OCR Interpretation


The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, October 01, 1930, Image 5

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

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn2008060406/1930-10-01/ed-1/seq-5/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for Five

nees. They have financial resources, which, judged
by recent revelations, suggest close connections with
the lawless underworld, so dominant in Chicago at
this moment.
In the proposed referendum the ignorance of our
opponents is their strength; and the intelligence of
our friends is their weakness. The former can be
made to believe that the result, if favorable, will
bring back the beverages they desire. It gives an
opportunity to the opposition to make itself vocal,
to voice a protest against a policy which interferes
with selfishness and greed. It is an easy task for
the enemies of prohibition to get out the opposition
vote.
On the other hand, our people know that the ref
erendum binds no official, that it changes no policy,
that it does not alter a punctuation mark in any
law, that it can have no legal effect. There has been
sanity behind the refusal of prohibitionists to be
drawn into sham battles.
Mrs. McCormick has elected to say that while she
Is dry, she will vote wet if in this unfair referendum,
the enemies of prohibition can muster a majority of
the votes.
She pledges herself to support a resolution to sub
mit to the several states the question of repeal of the
Eighteenth Amendment if the proposed pro-liquor
referendum in Illinois goes that way. If that were
all, the friends of prohibition might rest secure in
the thought that in six years it would not be prob
able that she would get a chance to vote for such
proposition, if elected senator from Illinois. But
she proposes something worse than that.
Another issue presented in the Illinois referendum
is the modification of the Volstead law. Within cer
tain limits she says she will be guided by that vote,
and the limits are sufficiently vague to satisfy the
most ardent enemy of prohibition. How modified?
The proposition, as worded for the ballot does not
say. She does not say. Friends would be glad to
see the law modified by making it stronger. Ene
mies would like to see it changed by making it
weaker. Either might vote in the affirmative at the
referendum. What can any vote on that proposition
mean? Only Mrs. McCormick can say, insofar as
her course in the senate would be involved.
To what extent will the result of the referendum
on repeal affect her vote for modification? Let us
put it more concretely. Suppose the result for re
peal is in the affirmative, but the senate refuses to
bring the issue to a vote, or if it does, the proposition
fails, as it would. What then? The liquorites,
balked in the effort for repeal, will ask for such mod
ification of the law, as will permit the return of in
toxicating beverages despite the amendment. What
will the lady do then? She does not say,
Yet, who does not know that such a procedure is in
accord with the cardinal principles of our oppo
nents. Does she intend to go the limit with her
pro-liquor friends? Repeal is the high brow method;
modification, emasculation and nullification consti
tute the low brow procedure. The low brows are in
the majority in the camp of those who seek the de
struction of our nation-wide prohibition policy.
Prohibitionists would be simple, indeed, to support
her in the belief that, finally, she would break with
her new allies after the promises she has publicly
made.
What should they do who believe in law and or
der? This is a poignant question for the editor of
this paper who is writing this pronouncement. He
is a citizen of, and a voter in, Illinois. He must face
the issue editorially and personally. Here is the
answer:
Prohibitionists should bring out a candidate who
represents their views and support him or her, as
the case may be, with the last vote which can be se
cured next November. They should not be deterred
by the wail that such course will elect James Hamil
ton Lewis, an avowed wet. Let it be so. If betrayal
is to be our portion, let it be at the hands of one we
have not trusted rather than by another whom we
^have honored and aided.
No time should be lost. A prohibition candidate
should be found at once and a campaign started.
Let Mrs. McCormick and her kind learn once for all
that the people of Lincoln’s state will not put up
with nullification.
Candidates for congress from prohibition districts,
who announce that they will be guided by the liquor
referendum, should be given a dose of the same
medicine. Let it be established in Illinois that state
conventions cannot come between congressional
candidates and the people in their districts who
must furnish the votes to elect them.
Mrs. McCormick spent over a quarter of a million
dollars in securing her nomination. That was
enough to alienate every honest prohibitionist. It
seems not to hurt her with the liquorites. It will
with all who believe in honest government.
She has betrayed the good people of Illinois. Let
her look to the liquorites for her election.—O. W. S.
ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Anti-Saloon League has a board of directors numbering over 100 mem
bers, who are officially chosen by the different church bodies of the state and
by affiliating organizations interested in the enforcement of the law. This
board of directors meets semi-annually. At the annual meeting the head
quarters committee of nine members is elected. This headquarters committee
holds regular monthly meetings with the superintendent. One of the duties
of this committee is the recommendation of candidates. All the information
possible is gathered through the district superintendents and our friends in
the districts and presented by the state superintendent to the headquarters
committee. This information is carefully considered and recommendations
are made and carried to the people through The American Issue, by mail, and
