Newspaper Page Text
THE AMERICAN ISSUE
An Advocate of Christian Patriotism ILLINOIS EDITION Published Monthly except Augu-t by THE AMERICAN ISSUE PUBLISHING COMPANY 1 to South State Street, Westerville, Ohio ' THE ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE OF ILLINOIS Roooi* 510-312, 510 North Dearborn St., Chicago, HI. ERNEST II. CIIEIMllNflTON, Editor 0 HOUGH I!. SAFFORI), JOSEPH II. COLLIER, lllinoi* Editor* PraLtCATioN Or HO* Wenter v 11 !• . Ohio Illinois Oftlee— f>10 North Dearborn St.. Rooms 510-512 1 ntered ,,s miiiimI i lass matter at the po-tolTh i at Wi st« rvHlo, Ohio, under Act of March 3, 1879 Price $1.00 per Year Make subscript to ia payable In Anti Saloon League of Illinois, Rooms 510-512, 510 North Dearborn Sr., Chicago, 111. ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE OF AMERICA National OkfiOi rh President -Briimi1 Thomas Nicholson, D.D., LL.D. Detroit. Mlt'h. General Superintendent' Du, F. Seen i Mclltunr. Westerville, O. Trennurer Fohtkr Chi-llano. Columbus, ohic ANH-SALOON LEAGUE OF ILLINOIS Headquarters. 5l'i N.- Dearborn St. Static Or i in t.s President Rev. W. II Nichols. D I).. Spring: i Id. Vice Presidents Michael II. Cleary, Gaie.ta : A1 ire3 T. Capps, Jacksonville ; Mr*, Carrie A. Pahii-nborg, I elleville. Sci-retaij Mrs Etta Root Edwards. I'lnckneyvllle. T-eagurrr Thomas .1. Qolger, Evanston. lleailtpiartei s Uoiiuulttee Chnrlen F, Coleman. Chicago, Chair mait ; "M. I*. Hoynloii, Chicago, Secretary : John A. ILuihcrg, Km l, lalaiiil; George 11 W on, Qulnei ; John Rudin, Chi cago , Dr. T. I. Kmtfb-un. Spi inglit-lil; Andrew U. Zenos, Chi cago . Samuel Flwood FDlier. Normal; Iti-lmp Edwin Holt Htidhi Chicago ; Itev. II. M. Daiiin-n. DD. I lock ford ; Rev. I-Tajil, Hay, D.D., Rock I-land Si.ue sjuperinieiideni Dr i.eoi-o 1.. Salford. I’li.D., Chicago. Deportment Snpcriut* Hinds i ILv.dqmirtc; .* Chicago)- Legal and Hnfbl'i eioi nl Work, die epll II. Collie!, Chicago. ReaniUii,,vlan DepaHinenl Carl .1. Audrcen, ('liieago. liiislnes- M.in-.gei I; W. Ewing. Chicago. District Sii) e.-irti ihii- Chicago District. .1 W. Langley. Chi cago; .1. A, Little. Chica-'o. Kn merit. C. E. Peterson, Chicago. Wr-iii :ii I*. V Tale. Galesburg. Sprlngth-id Legislative Dis triet Gt urge II, Ytlle i liieago. 1-Ti-Ll Wui'hti- c E. Dowell, .1. N. .lernuin. A I.. Shuler. O I). * t'hildf K. K. Fletel er Rev T Iti-rt Frar.v. Rev. Cm wen ll« nley. No: iri: in Pus i . as 11 i. All For-in Nolices for change of ad dr* <ir i mil inn; i a and . II uiu'eli\i rahle p. pel’s pertaining to ll i- Hllllio edition ol Tm Ail l:i* Insi t should lie addr«-ssed to i ho 11; iiiois Editor, .510 North Dearborn Sc. Rooms 510-512, I hi* ago, 111. MAY. 1929 CONDEMNS WET PRESS The following resolutions were unanimously adopted by the Sunday Evening Forum of the St. James M. E. Church. Chicago, at its regular weekly meeting, Sunday evening, April 21, 1929: That there is a growing tendency on the part of the press in some quarters lo influence public opin ion in editorials, cartoons, and even in the news columns, and to enlist sympathy in the direction of nullifying the Constitution and laws of the country as regards to the Eighteenth Amendment and the statutes supporting it, can not be disputed. We think that it behoov'esever yorganization (as well as individuals (that believes in those laws, as well as alt laws, to at once go on record in no uncertain forms in condemnation of such tactics as are being practiced in many instances; that the worthy press should be commended and encouraged, while the unfriendly press should oe dealt with in all vigorous and yet fair means to the end that the public may receive just and true information on and impres sions of the entire subject. Wc arc resolutely determined to pursue the mat ter along the lines indicated unless and until the present tendency is completely changed, even though we stand alone. Yours very truly, SUNDAY EVENING FORUM. By Burke Adams, Presideiit. WEBER-O’GRADY BILL SENATE GETS WEBER-O'GRADY BILL TO RE PEAL ALL ILLINOIS PROHIBITION LAWS; WIRE OP*TELEPHONE YOUR SEN ATOR TO VOTE AGAINST IT The overwhelming verdict of the people for the maintenance and enforcement of prohibition as evi denced by the defeat of A1 Smith and the election of Herbert Hoover; the solemn warning to the wets in Mr. Hoover’s inaugural message; the enactment of the Jones law, increasing the punishment for vio lations of the Volstead act—-have aroused the wets of the nation to the most vigorous, far-reaching and desperate attack on prohibition since