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. CHERRINGTON, Editor O. G. CHRISTGAU. Illinois Editor PUBLICATION OFFICE, WESTERVILLE, OHIO Illinois Office, 1200 Security Building, Chicago PRICE $1.00 PER YEAR—Make subscriptions payable to the Anti-Saloon l-caguc of j lllitio.s, 1200 Security Bhlg., Chicago, Illinois. Entered as second-class matter at the postofRce at Westerville, Ohio, under the Act of i March 3, 1879. Notice to Postmasters All Form notices for change of address or discontinuance and all tmdelivriable papers pertaining to the Illinois Edition of The American Issue should be addressed to the Illinois Editor, 1200 Secuiityf Build.ng, Chicago, Illinois. ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE O ILLINOIS Headquarters, 1200 Security Building, Chicago STATE OFFICERS -President, W. W. Bennett, Rockford; Vice President, Will B. Otwell, Carliiivdle; John II. Lennon, Bloomington; Alfred T. Capps, Jacksonville; t hris Ualeener, Carrollton; Secretary, John R. Golden, Decatur; Tieasurcr, Thomas J. Bulger, i Chicago. HEADQUARTERS COMMITTEE -Charles E. Coleman, Chairman, Chicago; M. I’. Boynton, Secretary, Chicago; John K. Golden, Decatur; judson D. Metzger. Moline; John II. Ilauberg. Ruck Island; A. J. Scrogin, Lexington; George II. Wilson, Quincy; Bishop Thomas Nicholson, Chicago; Thus. J. Bolger, Chicago; W. VY. Bennett. STATE SUPERINTENDENT—F. Scott McBride, Chicago. ASSISTANT TO THE STATE SUPERIN - ENDENT .Alice Odell. DISI'KK T SUPERINTENDENTS- Northern George McGinnis, Chicago; Chicago, E. iPav.s, Ch.cago; Eastern, N. K. Johnson, Springfield; Western, G. W. James, Galesburg; entral, George H. Yule. Spiingtield; Alton-East S‘.. Louis, lames II. banskin, SpringticlUi Southern, Leo Howard, Mt. Vernon. DEPARTMENT SUPERINTENDENTS—(Headquarters, Chicago)—Literature and Pub-: licty, . G. Christgau; Legal and Law Enforcement. los. H. Collier; Woman’s Department, Mrs. G. M. Mat lies. ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE OF AMERICA NATIONAL OIT’K I RS President, Bishop Thomas B. Nicholson, 1). D., H <18 l ast Washington St., Chicago; General Superintendent, P. A. Bakei, D. D., Westerville, *^.uo; Associate General Superintendent, E. I Moore, Westerville. Ohio; Treasurer, Foster Copeland, Columbus, Ohio. i Fines Are Too Low 1 hirty-three cases tabulated for this number of the Issue show that over 57 per cent of the convicted lawbreakers were merely fined $100.00 or less. Only seven of the thirty-three received jail sentences. In 100 cases of liquor law violations in the Federal Court at E. St. Louis a total of $23,875.47 was collected in fines. The E. St. Louis Journal commented on the average of $238.00 for each liquor law violation in an editorial headed, "It's too soft for the boot leggers.'' I he Law and Order League of Kcwanee reports 90 liquor cases in the city court in which fines aggregating $6,750 have been assessed. This is an average of $75.00 for each violator. The League also reports seven cases in the Henry County Court for which fines totaled $1,975, an average of $2S3.00 for each violator. In the Bureau t ounty (. ourt there were three liquor cases with fines amounting to $900.00 in all. This averages $300.00 for each violator. In the Stark Countv Court the Kewanee Law and Order League re ports only one liquor case, the fine assessed being $100.00. Under the Illinois Prohibition Act a $1,000.00 fine may be as sessed for the first offense. In addition the violator may be sent to jail. W ith the gigantic organized liquor traffic using every ef fort to prove that Prohibition cannot be enfi\red heavier penalties! should be imposed upon violators. With the wets exerting a maxi mum effort to break down the law, all judges responsible fur en forcement should use their maximum power to uphold the law. Samuel Gompers and the Saloon Samuel Gomper.«. President of the American Federation of La bor. recently conferred with the general executive tioarci ot the Brewery Workers’ International Union. Plans were made, accord ing to reports, to carry on a campaign for beer and wine. "Wine and beer of light alcoholic content,” Mr. Gompers is quoted, "arc sure to come back and thev will conic back soon. It would he an antidote for strong drink. Nobody wants the saloon. It is an institution of the dark ages.” Mr. < lumpers is wrong about alcohol being an antidote for al cohol. Beer and wine would increase and strengthen the alcoholic habit. But Gompjrs is right about the saloon. It is an institution of the dark ages. But why do Gompers and the brewery workers pick on the saloon now? Why didn’t Gompers use his influence with the brewers before Prohibition came, in an effort to get them to abolish saloons? The brewers owned most of the saloons and had it in their power to close them. As a matter of fact Gompers and the brewers are merely pre-i tending to he opposed to saloons now. Their scheme is to credit the benefits of Prohibition to the absence of the legalized saloon. Then if they can gain enough political power to restore beer and wine they will have enough power to restore the saloons. If Gompers and the brewers get the power to do as they please about beer