Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1932-06-13
|DRYS THEMSELVES
AIDED WET FIGHT
Supporters of 18th Amend
ment Rely on 13 States
to Maintain Laws.
BY MARK SULLIVAN.
Special Dispatch to The Star.

Special Dispatch to The Star.
CHICAGO, June 13.-The duidity
about prohibition at Chicago is such
as to make the question genuinely con-
troversial, though there Is no real I'M
| certainty about the outcome. The con-
vention in the end will declare for re-
submission. 1t will not declare for re-
peal. The quickly changing quality OF
the surface OF the scene Is due to the
fact that some drys and most of the
vets are in state of surprise at find
ing how far the movement toward re-
submission has crystallized. The vets
| particularly come here ready to fight
desperately for the moderate step, re-
submission. Quickly they learn the drys
have decided to accept resubmission,
indeed to propose 1t themselves. There
upon, by familiar law Of human ma
ture, the vets conclude that what they
wanted was the extreme wet position
repeal. Thereupon some drys fly into
q belligerent mood. and the vets go
back to their early position that resub-
mission Is enough.
| The fringe Of extremists, both wet
and dry, change their positions back
and forth within an hour Beneath it
all the permanent fact is that prac-
t1cally all the drys have decided to
have resubmission. and most OF the wet
delegates are satisfied. The extremists
on both sides are not to be found
among the delegates. but among the
leaders OF propaganda organizations on
both sides.
Started in 1880 Voting.
The present situation can best be un-
oerStood by following very briefly the
development Of the resubmission idea
among the drys. 1t began in Novem-
Der. 1880, Immediately after the con-
gressional election in that month. In
that election there were three State
referendums on prohibition-in Illinois,
Massachusetts, and Rhode Island Ali
went wet. Also there were conspicu-
GUS wet triumphs over drys in the
shape OF elections OF Senators j. Hamil-
ton Lewis OF Illinois and Marcus Cool
idge in Massachusetts,.
There were many other demonstra-
tons OF public favor for vets and es-
pecially was there public demand for
| referendumS. In consequence of this
expression Of sentiment, many drys, es-
pecially among those in Congress, de-
| cided it would be wise for the drys not
only to accept the idea Of resubmis-
| sion. but to take the lead in initial
| ing it.
During Decmeber, 1890, and Janu-
AIRY, 1881, there were eight or ten pro-
longed conferences in Washington and
New York. Indeed those were months
of practically continuous informal con-
ferenceS of dry leaders, both Repub-
lican and Democratic, in shifting groups
to consider what should be done about
the obviously low state of prohibition.
At one time or another, men partici-
pating included Republican Represent
alive Franklin Fort Of New Jersey.
Democrat William G.. McAdoo and COL
Patrick H. Callahan Of Louisville.
Sought Business Men.
A rough line Of cleavage developed
with lay dry leaders on one side and on
| the other side CLERICAL dry leaders as
well as the working heads of the Anti
ing broadly, wished to do two things.
One was to have the aggressive in In
viting or initiating resubmission. The
other was to have larger participation
Of laymen. especially business men, in
the conspicuous working leadership of
prohibition. It was felt that the
prominence Of clergymen in the move
ment was causing some detriment both
to prohibition and to the churches. As
it was put by dry Democrat George F.
Milton Of Chattanooga, Tenn: the
leadership Of prohibition must be de-
ecclesiasticised."
Several of the clerical leaders agreed
in this. Most of these, however. chung
to the stand-pat position of relying on
the power Of Is States to keep prohibit
ton in the Constitution.
The lay leaders, especially those in
political life, warned that this would
be suicidal. In the end the conferences
ended inconclusively and with some ir-
ritation. The lay leaders went off to
act in little groups or as individuals.
Some went to work Systematically, con-
sulting with drys all over the country.
The tenor of their movement was that
the drys must not be in the position
of denying the right of the public to
pass on prohibition or any other ques-
ton. Dry Republican Representative
Fort Of New Jersey, who was, politically
speaking. martyr in the dry cause,
specifically advocated that the drys
should themselves propose a Nation
wide referendum to be held in the first
year free of political elections, which
would be 1888. In the end, it came to
be seen that if there must be Nation
wide referendum at all it had best take
the form Of resubmission in the method
prescribed by the Constitution.
Few Holding Out.
It is as a result Of this activity that
the dry Republicans arrived at the pro-
posal for having the Republican Ma
tional Convention indorse resubmission.
Most of the dry Democrats came to an
equivalent conclusion typified by Will
liam McAdoo's recent announcement in
favor of referendum.
Quite a number Of clerical drys
worked with the lay dry leaders in
bringing about the present status. Two
of the leading evangelistic drys in the
country have spent most Of their time
for year in working up the present
conclusion. The conversion of Y. M.
C. A. leader John r. Mott came through
dry clergymen. Some other conversions
will be announced this week. The
group that has so far stood out against
resubmission consists chiefly Of the
working officials of the Anti-Saloon
League. Some of these have lately de-
cided not to oppose resubmission,
though few still hold out.
Endorsement of resubmission by the
Republicans this week followed as 1t
will be by even stronger action by the
Democrats means that the next Con-
greSs will vote by the necessary two
thirds majority to submit prohibition to
the States. Thereafter each State will
act separately. The vets, in order to
achieve repeal, must carry three-fourths
Of the States or SO. The drys can keep
prohibition in the Constitution by hold
ing one more than the one-fourth of
the States, or 10.
(Copyright, 1927