Newspaper Page Text
The American Issue
Illinois Edition Published Every Other Friday by the American Issue Publishing Co., for THE ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE OF ILLINOIS 1200 Security Building, Chicago ERNEST H. CHEKRINGTON. Editor O. G. CHR1STGAU. Illinois Editor PUBLICATION OFFICE, WESTERVILLE, OHIO Illinois Office. 1200 Security Building. Chicago PRICK. $1.00 PKK YEAR Make subscription** payable to the Anti Saloon League **f Illinois, 1200 Security Bldg., Chicago, Ibinc **. Entered as second class .natter at the postoffice at Westerville, Ohio, under the Act of March 2, 1879. Notice to Postmasters All l-.irni tt* *t *« e» to; ..hang' a’lies- o’ di •> "I'ta.i.r « and ad undelix erablr paprt- pertaining to the Itlinoi* Edit ion of Tin Atnn <n Issue should be addressed to the Illinois Edito*. 1200 Security Building, Chicago, lll ttois. AN il -SALOON LEAGUE *-/r ILLINOIS Headquarters, 1200 Security Building, Chicago STATE OFFICERS— President. W. W. Bennett, Rockford: Via President. Will B. Otvell, Uartinvillr; John I*. Lennon, Bloomington; Alfred 1 I app*. .1 ■< k - nvil t• ii - (.aleenei, Uairollton; Secretary, John K. Golden, Decatur; I rcasuitr, I hoina. ... Lolger, t hictgo. HEADQUARTERS COMMITTEE- Charles IL Coleman. Chairman, Chicago; M. P. Boynton, Secretary, Chicago; John K. Golden, Decatur; Jud**on D. M«-txgei. Moline: bin H llauberg, Rock Gland; \ J. Siiogin, Lexington; George II Wilson, Quincy; Bishop Thomas Nicholson, Chicago; I'hos. J. Bolgcr. Chicago; \N . \V Ucnnctt. STATE SUPERINTENDENT F. Scott * life Bride, Chicago. ASSISTANT TO IIII STATE SUPERINTENDENT Alice Odell DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS Northern. Grmge Me■CIinni>. <hicag»; Chicago. L J. Da\'S, Chicago; Eastern. N K. Join -on. Spungheld; Western, G. \\ Janie,*., Galesburg; Central, George II. Yule. Springfield, Alton-E.vt St. Louis, James 11. Datiskin, Springfield; Southern. Leo Howard, Mt. Vernon. DI P\R 1MF.N I SCPLR1N l h\DI N G • Headquarter. Chicago) _l.ite.atur*- .m*l Pub licity, i). 11. Chnstgau ; Legal and Law- I i furccinent, Jos. II. t oilier; Womans Department, M s. M. Mathc.v ANTI SALOON LEAGUE OF AMERICA NATIONAL OFFICERS President. Bishop Luther B. Wifaon. 150 Fifth Ave.. Ncxv ' York City; Crucial Superintendent, P A Baker. D.D., Westerville, Ohio, \--niatc <«encial Superintendent, Howard 11. Russell, D.D., Westerville, Ohio; Treasurer, Foster Copeland, Esq., Columbus, Ohio, __ The County Representation Plan I Ih' editorial on eount\ representation reprinted in this number i from the Moline Daily Dispatch should be carefully studied by every reader of the Issue. Good government in Illinois in future years depends largely upon the principle of representation adopted in the new Constitution. Every voter should be familiar with the reasons, for limiting Chicago in both Houses of the Legislature. I hese rea sons are clearly and comprehensively given in the editorial men-; tinned above. Whom Do i hey Think They Are Spiting? Many drinkers think they are beating the game somehow when; they till themselves with alcoholic poison. ! hey seem to think that they are spiting the Anti-Saloon League or putting something over oil the drys when they succeed in securing outlawed beverages ‘ Such persons are only fooling and hurting themselves. The losers in the liquor game are the drinkers. Prohibition is the law of the land primarily because science and experience have demonstrated conclusively that alcohol is dangerous and injurious to the human svstem. Drinkers may escape tlu penalty provided under the con stitutional law of their government but they can not escape the penalty exacted by nature from those who violate her laws. The Chicago Post on False Rumors The Chicago livening Post Tunis fault with the editorial in the last number of the Issue in which readers were warned against false rumors to the effect that certain classes of violators or violations will he overlooked bv the authorities. I lie Post claims that its re port relative to locker clubs was based on statements by the district attornev. Hut the point involved in the discussion is simply this: Prohibition is the law. and any rumors to the effect that the law will not lie enforced are groundless. There max he temporary or local immunity hut no official lias it within his power to declare that the law need not he obeyed in anx place or by any person. Tracing such rumors to some official or some department does not make them any the less false. Duty of Local Officials There is widespread impression that it is the duty ut federal officials onlv to enforce Prohibition. This is not true. The laws of Illinois provide that "All officers of any city or \il lage, whether e1 voted or appointed, shall, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation : “'1 do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be),'that 1 will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitu tion of the state of Illinois, and that 1 will laithfully discharge the duties of the office of.according to the best of my ability. Chap. 24. Sec. 75. Hurd’s K. S.. CU'C Section 42 of the Illinois Prohibition Act reads as Pillows: “It shall be the duty of all municipal, county, and state officials to co-operate in the enforcement of this act. "If am sheriff, deputy sheriff, chief of police, marshal, police man. constable or other peace officer shall have knowledge, informa tion or suspicion of am violation of any provision of this act, he shall diligentlv investigate and secure evidence of the same and shall, before the proper officer, make and sign complaint against the offending person, anything in the ordinance or by-laws of any mu nicipality to the contrary notwithstanding." New York Proves Prohibition Popularity As pointed out