The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1932-10-03
(Official City, State and County
Newspaper
Foreign Representatives
SMALL, SPENCER. BREWER
Lrcorporated)
CHICAGO NEW YORK BOSTON



Regardless of how it votes on any
other issue, North Dakota is going to
get lot of publicity throughout the
nation as the result of the decision to
be made in November on the prohibi-
ton clause in the state constitution.
What North Dakota does with its
four votes in the national electoral
college is likely to prove insignificant
in the presidential picture. Never
since North Dakota has been a state
would a shift in it's electoral vote
have changed the decision on the
presidency. Although this state has
usually been on the winning side in
national contests, its small block Of
votes has been overShadowed by re-
turns from more populous districts.
With regard to the prohibition issue,
however, the situation changes, for
North Dakota is far more important
there than it's relative voting strength
justifies.
In the first place it is the most COM
rletely agricultural state in the union.
kll states have mining, manufactur-
ing, logging or other industries to boil
stler the income received from tilling
the soil but this state has them in
smaller measure than any other The
~ohibition decision in North Dakota
III. therefore. give the nation the
best possible evidence of what the
farmers on the farms are thinking
about this troublesome issue.
Another factor is the standing of
North Dakota among the bone-dry
states. Whatever may be said about
bootlegging within our borders under
existing conditions. the fact remains
that North Dakota Is the only state
i'm the union which has never been
anything but legally dry. 1t came
into the union as dry state in 1889.
J In addition to this unique distinc-
tttion, it is the third state in the union
sin, dry chronology. Kansas went dry
nh 1880 to show the way for what was
ito become first a great uplift move
oment and then one of the bitterest
political issues which the nation as a
whole has known.
s. Maine followed in 1884 and then
rrcame North Dakota in 1889. It was
pig years before another state joined
this list, Oklahoma falling into line
In 1907. West Virginia went dry in
!. 1912 and constitutional converts be-
tiyan hitting the sawdust trail in guam
pr.eJJ/ in 1914, when Arizona and Colo
>>Ssado followed suit.
&c BY 1919 the total number Of states
'aIIwith prohibition clauses in their state
was 10. That is the fig
IRE today.
= Meanwhile prohibition was being
established in other states by a diff
ferent route, that of statutory enact
nent. The effect was the same
Georgia went dry by this means in
1908, North Carolina, Tennessee and
!oMississippi in 1909. Alabama went dry
= n 1915 while Arkansas. Iowa, South
.-Norn1;po u;rr{,,;o onJ yIyocl,;,, ~ ~,
'efell into line in 1916 as the dry wave
'o,wept the nation. For each Of these
Estates the effective date Of the statute
as given. In most cases they allowed
u,ix to ten months between the adop-
a,ion of the law and the effective date,
30, that the time when the decision
evas made usually Is the year before
That listed.
- BY November, 1922, Is states had
o.,nacted prohibitory measures. Massa-
Hchusetts and Nevada joined the pro-
.iiession in 1923, leaving Maryland
l'alone among the states in her resist
aatnce to prohibition. In Nevada. how
J. ever, the supreme court held the
; ;tatute unconstitutional because Of a
is,efeative title.
attls year 1923. therefore, represent
aw s peak peak of prohibition in the
n That same year, however, saw the
first detection from 1t, New York
Heading with repeal Of the Mullan-
nIage enforcement law. Montana re-
,ealed prohibition by initiation in
o26, Wisconsin In 1929 and Massa-
:husetts eliminated its Baby Vol
jtead Act" by referendum in 1880.
i AS 1t stands, therefore, AZ OF the AZ
states either have prohibition clauses
IN their constitution or prohibitory
avs.
"a Eaa ring fhAsA facts in mind IL Is