Search America's historic newspaper pages from 1789-1963 or use the U.S. Newspaper Directory to find information about American newspapers published between 1690-present. Chronicling America is sponsored jointly by the
National Endowment for the Humanities and the Library of Congress. external link Learn more
Image provided by: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL
Newspaper Page Text
of a non-intoxicating beverage beyond tbc one-half of ]
per cent as suggested by editorial friends of beer and wine? If common sense and reason do not suggest that drink ers would not be satisfied with non-intoxicating bever ages, even though they contained a little more than one half of 1 per cent, the recent experience of Canada with 4.4 beer would be sufficient proof. If the writers favor non-intoxicating beverages, why arc they not satisfied with the one-half of 1 per cent? On the other hand, if the editorial writers in the Times, the News, the Journal, etc., want intoxicating beverages, why don’t they attack the Eighteenth Amendment instead of the Volstead Act? W hy don’t they simply advocate the return of the saloon through the repeal of the prohibition amendment? While these beer and wine writers will doubtless con tinue to attack the one-half of 1 per cent limit, we chal lenge them to show the least hit of sanity or reason in any legal increase of that limit. Wet Opposition Justifies Prohibition 'I he tremendous opposition to prohibition is often re ferred to as a reason why the Eighteenth Amendment should not have been added to the Constitution. On the contrary this very opposition is proof of the wisdom of the Eighteenth Amendment and emphasizes the tragedy of the delay in its adoption. Opposition to prohibition is based fundamentally upon appetite for alcohol. Booze profits are incidental to this appetite. A popular argument against the adoption of prohibition was the assertion that only a few were unable to control their appetites while the great majority could “take it or leave it.” But under prohibition it has been proven that vast numbers were mistaken if they thought they could take it or leave it. Vast Humberts are willing to risk the dangers of punishment by the law in order to appease their alcoholic appetites. Vast numbers arc willing to risk the even greater and more certain dangers in the liquor itself in order to feed the alcoholic craving. It is the strength of this craving that keeps the booze traffic alive and makes prohibition enforcement a dif ficult problem. Instead of surrendering to the traffic, the very opposition to prohibition should emphasize the vital national importance of keeping up the fight to eliminate the appetite through destruction of the traffic which keeps the appetite alive. The fact that greed and appetite combined are strug gling so desperately against prohibition is the best justi fication in the world for the adoption of prohibition and the best reason in the world for the enforcement of the law. A\ e must fight to keep future generations free from the accursed craving that manifests itself so strongly in the opposition to the Eighteenth Amendment. Bootleggers in New York City A lone policeman raises his hand and traffic stops. W liy don't drivers disregard his signal and go about their business in defiance of traffic regulations? In New ^ ork City they did when traffic regulations were first put into effect. Drivers literally laughed at the law and the police were powerless against the surging mobs. Now a policeman’s hand or the sound of a whistle or only a blinking light is obeyed by thousands and thou sands every day in New York City. It is the law estab lished for the benefit of all. i hey say New York City is overrun with bootleggers who laugh at the law. It is said that it is useless to pro ceed against them because they arc so numerous. But if individual bootleggers arc severely punished it will de velop respect for the law. Traffic officers need not be numerous enough to restrain every driver on the streets. The law merely needs to be administered fairly enough to punish those w ho may disobey. Wets Talk Against Saloons Now “ I lie saloon was bad. It should remain outlawed for ever,” says the Detroit Free Press. The super-wet Chi cago Tribune is also against the return of the saloons. Even the former brewers themselves have no kind word to say for the saloons, a majority of which were for merly owned and operated by the brewers themselves. Fred Pabst, president of the l’abst Brewing Company, is quoted in a United Press dispatch from New York as saying, "reputable brewerers would never consent if it were left for them to return to the old saloon.” The As sociation against tlie Prohibition Amendment advertises its slogan "beer and light wine now, but no saloons ever.” This universal and unanimous condemnation of the sa loon by all classes of wets suggests some interesting questions. When did they discover that the saloon was badr Why don’t they help fight the outlaw saloons which they say exist under prohibition? How d<* they expect to separate the saloon as an element in their beer and wine program? Also, if conditions now without the saloon are worse than before prohibition, why don’t these wets advocate the return of the saloon to decrease drunk enness? The Common Barberry The federal and various state governments arc spend ing considerable money to exterminate the common bar berry. '1 liis is the bush that spreads the black stem rust to wheat, oats, barley and rye, causing immense lo.