in a news article on Page 1, the central theme of wet propaganda at the present time is the assertion that Pro hibition is not popular in the United States. Much af this wet propaganda emanates from New 't ork (. ity. New N urk is trying to prove to the rest of the country that people in the rest of the country don’t like the dry law. Therefore it is rather embarras sing when New York can not even convict Prohibition of public un popularity within her own borders. On the Fourth of July the long and loudly advertised personal liberty parade turned out to be a supreme lizzie. In the recent New York ( ity Republican primaries for tnavor Judge R. I.. Haskell ran on a wet platform cleverly de signed to appeal to all kinds of wets, mild as well as fanatic. Ac cording to the New York Evening Fust Haskell "received only one vote in every six cast in the primaries, and two-thirds of his votes came from Brooklyn and represented local pride and not wet senti ment.” The most recent event indicating that Prohibition is popular even in New York was the action of the state Democratic conven tion in New York City on September 2(>. The drys, according to a press dispatch, exhibited such strength that the wet element did not dare to face a test vote on the proposal to include a plank in the platform demanding modification of the \ olstead Act. The big trouble with wet claims relative to the unpopularity of HANKERING TO GET IN Lean years have reduced the girth of this animal hut not his appetite. He is ready to fatten at the expense of society. the Kightcenth Amendment and it' enforcement is that thev are not justified hv the results whenever a real test is made. The Chicago Police Force I lie most disturbing thing about the criticism of Prohibition by Cliict Fitztnorris of Chicago is the wide publicity it has been given. It is reported that the international anti-Prohibition organization recently organized in Switzerland was greatly elated over the report of the chief's statement. Newspapers all over this country published the duel's remarks as news and editors all over the country are com menting on what the chief said. A great many people here and abroad, some with joy and some with sorrow, will conclude on the strength of the chief’s statement that Prohibition in Chicago is a failure and that it can not he enforced. Such conclusions are not justified by the actual facts, hi common with practically all cur rent critics of Prohibition the Chicago police chief failed to give specific data as a basis for his assertions. The annual report of the police department just published gives the following tabulation of arrests for disorderly conduct during the last four years: 1917, 55.942; 1918. 45.414; 1919, 55.6G8; 1920. 52,859. Commenting on the annual police report the Chicago Tribune on October 4 said, “Aided by Prohibition, the 5,152 policemen on the force in 1920 made fewer arrests than the 4,706 policemen did in 1618. In 1920 arrests numbered 94.455; in 1918, 110,819. The annual report also shows that murders were fewer, being 116, as against 154 the year before. Current reports made from time to time hv the police department indicate a decrease in most crimes although nearly everyhwere in the world crime has just about doubled. That Prohibition can not be enforced in Chicago is also an un warranted conclusion. Che Washington, 1). C., Herald, comment ing mi the Chicago situation says, "A 100 per cent loyal police force, from top down, can stop the illegal sale of liquor or gambling, or the social evil or can reduce them to such a minimum that they will be practically non-existent.” Col. John V. Clinnin, assistant district attorney, commenting on the chief’s statement declared that when the police make up their minds to suppress the liquor traffic it will he suppressed. It is also pointed out by State Superintendent McBride that if both state and local officials do their duty the law can be enforced. The trouble in Chicago is that neither the federal officials nor the police are doing as much as they should to stop the liquor traffic There is some merit in the chief's complaint that the federal officials are permitting Chicago to he flooded with illicit whisky. There is also justification for the criticism that the police are failing to use their enforcement powers under the state law. The solution of the Chicago problem is very simple. Let the federal officials give more effective service in the way of stopping the importation and pre venting the release of whisky, by withholding permits. Their broad jurisdiction and control of permits puts this within their power. Then let the police proceed against violators by securing injunctions against liquor selling places. The state law gives them ample power. The constant supervision the police exercise over their ter ritorv makes it easy for them to know w here the law is being vio lated. The federal government can and should prevent wholesale selling to dealers. The Chicago police can and should prevent the operation of places in which liquor is retailed to consumers. It federal and city officials will simply each do their part Prohibition will he enforced in Chicago. It i> stated tint the largest consignment of bonded whisky ever taken i:i the northwest was seized by federal Prohibition agents when they con fiscated eleven barrels of it in a furniture car at Minneapolis in the railroad yard- there, (if course this will be another evidence to the wets that Pro hibition does not prohibit. Hut before the days of Prohibition it would not have been difficult probably to have found eleven train loads of booze in any one of our big cities waiting to be unloaded. Notwithstanding the fact that tlie always illegal booze dispensers, illegal even when they dispensed booze under so-called license restrictions, are still willing to take chances, yet the amount of mp-or with which they are able to get by is infinitely small com pared with the old days of licensed saloons. The ratio is eleven barrels now compared to eleven train loads before—Sterling Gazette. HAVE WE FORGOTTEN? 