Newspaper Page Text
ALL IN A FLUTTER
Dry Democrats Will not Let Ras kob Run Away With Party to Wet Camp There is as great a flurry over the trend of national politics as if it were the spring of 1932 instead of the latter part of the winter of 1931. The presidential campaign of next year is now a live topic among Washington politicians and news writers. Prohibition is the cause of the flare at this time, and the fact that Chairman Raskob of the Democratic national com mittee. has called a meeting of the com mittee in Washington this week. The supposition is that under Raskob's leadership, the committee will declare for a wet, or at least a moist platform on which to make the presidential campaign next year. This supposition, presumably based on fact, stirred the dry Democrats and they are busy rounding up commit tee men who will opose the action of the wet members. Southern Democrats are taking the ini tiative in the protest against the proposed committmenj;. They have active support of Senator Robinson, of Arkansas, the Democratic leader and vice presidential candidate with A1 Smith in the 1928 pres idential race. It is their contention the national committee is without authority to commit the party on issues, and that such an. act lies solely with the national convention. Senator Morrison, Democrat, of North Carolina, is active in rounding up opposi tion to Raskob's plan, and declares there are enough members of the national com mittee opposed to Raskob leading the party into a wet swamp to defeat the project. Some wet newspapers over the country have been trying to make it appear that President Hoover is dodging the wet and dry question, and that he will probably be a candidate next year on a platform not strongly dry. This, however, is ridi culed by close advisors of the president who assert that he will be a candidate on a strictly dry platform and also as a conservative. There promises to be plenty of com ment, much of it not well founded, on this action of both parties. A VOICE FROM KANSAS And it Brings Encouraging News Concerning the Yeung People of That State Dr. E. H. Lindley, chancellor of the Uni versity of Kansas, addressing high school students in Wichita declared the morale of students in Kansas colleges and univer sities to be higher now than ever before. “I have counseled with the officers of the various fraternities on the University of Kansas campus,” Dr. Lindley said, “and I find, without exception, they are behind the movement to keep the state dry, and against all efforts of either students or others to manufacture or sell liquor il licitly. “It is impossible to have an assembly of students like that in the university and not find a few who will break over the traces, but I am thankful to say an excep tionally small percentage will be found on the campus of the state university. Every year less drinking is found among the student body and in most of the fraterni ties drinking is not considered smart.” In a survey of the universities of the United States, Kansas is found to rank first m the high morale of students, due, Dr. Lindley believes, to Kansas’ long standing prohibition law. Kansas has had state-wide prohibition since 1880. JUST LIKE RHODE ISLAND Rhode Island, one of the two states which did not ratify the Eighteenth Amendment, started its legislative session the other day by introducing a bill amend ing the state enforcement act and provid ing for beer and wine and also a memorial to Rhode Island senators and representa tives in congress urging repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. Rhode Island can be counted on to carry out the wildest wishes of the opponents of prohibition. YOU KNOW HE SPEAKS THE TRUTH Congressman Clark, of Maryland, Shows the State is Under Moral and Legal Obligations to Support the Constitution of the United States The following Is part of a speech made in congress recently by Congress man L. L. Clark, of Maryland, showing the obligation of each state to support, defend, and make effective the constitu tion of the United States. This is of inter est here in Ohio in view of the efforts of wet members of the legislature to get that body to declare for the nullification of the prohibition law by repealing the stafe pro hibition amendment. Mr. Clark said in part: “Mr. Speaker, under leave granted me this day to extend my remarks in the Record, I am including the Lincoln Day speech of President Hoover, delivered over the radio, in which he called to the atten tion of the country the importance of ob serving constitutional processes in the fur ther development of our nation. “What makes this subject so important at this time is that a certain group of intelligent, prominent, and highly financed citizens, who have been organized and op erating for some time, are carrying their organization and money from state to state disseminating