Arizona sun., 1950-04-21
The LANCER And Similar Bills
Aimed At Prohibiting Beverage
Advertising Are Unconstitutional

In the words of one of the dry
leaders of this country "it is a
prohibition bill, pure and simple" 4"
This is the statement of DR.. Clin-
ton N. Howard, general superin-
tendent, international Reform Fed
Grafton, Inc. DR.. Howard had ex-
pected to testify in favor of S. 265
but at the time of the hearings was
afflicted with a severe cold that
affected his voice to such an ex-
tent that he could not speak and
Bishop Hammaker requested the
chairman of the committee to per-
NIT him to file DR.. Howard's state
ment for the record. This is what
DR.. Howard thought Of Senator
Capper's bill, S. 265 and, of course,
his remarks are equally applicable
to the identical bill, S. 1847:
81 wish to congratulate Senator
Capper on it's clarity and it's brew
lity. Lake the Lords Prayer, it
goes straight to the mark, and no
time need be lost in definitives,
derivatives, or definitions. It re-
quires only one reading to learn
that it is a prohibition bill, pure
and simple. It states what it wants,
how to obtain it, and provides
stringent penalties to insure its en-
forcement.
Quoting its first paragraph, it
reads: "A bill to prohibit the trans
portation in interstate commerce
of advertisements of alcoholic bev-
erages, and other purposes the
other purposes being their broad
casting over the radio. They cor
relate, and each are essential to
the success of the other. It is pro-
hibition plus prohibition, plus pro-
hibition."
DR.. Howard's statement and its
introduction into the record by
Bishop Hammaker should be suffi-
cient to cause this committee to
give no consideration whatsoever
to this bill, as it is a matter of COM
mon knowledge that since the adop-
ton Of the 21st Amendment, Con-
gress has no jurisdiction to enact
prohibition legislation.
| According to our attorney, be-
fore the adoption of the early fed
eral statutes which attempted to
aid the dry states in enforcing their
liquor laws and before adoption of
the 18th Amendment, Congress
could not make it federal offense
to ship liquor into those states un-
til the original package had crossed
the state line, had been delivered
to the consignee, and the original
package had been broken.
However, with passage of the
Webb-Kenyon Act, Congress took
away the interstate character OF
such shipments so that the state
laws would apply Immediately that
the shipment crossed the state
border" The 21st Amendment
preserved this jurisdiction to the
states and S. 1847 is an attempt to
violate the spirit and intention OF
the Congress and the American
people in the adoption of the 21st
Amendment.
However, even assuming that
Congress had authority to enact
prohibition legislation, we submit
that the people of the United
States do not want any such legis-
lation and the trend of prohibition
sentiment in this country since the
repeal of the 18th Amendment is
proof of this fact. Witness, fo1
example, the defeats suffered by
the drys in November 1948 in Col
orado, California, Washington and
Kansas in their efforts to write
into or retain prohibition provi-
sions in the constitutions of these
states. Witness also the recent
vote in Oklahoma where $40 OF
the voters voted to retain the pres