and vine thev will open the saloons again. Whisky For the Flu A Washington dispatch dated January 20th states that Acting Prohibition Director J. E. Jones, will issue instructions to take off the limit of 100 liquor prescriptions issued to each physician in case of an influenza epidemic. Such action would be a great mis take. Whisky is of no value in the treatment of influenza accord ing to leading officials and health authorities. On the contrary it is positively injurious, lessening the chances of recovery. Further more permission to relax restrictions would be a great encourage ment to the sale of whisky. It would keep alive the falsehood that whisky is necessary as medicine. — The Drive on Drugs The Elks and other fraternal organizations are taking part in a' nation-wide drive against the drug evil. All these organizations' should also join in the fight against the drink evil. Alcoholic' beverages are drugs in liquid form. Booze is a narcotic that does' more harm than drugs. A concerted drive by all organizations in terested in the welfare of their fellow men would soon put an end to liquor lawlessness. Money Spent For Booze High brow magazine writers frequently get out their adding machines and make estimates of the money now being spent for moonshine. Much more than should he is being spent. But not so much of it is being spent by poor people. Most of it comes from rich sports, most of whom did not earn their own money. That is one reason why all buying records were broken last Christmas time, it also explains increased savings accounts. Booze is no longer robbing so many of the classes that can least afford to! waste money. I Enforcement is the Only Hope for America Sometimes timid citizens suggest a surrender to the liquor outlaws. Surrender would mean not merely the loss of Prohibi tion, but the loss of America’s only hope for real self-government, before Prohibition the liquor traffic controlled government for its own ends. If the liquor traffic should prove powerful enough to force the nullificatu n of the Kighteenth Amendment then the traf fic would become more domineering and arrogant than ever in the old licensed days. America would he ruled by an autocracy of alcohol. Not only would self-government have failed in theory. The actual condition would he cities, and villages, and counties, and states, not governed by the people, but ruled by the rum traf fic. America cannot go back and remain a land of self-govern ment. Moonshine and the Optic Nerve The Chicago Tribune in reporting holiday moonshine cases said : "Over all these the doctors are working with an intense concen tration, fighting to save the optic nerve which methyl alcohol in variably attacks and destroys." Someone ought to work over the optic nerve of every policeman in whose territory moonshine joints are allowed to exist. How Would Beer and Wine Help? Wet newspapers like the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago j Journal usually end their editorial laments on liquor evils under ^ Prohibition with the suggestion: Why, not try beer and wine? The best answer to that question is another: Just how would! beer and wine help? The liquor problem involves? dealers and con-j sinners. Would beer and wine stop the selling of other intoxi cants? Certainly not. Both sense and experience prove that with beer and wine permitted it would be impossible to enforce the law j against the sale of whisky. So far as drinkers are concerned any j beer and wine intoxicating enough to satisfy an alcoholic crav- i ing would be intoxicating enough to maintain and increase that j craving. Neither, drinker nor seller would be effected in a way i that would decrease drinking. On the contrary beer and wine : would make it harder to control selling and harder for drinkers to control their appetites. One Great Advantage of Prohibition Under Prohibition persons guilty of harming others through the manufacture or sale of intoxicants can be stopped and can be pun ished." Under license this was not true. Regardless of the damage ' done the saloonkeeper continued, his death-dealing business. In-1 dcr Prohibition the remedy is always at hand. The weapon is a!- j ready readv. The law can stop liquor damage. I he tact that the law is not always used is no reason why it should not stay on the books. Bulgaria Celebrates American Dry Anniversary The third anniversary’ of Constitutional Prohibition was cele brated in far oft' Bulgaria. Tn America’s victory over the liquor traffic the temperance forces of Bulgaria saw the hope of 1 rohibi non victories in their own land. I his emphasizes the importance of making good with Prohibition through enforcement in America. Furthermore it suggests that the American people, themselves, might well observe the day of the adoption of Constitutional Pro hibition. How many schools in America held appropriate exercises commemorating the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment? How many communities paid any especial attention to the birthday of Constitutional Prohibition? _ Disregarding Drunks The practice of arresting drunks and turning them loose with a light fine is no help to Prohibition