the dangerous doc trine that no state is under any legal or moral obligation to support the constitu tion of the union, and therefore any state might ignore the Eighteenth Amendment and withdraw its support. And they ac tually finance elections for this purpose. “I am going to ask you to hear some of the reasoning back of this false, highly perilous ,and rebellious doctrine. “This group seeks to give the impression to the public that there is in Washington a great supergovernment controlled by congress and that this supergovernment wrote the Eighteenth Amendment into the constitution and is trying to force the states to support it and enforce it. “The truth is, as we all know, that all congress did was to adopt a resolution submitting this amendment to the states of the union for consideration. It was for the states to say whether it should or should not be written into and become a part of the constitution—not the constitu tion of congress, as there is no such thing, but the oenstitution of the union of the states. The states made the constitution and only the states can unmake, amend, or modify any part of it. The Eighteenth Amendment was sent by the states to con gress as their mandates and congress has no legal or moral authority to change or depart from the directions or require ments of such mandates. Under our coor dinate departmental system of govern ment there is no superior power lodged in the states or elsewhere to compel congress to enforce the constitution, just as there is no power lodged in congress to compel the states to enforce it, but it is neverthe less a duty the violation or nullification of which strikes at the very root, founda tion, and existence of our government. “Then this group says to the people, ‘Congress enforces the Harrison narcotic law, the Mann white-slave law, the Dyer autotheft law, and o'.her statutes; why, therefore, should congress expect the states to enforce the Eighteenth Amend ment?’ "The least we can say of this argument is that it is a deliberate attempt to ex ploit the uninformed, who have not had occasion to distinguish between a federal statute and a constitutional amendment. Federal statutes are made by congress and enforceable bnlv through federal agencies, while constitutional amendments, being made by the states, are necessarily bind ing on the states, and when not self-exe cutory, the states provide for the method of execution as done in the Eighteenth Amendment. Every state knew when it ratified this amendment and sent its man date to congress that concurrent enforce ment by the state was necessary to make it effective, ar.d the amendment so pro vided. For any state to back away from its own action and its own self-imposed responsibility is a violation of obligation to the union of which it is a part. And any state executive who teaches such vio lation of such obligation stultifies himself and fails to cover his oath. “When this group says to the people, ‘There is no way for congress or any other agency in Washington to compel a state to support or enforce the constitution or the Eighteenth Amendment and, there fore, there is no legal or moral obligation upon the state to do so,’ it is teaching a most dangerous doctrine. What they say is true, that a state cannot be compelled to act, but I dispute the statement that there is no obligation on the part of a state to observe or be bound by the con stitution of the union. It is also true that congress cannot be forced to pass the ap propriation bills that it is now passing, or for the congress to compel the president to perform any of his constitutional or executive duties, but what would happen to our country if these officials were to re fuse to perform such duties merely be cause they cannot be compelled to perform them?’’ , BIG DETROIT STILL SEIZED A Tire in a five-story building at Detroit resulted in the discovery recently of what is said to be the largest alcohol cooking plant ever found in the Detroit district. Deputy Federal Prohibition Administra tor Brennan said the plant was the most complete, modern, elaborate cooking plant he had ever seen. He estimated its output of 10.000 gallons of alcohol a day worth $50,000 and added that the equipment probably cost $250,000. No one was found in the building al though Brennan said 50 to 100 men would be required to operate the plant. A large supply of raw materials was found. Billy Sunday is right when he says, "generations yet unborn have a right to be well-born.” DEATH SUMMONS ANDREW S. THOMAS Member of the National Executive Committee Dies at His Home in Charleston, West Virginia Andrew Stephen Thomas, of Charleston, West Virginia, member of the executive committee of the Anti-Saloon League of America, died Sunday afternoon, Janu ary 18. During the past five years of his service as a member of the national executive committee of the national