Newspaper Page Text
bad, or indifferent alcohol flavored with essence of Juniper and sweetened with a little glycerine. The hotel bootleggers charged $5 a bottle for it, and we used to get the best imported gin from the grower for ninety cents a bottle before the war. "We pause to inquire, if liquor is so easy to obtain everywhere and enforcement has fallen down so com pletely, why is it necessary for them to accept synthetic gin instead of the genuine article, and why do they have to pay $5 a bottle for what formerly cost only ninety cents? Or why is the beer they now have ‘terrible slop, green and sickening, testing about three per cent alcohol, a little more or a little less, produced for nearly $3 a bar rel and now sold for $60. "That looks as if something was slowing up the liquor business and seriously interfering with the old-time pro duction and distribution. "Incidentally I cannot refrain from calling attention to the fact that the colonel says ‘v/e’ used to get it (the gin) for ninety cents a bottle. But alcohol is alcohol just the same wherever it is produced, and is just as in jurious to the human system when produced in a hand some, well-built brewery as when produced in the back alley. "When the colonel says ‘bootleggers are without obloquy. The best citizens introduce their bootleggers to their friends,’ I wonder what class of citizens he is talk ing about. I certainly question his right to use the word ‘best’ under such circumstances. Certainly the best citi zens are not introducing their bootleggers to their friends, and the bootlegger is not only an outlaw in fact, but is an outlaw in the common opinion of the commu nity and is so treated. When the colonel says the liquor industry is magnificently organized, it has succeeded in corrupting federal, state, county and municipal agencies all along the line of its manufacture and distribution. But this is nothing new. This situation began in 1862 and the United States Brewers Association was fully developed by 1870 and has been the backbone of liquor resistance and of liquor corruption in the country ever since. “Here, again, the colonel Is confusing the cause and the result. He is reasoning as if this organization of the liq uor power and its activify were produced by the enact ment of the prohibition law when, instead, the well known existence of this agency was one of the com pelling reasons for enacting the prohibition law. When the colonel implies, as he does, that under the stress of the present excitement the enforcement agencies made a mistake and seized a big brewery, his implications are unfair. Government enforcement agencies in Chicago have done an exceedingly good job already, and if Col. Randolph and his associates will throw themselves heartily into the struggle to back them up instead of giving out interviews which help to defeat their efforts, he will be moving in the right direction and will begin to accomplish what it was hoped that committee would do when it was appointed. “Below is a list of twenty of the largest cabarets and night clubs closed in the last couple of years, some of them having large investments in their plants. It is said the Rainbo Gardens had an investment of nearly one million dollars, bul it has been padlocked effectively and hundreds more in Chicago and vicinity have been sub jected to the same treatment: SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT NIGHT CLUBS AND CABARETS IN THE CITY OF CHICAGO CLOSED ON OBSERVATION EVIDENCE NAME AND ADDRESS DATE CLOSED Moulin Rouge 426 S. Wabash ave. May 22, 1926 Friars Inn Van Buren & Wabash ave. Dec. 1, 1926 Tearney’s Town Club Wabash & 7th st. April 14, 1927 Silver Slipper Randolph north of Wells st. July 19, 1927 Jeffrey Tavern 79th & Stony Island ave. March 13, 1928 Rendezvous Diversey & Clark st. March 13, 1928 NAME AND ADDRESS DATE CLOSED Plantation 35th & Cottage Grove March 15, 1928 Bagdad 64th & Cottage Grove March 16, 1928 Hollywood Barn i Kedzie ave. north of Lawrence March 27, 1928 Rainbo Gardens Clark st. north of Lawrence May 3, 1928 Parady 945 N. State st. May 4, 1928 Frolics 22nd st. west of Wabash ave. May 7, 1928 Ansonia Chicago ave. east of Michigan May 10, 1928 Colosimo Wabash ave. and 22nd st. May 28, 1928 Alamo Wilson ave. near Sheridan rd. Aug. 5, 1928 Chez Pierre Ontario & Fairbanks sts. Mar. 1, 1929 Samavar Blum Bldg., S. Michigan ave. Mar. 14, 1729 Club Royale 426 S. Wabash ave. Feb. 7, 1930 Beaumonde Club 519 Diversey Parkway Feb. 14, 1930 Kelly’s Stables , 431 Rush st. March, 1930 • “The citizens of Chicago are greatly indebted to Col. Randolph and his associates