1> there conviction in the old argument now taken up by the respectable evaders of Prohibition, that since Prohibition does not prohibit, we must sooner or later go back, at least to the extent of legalizing the sale of beer and wine? Self-respecting Americans who have been of the opinion that this modi fication is ultimately probable, or possible, will lose all enthusiasm for it upon a visit across the border to the neighboring province of Quebec? Liking a bottle of wine or beer with a good dinner themselves, and able to take it without going to an extreme even approaching intoxication, they have for gotten the effect of these same beverages upon those who are less continent. A few minutes’ walk in the streets of Montreal on a Saturday night brings it all back to the memory. Whisky and the other stronger liquors are as difficult to obtain in Quebec as in the United States; it'is only the so-called "light" wines and beer that is sold over the bars and in the hotels. Vet the pedestrian in Montreal is obliged to thread his way through a constant suc eessiiu’. of reeling men. It is no salve to his feelings or his national pride upon such an occasion to observe that many of the inebriates arc fellow countrymen. rite experience is illuminating. It reveals, as nothing else can, that it is one thing to enjoy an occasional bottle of wine in one’s own home or at a good hotel, and quite another for one’s wife or mother to be obliged to share a sidewalk with scores of drunken men. Prohibition is being questioned not because it is a failure, but because it i- as nearly a success. It is so much a succes that we have ffirgotten the disagreeable part of the old order. With sobriety the rule, it is not easy to recall what our cities were like when drunks were no oddity in the streets. There are tin sc who still get drunk, blit one does not have to rub shoulders with them upon every venture through the business section of a city. Decatur Herald. V ■. . - • WHY COUNTY REPRESENTATION I K<litoria! front the Moline Dispatch) Fortner Governor Joseph \V. l ifer tells us that "One of the most im portant questions, if not the most important before the constitutional con tention is that of legislative apportionment.” \ 11 down-state is demanding that when this apportionment is made there be limitation of the representation of Chicago and Cook county. The basis I of representation must no longer be population. Under that rule Chicagr and Cook county arc already very near to dominance over state legislation j This can not lie tolerated. Big-city restriction is the rule in other states, and , it must be made the rule in Illinois. t ook county must be limited in each of the two House- of the Legisla ture; otherwise it would handicap the remainder of the state. Members of the House dominated by Cook county could hold up legislation demanded by down-state by enforcing a system of "trading” by which legislation could not pass the two Houses except in exchange ior bad or doubtful bills. "Trad ing” is bad enough in the Legislature now. but it docs not represent sectional or district lines. County representation, instead of the present district plan, is the one best and simplest system yet suggested. It has among others one excellent j advantage which especially commends it. Under county representation there 1 could be no gerrymandering of the state. Counties could not be strung to gether to mass the majorities of one political party in order to reduce the number of districts that that party would hr able to carry. Gerrymandering is an evil long practiced in many of our states, and to make it impossible in Illinois would be worth while. The one objection that has thus far been urged against county represen tation is that it is “unfair” because of inequality of size and population of the counties. Such an objection would stand against any plan that can possibly he suggested. Districts might be laid out with equal population, but it would be without regard to county lines. There would be counties and parts of counties in the same senatorial or representative district. The disadvantages of such a plan are obvious. The present district plan, with two or more counties in a district, is surely more “unfair” as well as more complex than county representation. To consider the unit of apportionment purely from the standpoint of the number of people in a county is a narrow and short-sighted policy, strength ening the possible demand from Chicago that representation he according to population alone, instead of weakening it. in population Hardin county i> the smallest county in the state. It has only about one-ninth of the population of Hock Island county, and yet, ac cording to reports published by the Legislative Voters’ League, it sends one of the best legislators in the state to the General Assembly. The county has something of the relationship to the state that the state has to the nation, or as the township to the county. There is not exactly the same relationship, it is true, hut in most practical ways the similarity is strong. The county is the taxation unit, and is the social unit as well. The County Representation League, which is doing a good work toward bringing about this plan of representation, summarizes the advantages of the county > as against the "district” in this most illuminating way: The county is usually a social and political unit. It is the scat of the local government. It i- the seat of most of the political power and activities