enforcement. Drunkenness now' indicates that a serious offense has been committed. A drunk not only usually has knowledge of the violation of a tederal statute, hut in most cases has also conspired to violate the Prohibition laws. Section 37 of the federal penal code reads as follows: If any two or more persons conspire lo commit any offense against the United States or to defraud the United States in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such parties do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than two years, or both. If more drunks were treated more nearly in accordance with the gravity with their offense, Prohibition enforcement would be much easier. Then there would not be so many who consider it very smart to get drunk. And liquor criminals would not have the sense of immunity they now feel while their drunken customers arc advertising the existence of a criminal business somewhere in the community. Put On the Padlocks The effectiveness of the injunction method of proceeding against liquor law violators has been pointed out again and again. Recently an E. St. Louis correspondent reported that a federal 1 10 hibition agent in Southern Illinois advised the wider use of the in junction process. The advantages of this method were pointed out with the comment that only a few counties in the state have used the injunction procedure under the Illinois Prohibition Act. If there were no reports of liquor lawlessness failure to use the injunction would be a good sign. But so long as liquor lawlessness is pre valent neglect to use the injunction is gross carelessness. If local officials refuse to act the injunction can be secured by citizens. There is no reason whv any place should be permitted to continue from day to day as headquarters for the liquor business. Every blind pig in Illinois should be closed. A vacant building is much better for the community than ‘a liquor joint. If officials will not use their power citizens should act. Put on the padlocks. Pro hibition must be enforced. Section 22 of the Illinois Prohibition Act provides that: Any action to enjoin any nuisance defined in this Act may be brought in the name of the State of Illinois by the attorney general of the state or by any state's attorney, city attorney, or prosecuting attorney of any city, or by the commissioner of Prohibition, if such office be created, or by any citizen of the county where a nuisance as herein defined exists. Editor: What is a good definition of a blind pig? Ass’t Editor: Man who has made a pig of himself drinking moonshine. The public official who shows disrespect for law by using in toxicants should be retired to private life at the first opportunity. LOW FINES AND NO JAIL SENTENCES HINDER ENFORCEMENT Newspaper Reports Indicate Light Penalties Being Paid by Violators of Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution The .tabulation of thirty-three cases shows that violators of liquor laws arc getting much nearer the minimum than the maximum penalties. The cases studied comprise all mentioned in reports furnished the American Issue by the Central Press Clipping Service. Every report received during the past two weeks, excepting Chicago cases, is included in the tabulation. Nineteen of the thirty-three violators named paid $1(10 or less for breaking the liquor laws. Under the Illinois Prohibition Act $100 is the minimum and $1,000 is the maximum fine for a first offense. Assuming that the cases reported are representative OVER FIFTY-SEVEN PER CENT of the liquor law breakers in Illinois received the minimum or less under the Illinois Prohibi tion Act. Fines of less than one hundred shown in the table of cases are probably accounted for as being prosecutions under local ordinances. How ever all violators prosecuted under local laws are also liable to be punished under the state laws. Only seven out of the thirty-three cases reported were given jail sentences. This means that in Illinois ONLY ABOUT ONE IN FIVE f goes to jail for violations of the Eighteenth Amendment. Under the Illinois Prohibition Act jail sentences may be imposed for first offenses. The following is the record of thirty-three cases as compiled from press clippings: yun tot uays in Name Place Offense Fine jail Judge Carl Hadfield Marion liquor $500 GO A. D. Morgan Fred Douglas Waukegan bootlegging 200 0 Walter Taylor John Kutlich Oglesby liquor 100 0 Judge Reck George Watson Nashville possess. 200 0 W. P. Green Sam Cocliillc Nashville possess. 100 0 W. P. Green Henry Echardt Nashville possess. • 200 0 W. P. Green Edwin Brickner Nashville possess. 100 0 W. P. Green Charles Pate Nashville possess. 100 0 W. P. Green Win. C. Wright Nashville possess. 100 0 W. P. Green Walter Shannon Rushvillc Mfg. 200 CO Judge Lewis Sadie Randolph Waukegan sale ... GO Judge Persons Anton Stanilsavitus Kewanee liquor 25 0 Justice Adams John Walunchaunas Kewanee liquor 25 0 Justice Adams RoyWeimer M t. Vernon possess. 25 0 Cooper Blum Knott Champaign possess, still 150 0 County Court Rosalina Tusso Rockford possess. 100 0 ( ounty Court Richard Taylor Danville liquor 100 50 Walter Lindley Albert Tolliver Danville possess. 