League he was regular in attendance and deeply atten tive to every phase of the reports and to the deliberations, and he was especially wise in his counsel regarding the business affairs of the League and he took steadily a generous part in the support of the work. Mr. Thomas was an eminent, practical and consecrated Christian merchant. After a common school education he be gan as a clerk in a store and worked on ward and upward until he has owned an important part in the large general store of Thomas, Fields and Company at Charleston. As a civic leader he has also been out standing in his influence and personal service and also in his contributions for social benefits. He has always been ag gressive in his antagonism of the liquor traffic. He is one of the best known and most aggressive leaders in the state cam paign which gave the victory to the cause of prohibition in West Virginia by the largest majority cast upon the straight issue of prohibition of any state in the union. He helped bring a victory in that state which, at the time it was achieved, gave increased zeal and momentum to the campaign throughout the country. Mr. Thomas will be greatly missed by the members of the national executive committee and by the leaders of the pro hibition movement in his own state. The prohibition cause has lost a valuable Iriend and worker in his death. WHAT A DROP! Per Capita Consumption of Liquor Dropped With a Thud, says Uncle Sam Per capita consumption of liquor in the United States in 1930 had dropped to 33 per cent of the per capita record of 1914, according to the report made by the pro hibition bureau to the Wickcrsham com mission. From 1914 to 1930 the per capita consumption had droped from 1.705 gal lons to .602 gallons per person, according to the bureau's figures. The bureaus re port. said: "The total gallons of illicit alcohol pro duced and smuggled is estimated to be 73,831,172 gallons. This is a per capita consumption based upon the preliminary census returns as of April 1. 1930, indi cating the population of the United States 122,698,190 persons, of only .602 gallons. “In 1914 the quantity of spirits con sumed legally was 143.447,227 gallons; wine 52.418,430 gallons, and malt liquors, 2,056,407,108. The absolute alcoholic con tent of these liquors is estimated at 163. 983.681 gallons or 1.705 gallons per capita. "This indicates a per capita probable production of absolute alcohol for bever age purposes of 35 per cent of the 1914 rate of legal consumption." WOULD OPEN BREWERIES IN NEW MEXICO According to an International News Service story, carrying a Santa Fe, New Mexico, dateline of February 10, a bill has been proposed in that state’s legislature wrhich would provide $50,000 for the con struction of a brewery or distillery and create a state commission to supervise the distribution of liquor "for the convenience of the people.” Permits would b? granted persons of good "moral character” upon application. Each permit holder would be able to pur chase four quarts of vinous liquors and twenty-four quarts of malt liquor each month. DID NOT REVEAL HIS PLAN United States Senator Wagner, of New York, is a dyed-in-the-wool wet. The other day in the senate he made a speech in which he asserted that the Wickersham report was “the beginning of the end of prohibition.” Wagner says he has a plan for the repeal of the Eighteenth Amend ment which is calculated to prevent the return of the saloon. He made quite a long speech for the re peal of the Eighteenth Amendment but he did not reveal his plan for the repeal of prohibition and at the same time to keep closed the saloon. Probably Wagner’s plan is to abolish the name of the saloon and call it the "poor man’s club.” or “the public house,” or any one of a dozen names which means the same thing as the saloon. BELGIUM AGAINST BOOZE The Belgium government scheme of protection against the use of alcohol has passed through the chamber of deputies on a division of 66 to 25 votes. This is the first step in parliamentary procedure. The bill upholds prohibition and disallows the sale of alcohol in cafes, restaurants and hotels, and even forbids cafe and restau rant-keepers to have alcohol In their pri vate apartments. WHO IS EXAGGERATING? Wets make suggestive statements concerning how unemployment will be solved if prohibition were re pealed. One of them says it could be done if 2,000,000 men were put to work manufacturing liquor. Would 2,000,000 men be put to work mak ing liquor if the prohibition law was repealed? Someone has dug up a wet statement made in congress in 1914, one of the greatest liquor years in the history of the country. The author of the statement placed the number of brewery workers at 62, 363, distillery workers, 7,217, wine makers, 2,254, malt, 1,982, bartend ers, 409,465, employees in allied trades, 15,620, total, 498,901. Who is exaggerating?