The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1933-02-11
Foreign Representatives
SMALL. SPENCER, BREWER
Uncorporated)
CHICAGO NEW YORK BOSTON
The House Votes Wet

The House Votes Wet
That vote taken Thursday evening
in the North Dakota House of Repre-
sentatives may prove of historic sig
nificance. This state has been taken
for granted as dry so long that the
spectacle of the House voting wet can
not 60 unnoticed.
Never before, in the history OF this
State, have the prohibitionists lost a
major battle in any branch OF the
state legislature.
It may or may not have been a
mandate when the voters repudiated
the dry clause which has chung ten
aciously to the constitution since
statehood, despite many furious on
slaughts of the vets.
Prohibition, under the impetus of
the Eighteenth amendment, except in
a few quarters, is accepted as having
been q dismal failure. Commissions
and surveys have usually reached but
one conclusion, and that is that fed
eral enforcement has failed.
North Dakotans reached the same
conclusion when they voted, in a spir-
ii Of protest, to enroll this state among
those who would drive the liquor traf-
flc from Easements and blind pigs
into the open. It doubtless is a mis-
homer to call all those who are
against the Eighteenth amendment
vets. That is not the truth. Many
who oppose the Volstead act and feel
that the Eighteenth amendment Is
not the proper way to induce tenn
perance are far from approving the
liquor traffic. Millions who voted for
repeal do not desire the return Of
the saloon.
The next great battle win come In
the methods followed to legalize and
control the liquor traffic. This state
may return to the old plan Of local
option. It may decide, through leg
islative action, to remain dry. Just
because the dry clause Of the consti-
tuition was repealed, the legislature
has not lost the power to restrict, to
prohibit or to legalize the liquor traf-
fic. The legislature loses none OF its
authority to legislate, pro or con.
against the liquor traffic by any re-
peal Of q constitutional ban which
logically should never have been writ
ten into any constitution, state or
federal.
The House merely said In effect, we
will let the federal authorities pay
the expense Of farcical enforcement
and relieve the state OF spending thou
sands to aid and assist federal agents.
It Is rather surprising that no legis-
lator in the discussion during the
evening session referred to the ex-
pense this state Is put to every year
in . very feeble effort to enforce pro-
hibition.
Liquor traffic thrives in nearly ev.
cry North Dakota community. Since
the last presidential vote which en-
dorsed the party Of naked repeal. ef-
forts at enforcement seem to have
been relaxed. There is no real doubt
about that. The support Of public
opinion was never very strong behind
enforcement, state or federal. It is
less vigorous now.
II reports can be believed House
Bill 70 viii have q. hard ride in the
Senate. There are many who believe
that until federal prohibition Is re-
pealed there should be no let down
in state cooperation. That is the
main issue in dispute. There is the
other side Of the picture. too. Why
continue the waste OF public funds
in duplicating federal enforcement?
Even II the mass Of dry laws are
wiped Oft the statute books, safe
guards against public nuisances can
be written into the bill and place
North Dakota tn line to accept any
sane program which may b written
when once the Eighteenth amendment
3 repealed.