the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment. The unlortunate incident at Aurora, though not involving the merits, of prohibition in any way; the vote for nullification in Wisconsin, and the amend ment of the Habitual Criminal law in Michigan, heralded to the four corners of the nation on the front pages of the many wet papers, has been wel come fuel to the dampened fires of the nulliflca tionists. The wet hope apparently is that the forces they are now setting in motion, will turn the tide which has been rolling in against them, and start them on the way to ultimate victory. They fight? with a now or never desperation—an apparent feel ing that time is of the essence of the undertaking. Illinois with our Legislature in session has become the storm center of this terrific wet offensive. On March 12 the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives recommended by a vote cf 18 to 17 that the Weber-O’Orady bill to repeal the Illinois prohibition laws should not pass. However, on March 27, the House by a vote of 72 to 70 voted to put the measure on the Calendar. The House passed the measure April 23. with seventy-seven votes, a bare constitutional majority. The bill w'as at once taken to the Senate and has been reported out of the Judiciary Committee. We have every confidence at this writing that the Senate will stand firmly against this iniquitious pro posal. But we are taking nothing for granted. It is possible that the vote in the Senate will have taken place before this Issue reaches all of our read ers. Watch the press dispatches from Springfield, and if time permits, please wire or telephone to your Senator at Springfield at once telling him that you are expecting him to vote NO on the Weber-O’Grady bill to repeal the prohibition law's. MRS. MABEL WALKER WILLEBRANDT VS. ARTHUR SEARS HENNING In a letter to Mrs. Anna Marden DeYo. cor responding secretary of the National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union. Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, assistant Attorney General of the United Slates, throws light on the methods of one of the newspaper opponents of President Hoover’s prohibition policies. She also denies the charge that she connived at bootlegging at the Republican Na tional Convention at Kansas City. Her letter is in reply to an inquiry from Mrs. DeYo on behalf of the women of the W. C. T. U. who re port that wet politicians and wet propagandists are continually harping on the statement that Presi dent Hoover was nominated as a dry on a platform by a convention of drinking men, furnished liquor with the connivance of the government: “In the South particularly,” said Mrs. DeYo, "a great deal is being made of the alleged wetness of the Kansas City Convention, and every time the claim is made that it was with you]- knolwedge and tacit permission.” Mrs. DeYo sent to Mrs. Willebrandt several clip pings relating to the Kansas City Convention, all of them being articles by Arthur Sears Henning, Wash ington Correspondent of the Chicago Tribune. Mrs. Willebrandt answered: “Dear Mrs. DeYo. Thank you for your letter with its expression of confidence in me. I 'do not know how one can answer these propagandists like Arthur Sears Henning. I was at the Kansas City Convention, up both day and night. I saw' one drunk man and tw'o others w'ho visibly had been drinking somewhat. It so chanced that all three of them w'ere violent anti-Hooverites and actively en gaged, as wfas Mr. Henning and his paper at that time, in the campaign to prevent Mr. Hoover’s nom ination. Nobody furnished any evidence of where liquor was coming from other than from the per sonal baggage of certain delegates to the conven tion; which baggage is not subject to search except by search warrant obtained after affidavits duly setting forth facts necessary to comply with search warrant provisions of the National Prohibition act. “Mr. Henning wrote such lurid articles concerning violation of the liquor statutes that I called upon him for evidence with the hope of instituting prose cutions against the guilty parties. Mr. Henning never replied. Every time he has presented himself to the Department of Justice there have been law yers here ready and willing to accept and act upon any evidence he wouid submit. He has at all times refused to submit any facts. The only times he has been kept waiting have been when he came not to submit facts but to secure an interview from me, which, it is quite true, he has been refused. I do not mak eit a practice to interfere witn