the active work of the field force of the Anti-Saloon League.
Article II of the constitution of the Anti-Saloon League of Illinois pro
vides:
The object of this League is the suppression of the saloon. To this
end we invite the alliance cf all in harmony with this object, and the
League pledges itself to avoid affiliation v/ith any political party as such
and to maintain an attitude of neutrality on questions of public policy
not directly concerned with the traffic in strong drink.
The Anti-Saloon League is non-partisan and, as well, lion-factional. This
is shown conclusively in the complete list of recommended candidates. The
list which appears in this Issue will reveal that we have included Democrats,
Republicans, and Independents; and those familiar with the situation will ob
serve that this has been done on the basis of the record and attitude of these
candidates.
It hardly seems necessary to state again that the Anti-Saloon League cares
nothing for parties as such. We deal absolutely with the individual candidates
regardless of the party affiliation. Wet leaders or wet candidates when it
seemed to serve their purpose best in an effort to weaken the Anti-Saloon
League’s recommendations against them have said that we were more friendly
to the Democratic party than theirs. Wet Democrats have said when it seemed
to serve their purpose best that the Anti-Saloon League was Republican, and
consequently more favorable to the Republicans than to the Democrats. But
after more than twenty-five years of active work in Illinois, those who know
the League’s work best will agree that the Anti-Saloon League is absolutely
non-partisan. If one party has more candidates recommended than another,
it merely proves that that particular party happens to have more candidates in
the field that stand unequivocally for the position held by the Anti-Saloon
League than the other one; it does not mean in any degree that the Anti-Sa
loon League favors the party as such.
WET INTERESTS AND THEIR DEVOTEES
IN REBELLION AGAINST CONSTITUTION
Both Washington and Lincoln stressed the grave dangers of the nullifica
tion course espoused by the wets of Illinois today. The danger was foreseen by
Washington, who, in his farewell address, gave this clear-cut warning:
The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make
and alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution
which at any time exists, ’till changed by the explicit and authentic
act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea
of the power and the rights of the people to establish government pre
supposes the duty of every individual to obey the established govern
ment. All obstruction to the execution of the laws, all combinations
and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real
design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and
action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this funda
mental principle, and of fatal tendency.
The dangerous and unpatriotic character of such a plan as is proposed by
the third question to be submitted on the wet referendum ballot was also
pointed out by Abraham Lincoln in his debates with Douglas when he asked:
What do you understand by supporting the constitution of a state,
or of the United States? Is it not to give such constitutional helps to
the rights established by that constitution as may be practically needed?
Can you, if you swear to support the constitution, and believe that the
constitution establishes a right, clear your oath without giving it sup
port? Do you support the constitution if, knowing or believing there
is a right established under it which needs specific legislation, you with
hold that legislation? Do you not violate and disregard your oath?
At Quincy, October 13, 1858, in the same series of debates, Lincoln said:
If you withhold that necessary legislation for the support of the
constitution and constitutional right, do you not commit perjury? I
ask every sensible man if that is not so? That is undoubtedly just so,
say what you please.
Senator Wm. E. Borah, speaking of a wet referendum proposed in New
York, practically the same as the second question to be submitted to Illinois
voters November 4, denounced such a course as “constitutional anarchy.” He
said:
That would delegate or leave to the respective states the power and
authority to say whether a particular beverage was intoxicating, H
the state fixes a percentage which makes it intoxicating, what is the
government of the United States to do? The government of the United
States is to remain silent. The keeper of the constitution, the sole
power to enforce it throughout the union, is to remain silent and con
nive at the violation of it from day to day and from year to year. That
goes on through all the forty-eight states of the union. It means legal
chaos, it means constitutional anarchy, it means the breakdown of con
stitutional government.
HOW TO VOTE FOR LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES
Each voter has three votes for representatives. All three votes may be
cast for one, one and one-half each for two, or one each for three can
didates.
ILLUSTRATION No. 1
One Vote Each for Three Candidates
® SMSSvr Ballot marked like this for representative counts one vote
pj jones for Smith» one for Brown, and one vote for Jones
ILLUSTRATION No. 2
One and One-half Votes Each for Two Candidates
in nRnw-kr Ballot marked like this for representative counts
□ JONES J,/2 votes for Smith, V/2 votes for Brown, nothing for Jones
ILLUSTRATION No. 3
Three Votes for One Candidate
in brown Ballot marked like this for representatives counts three
n JONES votes for Smith» nothing for Brown, nothing for Jones
Put a cross-mark before the name of every candidate for the legisla
ture for whom you wish to vote, whether his name is on the regular party
ticket or the “Independent” to the right of the ballot; also whether or not
you have put a cross in the party circle.
Vote for endorsed candidates only.
P

xml | txt