The American issue. [volume], July 01, 1930, Image 1

About The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??

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

                
_ * 79?n
r fva a - -to
The ssue
___ILLINOIS EDITION
Volume XXV. WESTERVILLE, OHIO, JULY, 1930 Number 7
ILLINOIS AND THE SENATE HEARING
Interesting Highlights of Campaign to Repeal Illinois Prohibition Law
Brought Out in Congressional Hearings at Washington
Some scenes highly interesting to Illi
noisans were thrown on the political
screen in the recent congressional hear
ings at Washington. The testimony and
subpoenaed correspondence about the Il
linois wet and dry battle mainly revolved
around the activities of Walter G. Hooke,
of somewhere east, the $7,500.lobbyist of
the Association Against the Prohibition
Amendment, with an expense account of
$4,42.7 in 1929. Mr. Hooke worked in Illi
nois’ legislative districts, and spent several
weeks at Springfield during the final days
of the last legislative session, directing
the fight to repeal our state prohibition
laws.
If there are Illinois drys who have felt
that there isn’t much tangible wet or
ganized activity for the Anti-Saloon
League to combat during these days, they
will no doubt have that idea completely
dispelled by the inside facts of the wet
doings as disclosed above. This is only a
part of their activities brought out by
the committee. And much more, no doubt,
remains in the dark.
The wets of Illinois are fighting with a
thoroughness, boldness and defiance not
exceeded in the very heyday of their pros
perity and political dominance of the
state.
On May 2, 1920. when the wet bill to
repeal the Illinois prohibition act was
pending in the senate, Mr. Hooke wired
Major Henry Curran, $25,000 a year gen
eralissimo of the national Association
Against the Prohibition Amendment, as
follows:
Bill reported without recommenda
tion. This at least gives us a chance
for a vote in the relate. Really a
great victory. Judiciary committee
overwhelmingly dry. See you tomor
row.
Walter G. Hooke.
Again a little later he wrote to Mr. Cur
• ran :
Dear Henry: Briefly the situation
here *. as follows:
The resuft will rest with down-stats
senators entirely. Thiele’s organization
is working sensibly and very efficient
ly to effect a change in six voters. He
and I go to Springfield tomorrow
where I can size the situation for
myself. Have interviewed many people
and no one except Thiele believes
there is a chance to win. He is modest
and makes no promises, but he is
hopeful and with tome help he thinks
there is a chance. He impresses me
most favorably. A complete report on
him when I return.
His present tactics call for as much
delay as possible to allow time to
work on the “boys back home.”
Outside of the legislative situation,
this state seems ripe for intensive
work, but the greatest tact will be re
quired. Thiele has been absolutely un
known, likewise his organization to a
dozen men I have talked with.
Schmidt, who wrote to you regarding
an organization, is young, a local poli
tician in the better sense of the word,
and is keen to run his own show; he
has already a group of over 200. He
doesn’t know Schmidt. But their
spirit is fine and their plans are not
visionary.
Mav I call on either Mr. Crane or
Mr. Field, our directors here, to have
substantial inquiries made concern
ing these men? Please wire me at
Springfield, care St. Nicholas hotel. I
shall stop there instead of the Leland
house, making the change at Thieles
suggestion. It is the political head
x quarters.
Will wire you when I leave Spring
fiefd, also send you from there more
news. Personally, I believe the situa
tion fairly good and a chance to win.
Sincerely,
Walter G. Hooke.
The testimony continued with Senator
Robinson, of Indiana, doing the question
ing for the committee of the senate in
vestigating lobbying association:
Who is Mr. Thiele?
Mr. Curran. He has an organiza
tion against prohibition, whose work
is confined-entirely to the state of Il
linois. He lives in Chicago. . .
Senator Robinson, of Indiana. He
refers to the effecting of a change in
six votes. I am wondering how you •
worked efficiently to effect a change
in six votes.
Mr. Curran. Well, I will tell you one
way, and that was done, I believe, at
that time, and that is to stir up sen
timent back home. Where there are
people in a district who are for or
against a measure they are busy all
the time the legislature is in session,
with the people in those districts
bringing out that sentiment so it will
be conveyed to the representative
while he is in the legislature, which to
my mind is a pretty healthy thing to
do. . .
Senator Robinson, of Indiana. Well,
here is a copy of a letter dated April
2, which is this same month, three or
four weeks ago, or less, to Mr. Amiel
Thiele, 105 Munroe street, Chicago*
111.
Mr. Curran. Pardon me, senator; is
that this year or last year?
Senator Robinson, of Indiana. This
year, April 2. It reads:
“Replying to you,, telegram, cash
ier’s draft for $250 will be mailed to
Beckington tonight or first thing to
morrow morning.”
Mr. Curran. Oh, I know who it is.
Senator Robinson, of Indiana. Well,
who is Mr. Beckington?
Mr. Curran. Well, I don’t know ex
actly, but I know he is interested in
the campaign for reelection of a man
named Green, for reelection to, I
