Evening star., 1933-09-11
The Political Mill
Postmaster General James A. Farley,
ne administration torch bearer In the
By G. Could Lincoln,

Postmaster General James A. Farley,
the administrations torch bearer In the
campaign for the repeal of the eight
eenth amendment, has travelled many
thousands Of miles and delivered speech
after speech urging repeal of national
prohibition in practically every part Of
the country. Mr.. Farley's latest address
dealing with repeal was delivered today
In Baltimore at meeting of the Young
Peoples Democratic League Of the
State Of Maryland. The Postmaster
General, who also is chairman of the
Democratic National Committee, gra-
ciously gave credit to the Republican
vets who have been supporting repeal,
calling attention to the fact that the
Republicans and the Democrats have
joined In Maryland, as elsewhere, to
put an end to the eighteenth amend
ment. But 1t seems quite clear that
after the prohibition amendment shall
have been repealed and laid to rest,
Mr. Farley and the Democratic party
are going to lay claim to the credit for
having given the coupe de grace to the
eighteenth amendment-which, by the
way, was written by a Texas Demo-
crat, Senator Morris Sheppard.
And, indeed, there will be consid-
cradle justice to the claim made by
the Democrats. The G. o. p, as a
party, chung to the skirts Of national
prohibition for many years. Individual
Republicans, it Is true, fought national
prohibition from the drop of the hat.
But they were In the minority. For
the most part, the effort of the
G. o. p. was to travel along with
strong leanings toward prohibition. The
Democrats for Q number Of years
were as much afraid to tackle the drys
as we're the Republicans. Not until
1928 did the Democrats nominate for
President candidate who proclaimed
openly that he was q foe Of national
prohibition and he would do all in
his power to bring about the repeal of
the eighteenth amendment-Alfred e.
Smith Of New York What happened
to Mr.. Smith is ancient history. So
badly was he beaten that there were
loud cries from many of the Southern
Democrats that the Smith influence be
eliminated from the party control
John ]. Raskob, millionaire wet. con-
tinued. however. to serve as chairman
Of the Democratic National Commit
tee. And Mr.. Raskob did his best-a
very considerable best-to line the
party up definitely with the cause Of
bles. Indeed. when it was proposed at
meeting Of the Democratic National
Committee held here couple of years
ago to have a kind of preliminary
Democratic party platform. opposing
prohibition, drafted for submission to
the 1882 national convention, the
Democratic leaders who still remained
true to the dry cause nearly had apo
plexy and the meeting almost broke
up in q row.
Senator Joe Robinson Of Arkansas,
Democratic leader of the Upper House,
and Secretary Cordell Hull Of the
State Department, then Senator from
Tennessee, excoriated the suggestion
and declared that any party which
nailed the banner Of booze to its flag
staff would be wiped of the map by
the voters Of America. That, mind you,
was little more than two years ago.
Just how the Democratic party mulled
its way into taking definite stand for
prohibition repeal Is an interesting
story. But back Of it all was the in
E. Smith, John j. Raskob and the pres
ent president Of the National Associa-
ton Against the Prohibition Amend
ment, Jouett Shouse. President Roose-
welt, a New Yorker, early declared him.
self opposed to national prohibition.
Undoubtedly the vets were aided
enormously in their fight for repeal by
the economic depression that gripped
the country. The drys for years had
been boasting that prohibition had
given America its great and vaunted
prosperity. When American prosperity
went the way of all things mortal in
1929 the drys were on the defensive
there. Then there arose the ever-in-
creasing demand for increased revenues
to meet the Governments bills and for
new sources of revenue. Here was an
argument for the vets readymade.
why not have the Government reap
some Of the huge profits from liquor
trafic which the American people were
denly repeal Of prohibition took on an
economic turn. Recrudescence Of the
liquor traffic and manufacture held out
q promise Of consumption Of American
grain legitimately and Of thousands Of
jobs for the unemployed Then there
was the argument that prohibition en-
forcement was costing the Govern
ment-and the taxpayer-nearly bill
lion dollars q year and the people were
not getting any too much prohibition,
after all.
The Democrats, it now seems clear
who demanded that the party adopt
the wet cause were justified politically.
As State after State has registered
this Summer its support Of prohibition
repeal, through the votes of the people
themselves nothing was ever more evil
dent. And yet 1t was only 18 months
ago when Democrats were arguing
among themselves the advisability Of
adopting wet plank and Of nominat
ing Q vet candidate for President.
Today the voters in Maine are going
to the polls to elect delegates to State
constitutional convention which will
pass upon the proposed twenty-first
amendment to the Constitution, repeal
ing the eighteenth amendment. Maine
has been dry for rs years Yet the
for repeal. It seems almost unthinkable
that such should be the case. But
there it is. Even In Kansas, the home
of Carrie Nation Of hatchet memory,
the sunflower, the tornado and other
celebrities, 1t Is more than doubtful
that the drys could hold the lines
against repeal If the people were given
a vote.
The Democrats have made another
pledge in regard to prohibition They
have insisted. In season and out, that
they are opposed to the return of the
old saloon. They declined, however,
to write the ban of the saloon into
the repeal amendment when the time
came to put it through Congress. They
wrote instead q proposed amendment
calling for naked" repeal. Undoubted-