The times-news. [volume] (Hendersonville, N.C.) 1927-current, 1933-10-30
Wet OR DRY?
Written for the Henderson County Dry Forces
By ]. T. FAM
By J. T. FAM

tax dodgers who want to get out
from under income taxes and let
the masses of the country drink
themselves into poverty to raise
public revenue.
This statement is not idle talk.
1t is substantiated by ample evil
dence. In his speeches Judge
Webb quotes from letter writ.
ten by the Hon. Irenee DUPONT OF
Delaware, member of the AS
ISOLATION Against the Prohibition
Amendment. who put in writing
his opinion that legalization OF
the liquor traffic in this country
would save him and great corpo,-
rations in which he is interested
ten million dollars annually IN IN
come taxes.
So the fact is that men who
want to be reinstated in the brew
ing and distilling business in this
country started the fight on the
Amendment and the State prohi-
hilton laws; they have financed
and maintained the fight, and by
every trick and scheme and sub
terfuge that could be thought of
they have sought to break down
law enforcement as it related to
prohibition, sought to discredit
the Amendment and the laws;
they have encouraged in every
way possible the violation of these
laws; and have stirred such a hub
bub and hurrah against the laws
that they have at last succeeded
in getting around one-third of the
voters of the country sufficiently
aroused to go to the polls in 80
States and vote for repeal.
Our young editor and other
good people in North Carolina
have been caught in the vortex of
liquor propaganda and misrepre-
sentation. They have been mud
died and befuddled about the is
sue until they are willing to swal-
low anything circulated by the
brewers and distillers and their
supporters. They cannot see that
they are working for the liquor
interests.
But. we are to introduce a
"new and better" way to control
the liquor traffic, our young op~
timist tells US.
That idea is as old as the
worlds fight against the liquor
business. Civilization has been
looking for that way for thou
sands of years. In the United
States the first prohibition law
was enacted 2SS years ago. From
that time to the present this coun-
try has seen more or less suS-
tanned effort to avoid the conse-
quences and ravages of the liquor
business. The church has been
fighting it all these years; eminent
leaders in every walk of life have
acclaimed against it; every kind
of control that could be thought
of has been tried, including every
sort of regulation of legalized
manufacture and sale, dispense
ries and what not. Through the
years the liquor traffic grew big
ger and bigger. Even with a large
part Of the country dry under To-
cal option, liquor consumption
could not be decreased. People in
the wet territory simply drank
more and the thirsty in dry terri
tory were amply supplied from
wet territory.
Then came the national prohi-
bition Amendment and laws-and
the United States Prohibition En-
forcement Bureau has proclaimed
that the facts and figures show
that the consumption of alcoholic
beverages in this country declined
by two-thirds in less than en-
years.
There are many things uncer-
tain, but there is one certainty on
which any gambler may place his
money with confidence. and that
is that there is no "new and bet
ter" way to control the liquor
traffic.
The use of alcohol as a bever-
age is a perversion of the natural
and legitimate uses of a narcotic
poison. It's manufacture for bev-
erage purposes should be prohib-
tied. That is not a "new" way to
control the liquor traffic, but it
is the most effective way that this
or any other country will ever dis
cover to control the greatest eco
nomic, social and moral evil the
world has ever known.