think, the Illinois assembly. Not for
reelection. It had to do with the re- ",
cent primaries, the Illinois primaries.
Senator Robinson, of Indiana. Was
Beckington a candidate?
Mr. Curran. No, I don’t think so.
Senator Robinson, of Indiana. In
the primaries? f
Mr. Curran. Well, he may have
been, but I don’t think so, Eecking- f
ton? I don’t think so.
Senator Robinson, .of Indiana. I did
not see this, or I would have brought
it into the record before. I think this
may answer. This is dated April 2,
and is a telegram signed E. Thiele, t
addressed to the Association Against |
the Prohibition Amendment, 21 East
Fortieth street. It reads:
“Mr. Hooke promised aid to Leroy j
Green campaign. R. E. Beckington,
attorney, 325 south State street,' 1
Rockford, was named as campaign f
treasurer. Nothing received. If un
willing to contribute wire at once. *
Primary Tuesday.”
That is signed “E. Thiele.”
That same day you evidently sent
forth the draft in the sum that had s
been suggested?
Mr .Curran. Yes. . . \
Senator Robinson, of Indiana. Here t
is a report from Mr. Hooke to Mr. f,
Curran, dated February 3, of this a
year. I quote from it:
“I would approve of Mr. Thiele’s £
general conclusions regarding the sit- |
uation in Illinois.”
Again: j
.(Continued on Page 8),
V
ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE STRATEGY
, (The Peoria Transcript, June 7, 1930)
Commenting on various proposals for a prohibition referendum
next autumn, George B. Sanford, superintendent of the Anti-Saloon
League of Illinois, says “The Anti-Saloon League occupies a strategic
position and will choose its own fighting ground and will not let the
wets choose it for us.—And that means that whatever the wets decide
to do in regard to the referendum, the drys will concentrate their at
tention on the election of dry legislators and congressmen.”
This is straight-forward, understandable policy. It commands re
spect. While Republicans and Democrats are flourishing with refer
enda proposals, the former seeking to protect the candidacy of the
dry Mrs. McCormick by affording voters a prohibition referendum
and the latter demanding that all candidates pledge themselves to
abide by the result of the referendum, the league chooses to select its
own fighting ground and to concentrate on the election of dry candi
dates. !
It is this direct procedure which has made the League a power in
politics. It knows what it wants. It knows, also, that while the re
sult of a prohibition referendum affords a juicy paragraph for a po
litical year-book, it is not recorded on the roll call of congress or the
general assembly. The city hall forces of Chicago are proposing a
referendum. A J. Cermak, chairman of the Democratic committee of
Cook county, insists that candidates for legislative office be pledged to
abide by it. The Republicans, of course, will do nothing of the kind.
On the contrary, they will use the referendum as a device for satisfy
ing the wets without offending the drys. Electors will be encouraged
to express their disapproval of Volsteadism by voting wet on the ref
erendum and encouraged to maintain their party regularity by voting
for Republican candidates for congress and the state legislature. But
there will be no pledges in districts which are not notoriously wet.
It is understandable that supporters of Mrs. McCormick should
favor an advisory vote, but it is incomprehensible that Democrats
should consent to a referendum under any condition. Illinois had
prohibition referenda in 1922 and 1926. The Literary Digest poll
amounts to a third referendum. All three have shown the state to be
overwhelmingly against strict enforcement of the Volstead Act. Yet
the Democrats, apparently, are willing that another referendum shall
be had with the usual result that the state will give wet advice and
send dry representatives to Washington and Springfield.
The Cermak proposal to pledge candidates is either sinister or
ridiculous. In either case, it is not impressive. The real referendum
is embodied in the attitude of candidates elected to pass on federal or
state legislation. The election of Mrs. McCormick, who is “person
ally and politically dry,” would prevail over a wet victory in the refer
endum. The drys have stoutly insisted that the effective will of the
people is expressed in personam rather than in re. They will, there
fore, “concentrate their attention on the election of dry legislators and
congressmen.” ($«•.
The ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE KNOWS ITS BUSINESS. It
picks its BATTLEGROUND AND FORMULATES its policies.
The wets, on the other hand, have been led astray by referenda which
have no ^legislative status. EITHER THE REPUBLICAN OR
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN ILLINOIS WOULD BE IM
MEASURABLY STRONGER under LEAGUE MANAGEMENT.
THE LEAGUE IS EFFICIENT. Its LEADERS KNOW THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVISORY VOTING AND ELEC
TIVE COMMISSIONS ISSUED TO MEN AND WOMEN WHO
ANSWER TO ROLL CALLS.
“Those who favor the principles I stand for, however they vote on
a referendum, must naturally vote for a person whose convictions are
known to be in favor of carrying out the verdict of the referendum,”
says Colonel Lewis, the Democratic senatorial nominee.
But it is history that they “must naturally” do nothing of the*
kind.