OCR Interpretation


The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, February 01, 1929, Image 4

Image and text provided by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn2008060406/1929-02-01/ed-1/seq-4/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for Four

THE AMERICAN ISSUE
An Advocate ot Christian HatnotMn
ILLINOIS EDITION
Published Monthly except Auru-! hv
THE AMERICAN ISSUE PUBLISHING COMPANY
110 South State Strt-et. Westerville. Ohio
TIIB ANTI-SALOON LEAGl'K OF ILLINOIS
Rooms 510-51.'. 51*) North Dearborn St., Chicago, HI.
ERNEST II, riHSHHlNtlTOW Editor
GEORGE li. SAFFORD, JOSEPH II. COLLIER, lllint. IMjorx
PritUCA I ION Oi i n ! Westerville, Ohio
1111 not Office 5D» North Dearborn St, Room'* 5DY-.M2
Entered us second class mutter at the H -1‘ntlPe at V> i ••tet \ i e,
Ohio, under Art of March d, isiO
Price—$ 1.00 per A’ear
Make subscriptions payable to Anil S . oon l.cagio <-f III in.is,
lltomi 51U-512, 510 North Dearborn Si.. Chicago, HI.
ANTI S\LOON LEAGUE nl' AMERICA
,\AitiiNAU OpKIf US
President Iti .hoi* Thomas Niciioi sox. P.l),, LL l>.
Detroit, Mich.
General Superintendent Dm. K. Seal i Mi’IlitP1 V •' iervlht O.
Treamtrer IVumi Chj-ki.anp Columbus. Ohio
ANT USA LOON I.EAGI'K OK ILLINOIS
Headqttartcre. 510 N, Dearborn St.
c
Stati; OmtliHs
President lllshop Edwin Holt Hughes. t’Meagi
Viet* I'wiilriil*—Michael H. Oleary. Galena Allied I. i opps,
Jacksonville . Mrs. Carrie A. Huhrenterg. Rellevllle.
Secretary Mrs. Etta Root Edwards, Pinckneyvillc.
Treasurer—Thomas J. Holper. Evan u n _
Ileadquartem Committee Chjtrlen F Coleman Chicago, i jinlt*
man: M. P. Doynton, Chicago, Secretary : John \ llauherg.
Rock Island; George 11. Wil on, Quincy; John Kudin. Chi
cago: Dr. T. I Krudsou. Springfield: Andrew C. /enou. Chi
e ign: Samuel Klwood Fisher, Normal : Thomas J. Bulger,
Fvaip-ton ; HK-hop Edw in Holt Hughes Chicago.
Stale Superintendent--Dr. George M. Safford. I'll.I'., Chicago.
Department Superintendents- ( Headquarters Chicago) Legal and
Enforcement Work. Joseph H Collier. Chicago.
Scandinavian Departtneni Carl J. Andrei n, Chicago.
Business Manager- It. W. Ewing, Chicago. _ _
District Superintendent Chicago District. J. W. Loughy. 1 ni
eago; J. A, Little, Chicago; Fletcher Homan, Chicago. East
ern. C E. Pel arson. Clileago. Western, P. A. Tate. Galrsburg.
Springfield Legislative District. Georgt II. Yule. Chicago.
Field Workers C. K. Dowell. J. N. Jenuuit, A. L. Shafer, W. H.
Quillen. G. D. Childs. E. E. Fletcher.
Not At: io Post mahtkiis All Form Notices for change of ad
dres or discontinuance and all undelix enable papers pertaining to
tli«- Illinois Edition of Tin: A.mi-kican Ishi h should he Addre.saeil
to the Illinois Editor, 51d North Dearborn St., Rooms 510-512,
Chicago I
FEBRUARY, 1929
Every Dry Should Help Inform, Educate,
Arouse, and Enlist Public Sentiment
One of the greatest handicaps to prohibition en
forcement today, and hence to its future success is,
without doubt, the effect of the high-pressure anti
prohibition publicity which is steadily increasing in
volume and unreliability. Making due allowance for
the discerning thought which today evaluates all
writings as perhaps never before, the constant sug
gest ion of this propaganda exerts its subtle in
fluence even upon minds which perceive its trend.
Hence, there is nothing so much needed today as a
determination on the part of individual drys every
where to make 1929 the banner year in getting the
truth to the public.
