amounted to a nonpartisan basis.
BY the time the presidential cam
paign of 1928 came around, how
ever, there were definite signs that
the attitudes of the two parties
might soon crystalline into definite
announcements on the subject, with
a straight wet-and-dry lineup the
result.
In the Republican party, Presi-
dent Coolidge was not seeking re-
election and the field was open. In
the Democratic party, Governor
Smith had the nomination practi-
cally cinched long before the con-
vention opened at Houston.
These two facts made it seem that
prohibition, if it never had been a
political issue before, was about to
become one in big way.
The Republican convention. meet
ing first, nominated Herbert Hoover,
and adopted the lengthiest prohi-
bition plank yet seen.
1t affirmed the attitude of Wash
ington and Lincoln on respect for
the Constitution, and pledged the
party to vigorous enforcement" of
the eighteenth amendment.
An out-and-out wet plank offered
by Nicholas Murray Butler was
showed under on the. convention
floor.
THE Democrats, realizing that
Il nothing could save them from
nominating clear-clt wet, tried
to provide him with a dry
plank and adopted the following:
speaking for the national Dem
ocracy, this convention pledges the
party and its nominees to an honest