Evening star., 1932-06-18
HELD
CHIEF DRY ISSUE
Concrete and Detailed Pro-
p0SaI From Democrats
Declared Inevitable.
BY MARK SULLIVAN.
Special Dispatch to The Star.


CHICAGO, June l8.-If there was
expectation that passage Of a little
time would take attention away from
prohibition to other issues, that expec-
tation is not so far fulfilled Prohi-
bition remains the outstanding con-
cern. not necessarily subject of con-
troversy but as firm determination
to get something done about 1t. See
ing some of the wet leaders in action,
hearing the wet booing of so fine
man as James R. Garfield at the Re-
publican convention, one can conclude
that many of them are as fanatic as
some of the dry crusaders were 10 years
ago about getting national prohibition.
1t is near enough to truth TO say that
the woman of wealth and gllded social
position who led much of the wet drive
here is sister under her skin to Kansas
Carrie Nation with her hatchet. But
it is true also that you can find the
same spirit in>an utterly conservative
business man who has lost three-fourths
of his fortune, who has the greatest
possible stake in economic planks OF
the Republican platform, who is a
leader in philanthrophy and who never
took a drink and never expects to take
one. Such man holds. with hot
emotion combined with cold intelll-
gence, that escape from present con-
ditions about prohibition is more i'm
portant than anything that needs to
be done about depression.
He is able to convince any open
minded listener. among other objec-
tionS to the present status of prohlbl-
ton. that the dangerous state of city
governments, and a perceptible degree
of disintegration Of organized society.
rests measurably upon the immense
profit in the illicit supplying OF liquor.
Endorsement vs.. Repeal.
1t has come to the point where the
rural dry must understand the better
type of city wet. He must understand
this view, and whether he likes it or not
he must accept it. If that vote in the
Republican convention had been be-
tween straight Endorsement of the eight
eenth amendment and straight repeal of
it, and If the delegates had voted the
convictions of themselves and the senti-
ment of their communities, the strength
of repeal would have been upward Of
800 out of LISA delegates.
Much of the campaign now beginning
and much of the next development in
prohibition depends upon the judgment
the country comes to about the plank
adopted by the Republican convention.
Because of the controversy that ragged
about it. there is talk of the Democrats
just taking the defeated minority plank
of wet Republican Senator Bingham of
Connecticut and using that as verbatim
for their own Democratic plank. The
ic
would be able to use the speeches Of
the extreme Republican vets word for
word as arguments for Democratic sue
cess. Those, however, who get the true
feel" of sentiment about prohibition
know it is no time for either party or
any politician to attempt clever tricks
for partisan advantage.
Straight Repeal Definite.
1t is possible. of course, that the
Democrats, in their own way and as
straight repeal The advantage claimed
for straight repeal is that it is definite
The repeal plank that was defeated by
the Republicans was really only SO per
cent definite 1t was definite about the
first and immediate step, which was to
be unqualified repeal. AS to the thing
to be substituted for the present status
of prohibition, the wet plank that lest
in the Republican convention was
utterly indefinite. It merely pledged
"our best efforts" toward such
measures as would accomplish objec-
tives which were stated as general
izations.
The best argument made against that
straight repeal plank was made by
Secretary of the Treasury Ogden Mills,
who said it would merely place us right
back where We were at time in 1919
or thereabouts when an overwhelming
majority of the States felt that some
thing must be done about prohibition.
The swing to adoption that took place
in 1920 would be followed by an exact
ly equal swing back to what than was
It seems inevitable that the Democrats,
in taking their stand on prohibition,
must state concretely and in detail the
thing they propose to substitute for
what now is.