The greatest benefits and blessings which have
come, even from imperfect enforcement, should be
broadcast far and wide by the friends of the cause
everywhere. Facts like the following should be
elaborated upon: How prohibition has improved
home conditions; how it has raised the standard of
living of the laboring man; how it has increased the
number of home owners and bank depositors; how
it has reduced industrial accidents; how it has im
proved health conditions; how it lias resulted in a
saving to the nation of billions of dollars each year.
We have a slogan on our wall which reads:
Find the facts
Filter the facts.
Focus the facts.
• Face the facts.
Follow the facts.
The rigid application of this kind of analysis to
prohibition will benefit the cause even in its most
difficult friends. By every test prohibition is suc
ceeding. Lets advertise its merits with such over
whelming proof and enthusiasm that the enemy
will be kept constantly on the defensive, until the
last squad in its lingering, lawless army has been
compelled to surrender.
Wholesome Doctrine From Illinois
Supreme Court
In the case of the People v. Zalapi, reported in
Volume 321, Illinois Supreme Court- reports, page
484, the Court in an opinion written by Justice Dunn
gives expression to the following timely pronounce
ment :
"A defendant charged with violating the prohibi
tion law iy entitled to every right guaranteed to him
imcitr tin' . tatute and the Constitution in his trial,
bat he is not entitled to any more than those
slatuory end constitutional rights. Every judge
and every state's attorney are required to take a
eonGituf nnl rath to support and maintain the
constitutional rights of the defendant, but also to
enforce the public laws and Constitution of the
country, and the Eighteenth Amendment is as bind
ing a provisit n or article of the Constitution as any
article in them, and the question of whether or not
we like it < r don’t like it, or whether other people
like it or don't lilt it., are not questions to be con
rider, d In . ourts in the trial of cases or the review
of cases."
We ts Latin:'\ ! i.yit in Legislature to Repeal
Ail lilin jii PfdSi ji: on E iforj3 Hint Statutes
Ann no the Prst b • introduced in the Fifty-sixth
C. nei nl Assembly v. as enc for the repeal of the Illi
nois ‘Bi arch and Seizure" law and the Illinois Pro
hibit i< n Act. Tins measure, known as House Bill
No 13, was introduced on January 15, by Messrs.
Winer and O’Grndy, sponsors of a similar measure
in tin Fifty-ilfth General Assembly. At this writing
the bill has not been referred to committee. It is
brief in its provisions but far-reaching in its effect.
It provides:
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS. REPRESENTED IN
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Section 1. "An act to restrict the manufac
ture, sale, transportation, possession and use of
intoxicating liquor, aiding thereby in establish
ing uniformity in State and Federal laws in re
gard thereto,” approved June 27, 1921, and "An
Act to restrict the manufacture, possession and
use of intoxicating liquor within prohibition
territory,” approved June 21, 1919, are hereby
repealed.
If this measure should pass, Illinois would be
without any law with which to uphold the Eight
eenth Amendment to the Constit ution of the United
States. It is the avowed purpose of the organized
forces fighting for the return of the liquor traffic to
withdraw Illinois from the Union so far as support
of the Eighteenth Amendment is concerned; to
throw this commonwealth into a state of anarchy,
chaos, and rebellion on prohibition enforcement.
The protestations of the wet leaders of their in
terest in law enforcement; their desire to rid the
state of bootleggers; to modify the law to obtain
better enforcement, and so on, are clearly for public
consumption only. Their real purpose stands out
in bold relief in House Bill No. 13. They would wipe
every vestige of liquor law off the statute books and
turn the state over without reserve to the bootleg
gers. rum-runners and blindpiggers.
House Bill No. 13. deserves, and we believe will
receive, all the luck to which the number it drew
entitles it.
The High-Cost-of-Prohibilion Bugaboo Again
The Chicago Tribune recently contained an al
leged news item from Washington calculated to
make the public believe that prohibition enforce
ment is just about sinking the country financially.
This article is typical of scores of similar state
ments constantly being repeated by wet newspapers,
wet officials, and other agencies that have always
been opposed to. prohibition. It avers that "more
money has been*spent annually to enforce the Vol
stead law than has been spent to enforce all of the
other ten thousand laws on the Federal statute
books.” Think of attempting to substantiate such a
preposterous statement! Of course, the whole truth
is not told. No figures whatever are given to show
the amount of money received in fines and for
feitures in prohibition enforcement.
