Evening star., 1932-01-26
CLASH ON DRY LAWS REPEAL
Wets Fail to Outline
Concrete Program,
HOtUeU AUers
in Reply.

The text of Senator Howells address
In the National Radio Forum last night
follows:
Discussions Of the prohibition oues-
| ton are futile in the absence Of some
definite proposal. Some favor wine
and beer only, others Government sale
and still others the repeal OF the
eighteenth amendment.
| The proposal selected for discussion
/ this evening is found in Congressman
Beck's resolution pending in the House
and which wet leaders will seek g vote
upon in the present Congress. How
ever, it provides for no definite form
of liquor legislation. but merely that
Congress shall submit constitutional
amendment and trust to luck for the
! legislative solution.
] Mr.. Beck's resolution would amend
| the Constitution by conferring upon
! Congress power to either prohibit On
! regulate the manufacture and sale OF
! intoxicating liquors except, that If q
! State should enact liquor laws Of Its
| own, such State may be as sopping wet
as it pleaseS. Saloons or no saloons,
Congress in such circumstances Is to
| be powerlesS. In short, the authority
: Of Congress so far as liquors are con-
/ cerned would extend only to the terri
! tories. the District of Columbia and t.
/ the States without liquor laws.
Neither could Congress authorize or
| permit the shipment of liquor into any
! State in violation of State law.
| Nor is ratification to be by State
Legislatures, as in the past. but by
! conventions called in the States. Such
| Is this proposed amendment.
| Article S of the Constitution declares:
The Congress. whenever two-thirds
| OF both Houses shall deem is necessary,
shall propose amendments to this Con-
/ Stitution."
Sees Lack of Support.
The amending process was not in
tended by the founders OF the Govern
ment as a means by which the repre-
sentatives CT the people should evade
responsibility. TWo-thirds of Congress
must deem the amendment necessary.
Congress is also responsible for the
form Of the change in the Constitu-
tiOn submitted for ratification.
There is no evidence that tWo-thirdS
Of Congress deems an amendment to
the eighteenth amendment necessary
/ That amndment was submitted by two
thirds vote of the Sixty-fifth Congress,
and was ratified by the Legislatures Of
46 of the 48 States. The action of the
Legislature Of my State, Nebraska,
completed the necessary three e-fourths
Of the States to make the eighteenth
amendment effective. A Congress has
| been elected on seven different occa-
Sions since and at no time has there
been evidence of material change in
sentiment favoring legalization of the
! liquor traffic.
nfA In 10, a4 tofA tlra
Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Illinois,
have shown a smaller wet vote or less
! wet majority than similar earlier
votes taken since national prohibition
! Only of the As States have no State
codes to enforce prohibition, and in
some of these there are local prohibi-
ton acts in many countries and towns
Only last Thursday the Bingham
resolution seeking to place the Senate
on record as welcoming a referendum
in the States upon the question of the
repeal or modification of the eighteenth
amendment and its supporting legisla.
ton received but Is votes.
| Mr.. Beck's resolution is not q pro-
pesal for a referendum upon the
eighteenth amendment, but for the re-
peal of the amendment. Basically
therefore, the question is, do we favor
or oppose legalized liquor traffic?
The proposal that the amendment be
submitted for ratification to conven-
| tions to be called In the States is an
innovation, SO far as precedent is con-
| cerned, and does not make it a referen-
dunn. The Constitution makes no pro-
vision for referendum.
Wants Definite Plan.
The objection to the proposal, how
ever, is not so much to the method by
which it is proposed that it be ratified
but rather to the effects of the change
in the Constitution 1t proposes. Some
OF these are:
l. The constitutional amendment
suggested provides for no definite plan
either State or national, for dealing
With the liquor question. If adopted
we would not know what system OF
liquor legislation Congress would enact
nor what any State would adopt. Be-
fore we are asked to vote upon a change
in the Constitution the opponents OF
prohibition should unite upon some
definite program of liquor legislation
that VIII inform the people how they
propose to legislate to deal with the
social evils flowing from the use OF
alcoholc beverages. Until we know We
cannot vote intelligently.
| z. The amendment would provide fol-
the Iegalized sale Of Intoxicating LIQUOR
The only reason for urging it Is to per.
NIT those States desiring it to provide
Tor such sale. That would inevitably
mean the return of the saloon or its
equivalent in number of States. AL
though the opponents of prohibition de-
clare that they are opposed to the re-
turn OF the saloon, this amendment
contains absolutely no provisions what
ever to insure against it. This proposal
seeks to legaliZe the thing that made
the saloon what 1t was, the liquor that
debauched our citizenship, corrupted
politics and caused the other sociol
evils that gave rise to the demand for
the eighteenth amendment.
3. Liquor legislation would be subject
to constant huctuation. One Congress
might provide for Government regula.
ton; the next, prohibition, and the
next, Government sale. The same
would be true of the Legislatures OF
the States Even brewers and distill-
ers would be at sea.
4. 1t would insure that the liquor
question would be permanently In poll
tics, not simply In few States and
congressional districts, as at present
but in each of the 435 congressional.
districts and In every district in which
members Of the State legislatures are