for what they are trying to do. We are all deeply grateful to them for their en deavors and now that Col. Randolph has relieved his overwrought nerves let us hope that he and Iris as sociates will not grow weary in well doing but will recognize their problem for what it really is. Let us hope that they will not mistake the cure for the disease and fight the remedy instead of the evil, which long experi ence shows can be cured by the strict enforcement of the prohibition law and in no other way.” ENTER THE “BILLIONAIRE” CROWD Expose of Plans of Wets to Unite Millionaires and Billionaires in Campaign to Destroy Prohibition; Propose to Permit Beer Traffic and Tax It to Raise Revenue in Lieu of Income Tax Ernest Gordon’s pamphlet just pub lished quoting and reviewing wet dis closures made at the recent congressional hearings at Washington, is a veritable mine of dry dynamite. Evidence from of ficials of the Association Against the Pro hibition Amendment laid bare the plans of brewers and billionaires who are con spiring against the working classes in a campaign to destroy prohibition, and again license beer traffic to raise a huge revenue in lieu of that now paid by the ultra-rich in the form of income taxes. Mr. Gordon says: ENTER THE “BILLIONAIRE” CROWD “That the Association Against the Pro hibition Amendment is in intimate touch with the brewers came out in the lobby in vestigations of 1930. When asked by Senator Robinson if he knew Hugh F. Fox, of the United States Brewers’ As sociation, Mr. Stayton answered: “ ‘I have corresponded with him, seen a great deal of him, gotten informa tion from him.’ “But while this is true, it is also clear that at present other persons and other motives are taking the lead for the res toration of beer and the brewers. There has been a large scale mobilization of capitalists outside the alcohol interests, to break down the Eighteenth Amendment. In a letter to Mr. Noel B. Martin, Mr. Stayton says: “ ‘On our board there are individuals who, either in the management of their own personal affairs or in the broad general direction of corpora tions in which they are interested, di rect the management of forty billions of dollars and the employment and occupation of three million of em ployees. These figures were conserva tive when made, and since then the board has been enlarged.’ “In the subpoenaed correspondence of the Association, a form letter addressed to ‘Mr. Multimillionaire’ and asking for membership and subscriptions was dis covered. This wras to be sent to the mil lionaires registered in Boyd’s list of mil lionaires. When a subordinate proposed using a list of automobile owners as a basis for membership he was rebuked by Mr. Stayton. They did not wish to call to their colors ‘men who traveled in shirt sleeves.’ Attached to this correspondence was a list of ‘prominent sportsmen and horseowners whose horses are entered in all the prominent races.’ These are the men who hate the Eighteenth Amend ment and who would pay heavily for its elimination. And they are getting to gether. On December 12, 1927, a moeting was called at Senator Wadsworth’s home in Washington, with Senator Underwood present, together with railroad men, manufacturers, senators and representa tives of both parties. It was a three days’ meeting behind closed doors and with no publicity. A TRANSFER OF TAXES “Why should these kings of Mammon be so solicitous for the beer-freedom of the working man? The reason is provided in a memorandum of Mr. Stayton. This outlines a letter to be sent to manufac turers and big business men, enclosing also a ‘bait list,’ together with a request to join the Association. The letter went to Mr. Percy Rockefeller, and among the ‘bait names’ were those of Mr. E. S. Hark ness, General Atterbury and the duPonts. It ran: “ ‘Do you realize that congress has the power at once to legalize a glass of mild, wholesome beer and that workingmen and others would willing ly pay a tax of three cents per glass, and that that amount (based on past consumption) would enable the fed eral government to get rid of the bur densome corporation taxes and in come taxes and to take the snoopers and spies out of offices and homes?’ “Mr. Stayton had prepared a hand picked list of 2,000 men paying income taxes on incomes of $100,000 or more each. In the draft of a letter to be sent, these points are made: “ T. Irenee duPont made the state ment that one of his companies would save ten million dollars in cor poration taxes if we should have the British tax on beer. ‘2. In 1914 the brewers paid taxes on 66 million barrels of beer. If we should have back the right to manufacture beer, if we should manufacture just as much as we did in 1914, and if we should tax it at the British rate, the income would be $1,320,000,000 or more than the net amount received from income and corporation taxes. There would be no snoopers in busi ness offices examining books. ‘3. If the taxes should be taken off corporations there would be a rise in stock values and all owners of stocks would profit accordingly.’ “Senator Caraway to Mr. Stayton: And he, duPont, thought if you could get the Eighteenth Amendment repealed that he could lift $10,000,000 taxes off his corpora tion? “Stayton: That $10,000,000 of taxes would be lifted from that corporation. Yes, sir. “Caraway: That would be a strong con sideration? “Stayton: I should think so. Yes, sir, since he is an officer of the corporation. “Mr. duPont further stated before the house committee on the judiciary, April 23, 1930: ‘Had we pursued such a course (li censing and taxing intoxicating liq uors at a figure no higher than that prevailing in Great Britain) there would have flowed to our .governmen tal treasury during the past eleven years approximately $1,600,000,000 per annum, a total for the eleven years of $17,654,000,000.’ “Such is the prize money at stake! “The New York World, of January 25, 1930, made this statement: ‘Representatives of brewers and dis tillers told a World correspondent to day that their principals would be willing to pay $1,125,000,000 in federal taxes to return to pre-prohibition pro duction.’ “The taxes the brewers are so ready to pay would be passed on to the con sumers and their families. The poor man’s throat is to pay the rich man’s taxes plus the brewer’s profits which in the old days were enormous. The recent settlement of the Ehret estate, for example, showed that this single brewer owned, besides a vast personal estate, fifty millions of New York city real estate which made him, next to the Astors, the largest owner of New York realty. . . “So there it is! There can be no com promise with the brewers. No more favor able ground for opposing this alien indus try and its product can be found than that which national prohibition affords. “We are called to settle the thing now and not to hand it down, as a political Mt-over, to the next generation.” UNFINANCED (Reporter, Oregon, III.) We wish mundane destiny would cease to afflict the Chicago Tribune with peri patetic brainstorms regarding prohibition. Formerly of somewhat periodical mani festation, these seizures to which the self acclaimed world’s greatest newspaper, is agonizingly subject, have become succes sional and the spasmodic pang that priorly attended the production of the Tribune’s editorial rampages against pro hibition, has latterly degenerated into a prolonged convulsion distressing to be hold and doubtless painful to undergo. During the past week, the Tribune has been having a dreadful time, pursuing its usual course of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, neck, hump , tail and eyebrows. The Tribune discovered to the agony of its richly endowed moral concept, that the Anti-Saloon League of state and na tional representation is sustained in an organization capacity, by contributions of money made by many individuals and that the fiscal budget of the Anti-Saloon League, is largely assembled through re sponse by church affiliants of various de nominations. This discovery, asserts the Tribune, de notes a condition of frightful depraviV. Church people caught by the Chicago Tribune in the act of participating in a movement inimical to the great liquor in terests of America and of the world! It is to quail. Observe the Eighteenth Amendment. Observe the Volstead act. Observe the statutes in various states contemplated tc coordinate with the federal constitutional ordinance and federal laws in sustaining the enforcement process. Note on the other hand, factors actively engaged in operating to the disintegration of the said amendment and the various statutes, conspicuously among them the renowned and superbly wet Chicago Trib une. Association Against Prohibition; auxili ary associations of like character and pur pose, in many states and diligent in most large cities; satellites of various -women’s clubs and organizations, eager for a con spicuous vogue in denouncing the prohi bition principle; individualistic proclaim ed of the personal liberty fetish, grasping the ppportunity to achieve the ephemeral but noisy prominence that “yipping” against prohibition accords; foreign-born exemplars of alien blocs, elevated to legis fCnnt.mn«rl nn Tsu-nn a\