Newspaper Page Text
(Continued From Page 1)
THE BAPTIST YOUNG PEOPLES UNION OF AMERICA REPRESENTING OVER 250,000 YOUNG PEOPLE, says: “I don't believe that repeal represents, the real sentiment ol the people and feel that a veto would be decidedly in the in terest of the public at large.” WILLIAM A. MCINTYRE, COMMIS SIONER TERRITORIAL COMMANDER OF CENTRAL STATES’ TERRITORY SALVATION ARMY, says: "It would seem that the repeal of pro hibition would be a step backward in the worlds progress. Prohibition has been a Godsend to the workingman and the working woman, and its benefits among the under-privileged are so pronounced as to be indisputable. "The fact that there has been so little reaction among the working class of peo ple throughout the business and financial depression we have just passed through, or are passing through, is due more or less directly to prohibition. Fifty to 75 per cent more people have put money in the banks in place of spending it for in toxicating beverages. "While there is plenty of poverty to be found on every hand, the Salvation Army finds that conditions generally among the working class of people with whom it comes in contact are far better and more conducive to better living than in the days of the saloon.” DR. SHAILER MATHEWS, DEAN OF THE DIVINITY SCHOOL AT THE UNI VERSITY OF CHICAGO, AND PRESI DENT OF THE CHICAGO FEDERATION REPRESENTING 800 CHURCHES AND 17 DENOMINATIONS, says: "It would be unfortunate to have any action taken now modifying the enforce ment of the Eighteenth Amendment, as it would be liable to play into the hands of the criminal element. If any modification is ever made, it should be made by those in favor of control of the liquor traffic in stead of by its friends.” DR. E. EMORY LYON. SUPERIN TENDENT OF THE CENTRAL HOW ARD ASSOCIATION, A PRISONERS AID SOCIETY 30 YEARS OLD AND OPERATING IN EIGHT STATES, said: "Chicago, which is already having a hard time fighting its crime, would be given a setback if the state prohibition enforcement act was repealed. The great er latitude given bootleggers would make crime conditions worse. There is no pros pect whatever of improvement from re peal, but on the contrary every sign that crime would be given a deeper foothold.” MISS P. BRECKINRIDGE, DEAN OF UNDERGRADUATE SOCIAL SERVICE STUDENTS, UNIVERSITY OF CHI CAGO, says: "The governor has a great opportunity to hold this state among those that au thorize enforcement of the law. It is my earnest wish that he will use his veto power. It would oe a fearful thing to have no law in Illinois." A. R. FREEMAN, STATE SECRETARY OF THE STATE ASSOCIATION OF Y. m. c. a: s, sa “I believe personally the governor should veto the repeal bill. I am con vinced of the need of strict enforcement. Every aid is needed to prevent the return of the open liquor traffic.” MRS. ANNA MARDEN DE YO, COR RESPONDING SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL W. C. T. U., says: “I trust that Governor Emmerson will save the state of Frances Willard from the disgrace of failing to support the con stitution. It lies in his power and we count upon him as an advocate of law’ and order.” CLIFFORD V. GREGORY, EDITOR OF THE PRAIRIE FARMER. THE OLD EST FARM PAPER IN THE STATE, says: "There is no doubt that our farmers generally are against repeal of the state enforcement act. I have not noted any change in farm sentiment on prohibition. The farmers of Illinois are as dry as they ever were. Repeal would create a bad sit uation. It would only bring on more law lessness, and make it easier to violate the law. Obviously it would encourage crime and disorder without any benefit in re turn. The farmers of Illinois do not want this kind of a solution of the prohibition question.” MRS. LORADO TAFT, WIFE OF THE NOTED SCULPTOR, says: "People who promise that repeal will bring on a better state of affairs forget what we had before prohibition, when sa loons were open and we had a blind pig program equal to that of the speakeasy situation today. Surely to abolish state enforcement would be to encourage crime.” E. M. MARTIN. SECRETARY OP TIIE PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE OP THE UNION LEAGUE CLUB, says: "The state should do its part in enforc ing a national policy. State aid in the en forcement of federal laws is a part of our scheme of government. Withdrawal of state support for the federal prohibition officers will be an aid to the bootlegging gangs and their criminal trade and make federal enforcement more difficult.” JUDGE ANDREW A. BRUCE, PRESI DENT OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMI NOLOGY, says: "There is no doubt whatever that the liquor market in Chicago would be en larged by the passage of this measure. A great many more people would drink. They would drink because free from the present fear of arrest by the police and the possibility of getting their names and their pictures in the newspapers. They would drink also because the state of Illi nois had lifted its stigma from liquor and, so far as it could, condoned it. Here in Chicago most of the liquor Is supplied through the Capone gang. All the liquor which passes into Chicago through regular channels either is han dled by the Capone gang or else pays tribute to it for the privilege. Any in crease in the demand for liquor will be met by a supply administered either by Alphonse Capone or in competition with him. "The w'orld has already seen the results of gang competition in Chicago. It has been shocked by the beer wars and the violent elimination of the chief gang rival to the Capone organization. It seems altogether probable that there will be more events of this character if the state prohibition code is wiped out. “It will be vastly easier then for speak easies to operate. They can be set up any where, near schools or churches or col leges, without power of the police to in terfere except as they constitute a public nuisance in the eyes of the state law. "Moonshine making and the operation of wildcat breweries will similarly be en couraged. All the old liquor law's of the state will be completely knocked out by repeal. There will be nothing in the Illi nois law to prevent anyone from openly making beer or whisky. “Protection will be demanded and will be paid for as certainly if the law is re pealed as it is today. Repeal would not change the situation. Corruption in the police department is the growth of many years. It antedates prohibition by a long time. It will not be stopped by the passage of a bill which helps the gangs. “Those of the police force who are in on the corrupt system of trading with the gangsters can find numerous ways to make it necessary and profitable for the gangs to pay. There are all sorts of trifling ways of commanding obedience, as many lines of legitimate business have found. It is possible to annoy or arrest on many pretexts, and the police and gangsters know it. Their collusion which has meant money in the pockets of both, will con tinue until a real solution to the prohibi tion problem is found. And it is not to be found in knocking down the only defense the state now has against the bootlegging gangsters. “Furthermore, the state does not pro pose to repeal the laws against gambling or vice. In these the gangsters are in terested as much as in bootlegging. The profits from gambling have been more than the profits from bootlegging. Gam bling and vice can flourish only through ‘protection’ arranged for with the police. If you erase the state prohibition, you do not abolish the privilege and graft which enmesh the police and politicians with gambling as a vice. “I have gone carefully over the legal situation and find that the Illinois act is one of the most complete enforcement measures in the country. It repealed all prior liquor legislation in that state—the dram-shop act, the local option act, etc. “Proceeding against liquor selling as a nuisance is a difficult matter. There must be some disorder which is repeated. It is very questionable whether the police will have the right to interfere except in cases of continued and marked disorder. It is a very close legal point. “No matter how anyone may stand on the question of the wisdom of repealing the Eighteenth