with which the residents of the county arc familiar. Most people know very few people outside the boundaries of their own county, the neighboring county is practically as far away as the neighboring state and there is very little intercourse between them. The county fairs, farmers’ institutes, teachers’ institutes, county conventions, all tend to develop county-wide acquaintances and county-wide community interest. Anyone sent to the Legislature from a county would more than likely have a personality known to nearly everybody in the county. This is not true in a great city. Very few in the city know who their representatives arc, or even in what district they live, and there is practically no district community interest in the city as in the country. Therefore it is easier to mass intelligent public sentiment for the support of a good representative, or the elimination of a bad representative, in the country than in the city. For all these reasons the framers of many state constitutions have come to the conclusion that it would he harmful to break down county lines in forming legislative districts, as proposed by- the minority. The debates of the Pennsylvania constitutional convention of 1872. in which the present constitution of Pennsylvania was formed, show that Pennsylvania did not originally have county representa tion. One of the arguments which with others influenced that con stitutional convention to adopt the county unit was that it would prevent the evil of gerrymandering districts, under which the state was suffering. A little reflection will show that it would be impos sible to gerrymander districts under the county unit plan. There are eight counties in Illinois with less than ten thousand population, and there are five such counties in Pennsylvania. There are numerous small counties in other states having county represen tation. Jackson county, Iowa, with less than ten thousand popula- * tion, has the same representation in the Legislature, as Polk county, with nearly four times tiic population, and Morgan county, Ohio, or Cameron county, Pennsylvania, each with a few thousand popula tion, have just the same representation as the larger counties. Rep resentation in all these, 'rue to historic principles, is based upon the community, and not population alone. This is not a new question, it lias agitated other constitutional conven tions and with few exceptions the great states have adopted the county as the unit. As the County Representation League further says: It will be found there was an almost exact parallel in both the New York and Pennsylvania conventions with our own Illinois con vention over this question. Some of the New York delegates, like some of those in Illinois, made the same inflammatory declarations, some threatened to bolt the convention, some threatened to fight ratification. It was freely predicted that this "unjust and discrim inatory measure” would defeat the constitution because “New York _City would vote solidly against it.” It was pointed out that some ! of the Greater New York districts had more than five time the pop ulation of some of the up-statc districts, and the prediction was freely made that “New York would stand for no such injustice as that.” It was even predicted that a new state would be set up. However, all of the predictions of calamity failed, the question of limiting New York City was submitted separately from the rest of the constitution, and New York City itself, by majority vote, sus tained the limitation of itself in both branches of the Legislature. \Yc believe the evidence will justify the statement that the pres ent furore for representation on the basis of population alone is founded upon a demagogical appeal to what is supposed to be pop ular. Neither the New York, nor Pennsylvania, nor other state con- * stitutional conventions, surrendered to that appeal. There is no ar gument for it that can not with equal force be advanced for most of the socialist program. Under somewhat similar circumstances James Madison wrote to Governor Randolph of Virginia on April 8 178/: “I am also of your opinion that in framing a system (the present federal Constitution) no material sacrifices ought to he made to local or temporary preju dices.” Washington expressed the same sentiments. The county unit is most likely to produce a high-class Legislature, and that is the main thing. The practical result is superior to any selfish desire on the part of one community or another to have its pound of flesh in repre sentation. That consideration will weigh the heaviest with most sensible I men and women. It seems to have done so in other states. As other states have advanced in population and diversified interests they have adopted county representa tion and have limited their populous communities. At first, when states were new, many cmflhties were laid out in advance of population for surveying purposes, and county representation could not be adopted. This is true of states like Texas, Montana, Idaho and other western states. There was no sharp diversity of interests when our present state constitution was written in 1869. Then Chicago had only two state Senators and seven members of the House oi Representatives. At the present time Illinois seems to be about the last of the great states of her class which have not adopted county rep resentation. New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Iowa all have adopted it. It is fair and wise to give each county, no matter how small, at least one member of the House of Representatives, and the Dispatch hopes that our two members of the constitutional convention will use every effort to write this provision into the new Constitution. Such a provision may be depended ' cm to increase its chances for adoption.