100 0 \V alter Lindley * Julius Himpc Rock Island sale 200 0 Jos. P. Kelly Howard Johnson (Jitincy . possess. ... 20!) Alb. L. Brewer Lorenzo Manigilia Ottawa Mfg.-sale ' 100 0 Harry Reck Stanly Koskosky Ottawa possess. 100 0 Harry Reck « Henry DeBacker Moline sale 200 0 Gustafson Oscar DeClraevc Moline possess. 25 0 Gustafson J. Lamhropoctilos Freeport Mfg.-sale 100 0 Judge Moglc Harry Harper lloopeston -Me 500 120 . ,Thos. O'Donnell Joliet possess. 1000 0 . Aaron Hollenbeck Decatur transp. 100 0 J. H. McCoy Geo. Hollenbeck Decatur possess. 100 0 J. H. McCoy Thos. A. Gibbons Decatur possess. 100 0 J. H. McCoy Ed Hardy Decatur possess. 100 0 J. H. McCoy Emil Sadewater Rockford liquor ... 6 nios. F. E. Carpenter Gust Falk Moline liquor 200 0 F. S. Entrikin In the above table when the offense charged was not mentioned the word “liquor” is used. In most cases cost.- were assessed in addition to the fines shown. The table does not show the courts in which offenders were tried. It includes cases prosecuted under city, under slate, and under Federal law. The cases are not classified by courts since the purpose of the compila- i tion is to show a comparison between penalties actually imposed and penal- * ties that could iiavc been imposed under the Illinois Prohibition Act. The thousand dollar fine against Thomas O’Donnell at Joliet was assessed in a case which involved a truck that had been used in transporting beer. Ap parently O’Donnell was a wholesale operator to whom a thousand dollar fine meant very little. The report states that O’Donnell repurchased the fruck which had been confiscated and was sold by the sheriff. This would indicate that O’Donnell had plenty of money loft after paying hi-. $1,000 fine. The case of Harry Harper who got $500 AND ONE 111 NDRED AND TWENTY DAYS IN JAIL at lloopston compares favorably with the cases at Decatur in which Judge J. 11. McCoy imposed a minimum fine of $100 upon four violators. Unfortunately the press clipping did not give the name of the Hoopeston judge. Chicago eases arc omitted from the tabulation in this number. In some future number a report on lines and sentences in ( hicago will be given. Also as soon as reports are available a tabulation of lines and penalties front the official records in various counties will be presented. UNTIL ILLINOIS JUDGES COME NEARER TO IMPOSING MAXIMUM PENALTIES IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT A SERIOUS ATTEMPT IS BEING MADE TO ENFORCE PROHIBITION. This is the law: See. 33. Illinois Prohibition Act—Any person who manufacturers, trans ports, or sells liquor in violation of this act shall for a first offense be lined not less than $100.00 nor more than $1,000. or be imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than six months or both and for a second or subsequent offense shall be fined not less than $500.00 nor more than $1,500.00 and be imprisoned in the state penitentiary not less than one year nor more than two years. A PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT PLATFORM FOR 1923 Heavier fines and jail sentences for violators. Speedier trials and quicker punishment after conviction. Close blind pigs by injunction process. Severely punish drunkards who shield violators. Active investigations and diligent prosecutions by states attorneys. Aggressive action against violators by county sheriff*. Appropriations for enforcement by county boards. Co-operation of police directed by mayors. Organization of citizens to support officials. Teaching of loyalty to law in public schools. Enforcement co-operation by church organizations. - ■■ — 4 NEW YORK LEAGUE OPPOSES SHAM REFERENDUM The Board of Directors of the Anti-Saloon League of New York re- ^ cently went on record with reference to a proposed beer and wine referendum as follows: “To oppose the submission of any sham ‘referendum’ which amounts merely to a straw vote and binds nobody and nothing. “The board further serves notice in advance that the Anti-Saloon League will refuse to take any official notice of, or officially to participate in any alleged .‘referendum’ contest before the people which under the decisions of the court of last resort in this state can have no possible binding force. The Anti-Saloon League will refuse to advertise such unlawful and seditious activities of the wets, or to do anything that will relieve them of the burden of proving that a clear majority of the registered voters of the state are , opposed to the enforcement of law. On the other hand, the League will confine itself to the realm of real votes that do have binding force under our form of government and devote itself to organizing public sentiment in behalf of the enforcement members of Congress and the state legislature and against those who stand for nullification.” The attitude of the New York Anti-Saloon League coincides with the action of the Illinois League, the W. C. T. U., and other dry organizations with reference to the sham “referendum” in Illinois. As the nullification campaign of the wets develops from day to day it is becoming clearer that the Illinois League took the right course in refusing to fall into the beer ballot trap laid by the wets.