-ses. Often the barberry bush is very hard to find. Wher ever there are indications of black stem rust, a thorough search is made until the bush that spreads the disease is found. When found it is dug up and completely de stroyed. Very often the owners of the hush strenuously object to this destruction, but the government continues patiently year after year in its effort to eradicate the common barberry bush. If it is worth while to protect grains against diseases through the destruction of the common barberry, u liy is it not worth the time and the money spent by the gov ernment in its effort to eradicate the liquor bar that spreads disease wherever it flourishes? Non-Intoxicating Beer and Wine Permits Early in the administration of the Eighteenth Amend ment permits were issued to allow the manufacture of wines, etc., for consumption in the home, up to 200 gal lons. J hese permits caused a great deal of misunder standing and contusion. They merely exempted their holders front the paying of a tax on non-intoxicating wines and fruit juices containing more than one-half of 1 per cent alcohol. They did not give the privilege of manufacturing such beverages of a sufficient alcoholic strength to be actually intoxicating. Now it is announced that all such permits granting tax exemption up to 200 gallons on the manufacture of actually non-intoxicating wines have been cancelled. The cancellation of these permits indicates the impos sibility of preventing the manufacture of beverages actu ally intoxicating when the rule against them merely pro vides that they must be non-intoxicating. Without a definitely fixed limit the difficulties of insuring that a beverage will he actually non-intoxicating are too great. Hon. Randolph Boyd Senator Boyd served in the Lower House from 1912 to 1920 inclusive, and was elected to the State Senate in 1922, representing the 37th district. Senator Boyd is completing his first term in the Senate and is now seek ing reelection. Senator Boyd lias been a consistent friend of the dry cause through his many years of service in the Illinois Legislature and could always he counted on to vote against all wet measures and to support all dry measures. 1 he prohibition act must be enforced until repealed. Honest enforcement is the only proper test of the mea sure.—The Chicago Daily News, Nov. 19, 1925. Seofflaws who declare so positively that “prohibition is a failure" seem to forget that regulation of the liquor traffic by license was so complete a failure that it had to be abandoned.'—Moline, 111., Dispatch. Opponents of prohibition may press into service their high powered orators, but when all is said and done they will discover that the Eighteenth Amendment is in the Constitution to remain there.—Rock Island, III., Argus Union. WET BILL PRESENTED AT PITTSBURG RALLY OF PROHIBITION FOES Representative Hill’s Booze Bill With Drastic Penalties; Would Repeal Volstead Act A special dispatch to the Chicago Daily News recently told the following story of an anti-prohibition mass meeting held in Pittsburgh. It is significant as showing the purpose of the organized wet forces: “The wet element in Pittsburgh reached a high tide last night when 1,000 persons at a palpably dry banquet in a hotel here vociferously applauded the draft of a bill to repeal the Volstead act. The meeting was called by a committee composed of many financial and industrial leaders of this district with a large attendance of society women who are supporting tlie wet campaigns. “Abandoning the compromise program for beer and light wines, and demanding instead the repeal of the Volstead act, an aggressive policy was enunciated by the speakers. “Governor Gifford Pinchot of Pennsyl vania was charged with using a ‘great moral issue for personal political pur poses.’ A letter was read from Col. Sam uel Harden Church, president of the Car negie institute, indorsing a liberal view of the Eighteenth Amendment, and a bit ter challenge was issued to the Anti-Sa loon League. “Some Arrive in Gay Mood “\\ bile Pittsburgh’s first great wet dinner was dry, it was apparent that an oasis was not far distant and numerous were the guests who bad enjoyed exhila rating appetizers before entering the ban quet hall. Prominent matrons and young women were conspicuous in the audience and among the most vehement applaud ers of anti-prohibition sentiment. “Representative John Philip Hill of Baltimore, Md., the principal speaker, made public the text of his bill for repeal of the Volstead act which he will intro duce at the coming session of Congress. The bill is as follows: "Section 1.—Each state shall for itself define the meaning of the words ‘intoxicating liquors’ as used in sec tion 1, of article XVIII of the amend ments of the Constitution of the United States, and each state shall itself enforce within its limits its own laws on this subject. “Section 2.—Any person who trans ports or causes to be transported into any state any beverage prohibited by such state as being an ‘intoxicating liquor' shall be punished by the b nited States by imprisonment for not more than ten years or by a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $100,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” “War on Dry League “ ‘War to the knife with the Anti-Saloon League’ was the keynote of the meeting, a sentiment roundly applauded as pro claimed by Charles S. Wood, of Philadel phia, state manager of the association against the prohibition amendment.” From the above it will be noted that the repeal of the Volstead Act is the real purpose of the wets, not merely as they have hitherto asserted—mere modifica tion of the definition of intoxicating. Section 2 of Representative Hill’s repeal bill, as reported above, is interesting from the standpoint of the penalties it suggests for violation of this proposed wet bill. The wets furiously attack dry enforce ment measures as too drastic. What would they say if the Volstead Act pro i ided imprisonment for ten years or fines ot $100,000 or both such fines and impris onment for violations of the dry law? Every dry man and woman should he as energetic and persistent in upholding pro hibition as wets are in their efforts to overthrow it. The people have more money to spend for necessities and comforts because they are not dividing wages and salaries with brewers and liquor dealers. THE PRIMARY ELECTIONS 'I’lio Illinois primaries will be held in just a little more than three months from now. Candidates for congress, state legislature, sheriff and other offices concerned with prohibition enforcement will be nominated. The wets will make a desperate drive to win in the primaries. Church forces should begin in plenty of lime to organize to the end that those opposed to the liquor traffic will be informed relative to candidates and vote at the primaries. Unless the church vote is informed in advance and active on primary day the dry cause is certain to sustain severe losses.