government work to grant interviews for the newspapers. How ever, on no occasion of Mr. Henning's visit to this Department has the Department refused to receive facts which he would furnish upon which prosecu tions could be instituted. Just the contrary has been true. Mr. Henning has evaded the Depart merit’s request for facts upon which we could pro ceed. The Department still awaits the submission of this evidence. "You are at liberty to use this letter in any way you please.” Sincerely. (Signed) Mabel Walker Willebrandt. Copy to Mr. Henning. WHV NO REFERENDUM 1. When a law has been enacted, a proposal for a referendum upon that law' is essentially an attack upon it. Before the matter was decided a referen dum was fairly in order but after it has become a law a referendum is an attack. We are not say ing that citizens can not propose a referendum in such a case but there should be no confusion about w'hat such a proposal signifies. The referendum opens up the whole subject anti compels the friends of the measure to fight for it all over again. Refer enda are not proposed by the friends of a measure excepting in cases where they think that will silence the enemies of the measure. The demand for a referendum comes from the enemies of the proposi tion and is expected to serve their purpose. 2. A State referendum on the National Prohibi tion law' is futile except for the purpose of creating disturbance. The State can not repeal the National law. If successful it can only nullify-to that extent the Constitution of the United States by withdraw ing the loyal support of one State for the particular part of the Constitution or law' involved. 3. The bill to repeal the Illinois Prohibition act and the Search and Seizure law'. House File Number 13, was not introduced into the Legislature for the purpose of securing a referendum on the liquor question. It was introduced to repeal the Illinois Prohibition act and the Search and Seizure hue. That is w'hat it calls for. The referendum proposal was added as an amendment to get enough votes to pass it through the House. In spite of the referen- ; dum it is still true that a vote in behalf of this bill is a vote to repeal the Illinois Prohibition act and the Search and Seizure law. If this bill passed, while the Legislators w'ould be granting the people the right to speak, they themselves w'ould have already spoken and gone on record for repeal. Thus the w'ets would have gained an important advantage by recording the Illinois Legislature as against pro hibition and in favor of the repeal of the State law'. 4. To repeal the Search and Seizure law w'ould take away from the State its chief weapon of de fense against the bootleggers. That is the one law which is particularly effective in capturing these criminals and it is for this purpose that this part of the bill was introduced. 5. Just at this time when the Administration has announced in the platform and messages of the President that the government intends to speed up law enforcement, a vote of the Legislature to repeal the State Prohibition act would weaken the hands of the government more than any other thing that could be done. It would give notice to the Presi dent and to the Nation that Illinois was not ready to support the enforcement program and was even considering the idea of deserting the prohibition policy altogether. WET ETHICS (From the W. C. T. U. Bulletin) To support the Eighteenth Amendment is the part of bigots, zealots and fanatics. To deal with boot leggers is the part of liberality and is the way to develop a splendid citizenry! * * * An official who raids a notorious wet and immoral roadhouse is a "snooper” and a “paid spy”; but a lawyer who organizes a clique to instruct juries not to convict the man who ran it is a modern Patrick Henry! * * * For a legislator to vote for law enforcement is to be “dominated by the lash of the fanatics”; but to work for the return of the organized liquor traffic which was notoriously the master of government and politics is the patriotic duty of every freeborn American! * * * For parents to exercise the old-fashioned virtues and discipline in the home is absolutely “not done;” but to drink in front of the children and blame dis respect for law on prohibition is the very best ex ample of modern parenthood! * * * To ask the government to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment is “singling out one Amendment at the expense of the others;” but to single out the Eight eenth Amendment for open disobedience is com mendable and proper!