Prohibition enforcement, has practically paid its
own way from the beginning. Mrs. Mabel Walker
Willebrandt. Assistant Attorney General of the
United States in charge of Federal prohibition pros
ecutions, recently said: "We find, after taking the
total expenditures of the government for enforce
ment, and after deducting the amounts accruing to
the government from fines, forfeitures, and penal
ties, that the cost of prohibition enforcement is
just twelve cents a piece for the American people.”
The renowned economist. Professor Irving Fisher,
of Yale University, is authority for the statement
that prohibition saves 5 per cent of what used to be
wasted out of our incomes, and adds another 5 per
cent into the bargain. He shows that if prohibition
enforcement cost three hundred and fifty times as
much as it actually costs, it would be well worth
while purely as an economic investment.
The American people as a whole are far-sighted
enough to appreciate the tremendous conservation
power of our prohibition policy; they also know full
well what it would mean for the government to
surrender to the lawbreakers. Let the Tribune w'ail
about the small sum which, on the face of bare
figures, prohibition enforcement would seem to cost
the nation. Thinking, patriotic people fully realize
that, in the last analysis, the question before the
country is not whether the enforcemnet of prohi
bition law costs five million, ten million, or twenty
million dollars a year, but whether we are willing to
surrender to the nullifiers of the Constitution, or
whether we are going to teach these outlaws, by
adequate funds and an efficient enforcement staff,
that the laws of this government are made to be
obeyed, and that there is ample power in the gov
ernment of the United States to compel obedience
to its mandates.
Obedience As a Title to Protest
(The Chicago Evening Post, Friday, Dec. 7, 1928)
There is much clamor against the Eighteenth
Amendment and the Volstead law which cannot
justify its right to recognition because it comes from
those who violate the law. The lawbreaker has for
feited his right to demand repeal of the law he will
not obey.
Eliminate from the opposition to the law those
w-ho break it and there will be little left to protest.
What there is left is entitled to respectful hearing.
All man-made law is subject to amendment or re
peal. However good we may think a law; however
eager we may be to see it sustained, we may not dis
regard the objections of those who differ from us
if they justify their right to differ by obedience to
it so long as the law obtains. But we may insist
that they bring their protest with clean hands.
Prohibition is an effort of the American people
to deal with an evil in the life of the nation. There
is a very general agreement as to the evil. Few
men will venture today to defend the saloon, or to
make apologies for the conditions which it bred and
encouraged. Few men will deny that intemperance,
which was one of the great progeny of ills engen
dered by the saloon, is a curse to the home, to so
ciety, to business as to civic life.
Let those who think the Eighteenth Amendment
or the Volstead law is a mistaken effort to do good,
establish first their right of protest by obedience
and they will win the respectful hearing of the
country for their case. But why should the country
listen to the lawbreaker who urges that the law
should be repealed because he has broken it?
We think, however, they should do more than pro
test. They shoidd offer us some better method of
dealing with the problem which the beverage use of
alcohol represents. That is the problem we set out
to solve. Thus far no suggestion has been made,
which has come to our attention, of any solution
which is likely to prove more effective than prohibi
tion. Possibly an obedient opposition would have
greater success in developing a better solution, or,
possibly, through obedience it might become con
verted to belief in the wisdom and efficacy of the
law as it stands.
Bribery and Corruption Then and Now
Did you ever check up on the statements which
are constantly being bantered back and forth these
days about so many public officers “selling out” to
the wets? If you haven’t you have missed an in
teresting and enlightening experience. It has been
our experience in about nine out of ten cases that
on close analysis one cannot even find a starting
point for an investigation. In other words, the
large majority of these statements are found to be
mere noisy generalities. When one does get a few
apparent facts upon which to work, in most cases it
soon develops that what was said was a repetition
of what some other fellow said who “ought to
know;” but to find the original yarn-spinner is as
hopeless a task as trying to find the proverbial lost
needle.
No doubt, strong temptations come to those en
gaged in liquor-law enforcement, and resistance
has proven too much for some. This is true in the
case of all law enforcement. But the systematized
corruption of the organized, government-licensed
traffic was far more reprehensible and dangerous
than the situation which we confront with the out
lawed, legally defenseless liquor traffic today. The
liquor traffic under the licensed system was the
most corrupt political influence ever known in this
country. The opponents of prohibition are of course
eloquently silent about this. But reports of various
official, and semi-official fact-gathering commis
sions, and investigations by Congress, dating back

xml | txt