Amendment, this cannot ■sjea£ jo joqiunu •e joj auop aq Xiqjssod In the interim, during the Chicago World’s Fair, 1933, are we to have a state of anarchy in the city of Chicago and in the state of Illinois?” O’GRADY-McDERMOTT BILL PASSED BY SENATE Wets Vote to Repeal Laws to Enforce Eighteenth Amendment by Bare Constitutional Majority; Great Uprising of Citizens From Every Section of State Besieges Governor Emmerson to Veto Bill and Protect People From Uncontrolled Liquor Traffic The O'Grady-McDermott bill to repeal the Illinois Prohibition act and the so called “Search and Seizure’’ law was passed by the senate, March 25, after one of the most intense and spectacular bat tles ever waged in the Illinois legislature, the wets obtaining the minimum consti tutional majority, twenty-six votes. There are fifty-one senators. Twenty-four votes were cast against repeal. The bill passed the house several weeks ago. Senator Harold C. Kessinger, from the 14th dis trict, who has always voted dry, was the only absent member. The galleries and all other space available to the public were packed with one of the largest crowds that ever assembled at a session of the senate in the history of the state. What the result of the vote would be was in suspense until the fiftieth senator had cast his ballot. SENATORS WHO VOTED WET Those who voted for repeal: J. Leroy Adair, 3Gth district, Quincy; John Brod erick, 27th district, Chicago; Patrick Car roll, 9th district, Chicago; Thomas J. Courtney, 11th district, Chicago; Dr. W. L. Finn, 42nd district, Iuka; William F. Gillmeister, 23rd district, Chicago; R. Graham 19th district, Chicago; Frank J. Huckin, 25th district, Chicago; Arthur A. Huebsch, 7th district, Brookfield; Peter Kielminski, 15th district, Chicago; E. P. Kline, 49th district. East St. Louis; James B. Leonardo, 17th district, Chicago; Fran cis J. Loughran, 13th district, Chicago; N. M. Mason, 39th district, Oglesby; George M. Maypole, 21st district, Chicago; Frank McDermott, 4th district, Chicago; Joseph Mendel, 2nd district, Chicago; V. P. Michel, 18th district, Peoria; James (X Monroe. 47th district, Collinsville; Ed ward P. O’Grady, 29th district, Chicago; Ray Paddock, 8th district, Wauconda; Adclbert Roberts, 3rd district. Chicago; Earl B. Searcy, 45th district, Springfield; Daniel Serritella, 1st district, Chicago; Harold G. Ward, 31st district, Chicago, and Roy C. Woods, 5th district, Chicago. SENATORS WHO VOTED DRY Those who voted against repeal: Martin Bailey, 22nd district, Danville; Charles W. Baker, 10th district, Monroe Center; James J. Barbour, 6th district, Chicago; Richard J. Barr, 41st district, Joliet; Mrs. Florence Fifer Bohrer, 26th district, Bloomington; Martin P. Carlson, 33rd district, Moline; Andrew S. Cuthbertson, 38th district, Bunker Hill; Henry Dunlap, 24th district, Savoy; Clinton Ewing, 43rd district, Douglas; James Felts, 50th dis trict, Marion; Thomas Gunning, 37tli dis trict, Princeton; John R. Hamilton, 34th district, Mattoon; Louis H. Hanna, 32nd district, Monmouth; Simon Lantz, 16th district, Congerville; Charles Lee, 28th district, Decatur; William McCauley, 46th district, Olney; Richard Meents, 20th district, Ashkunr, Joseph L. Meyers. 12th district, Sciota Mills; Arthur Miles, 48th district, Rosielare; Epler C. Mills, 30th district, Virginia; Guy L. Smith, 40th dis trict, Pana; Charles H. Thompson 51st district, Harrisburg; Hairy Wilson, 44th district, Pinckneyville, and Harry Wright, 35th district, DeKalb. Senator V. P. Michel, Peoria. 18th dis trict, chairman of the committee on li cense and miscellany, and Senator Thomas J. Courtney, Chicago, Fifth dis trict, minority leader, led the battle for the wets. Senator James J. Barbour, Evanston, 6th district, made the first speech against the repeal bill. He was followed by Sen ator Andrew S. Cuthbertson, Bunker Hill, 38th district. Senator Cuthbertson’s ad dress appears elsewhere in this Issue. Sen ator Barbour’s will appear in our next issue. Senator Richard J. Barr, Joliet, 41st district; Senator Charles H .Thompson, 51st district, Harrisburg, and Senator Henry M. Dunlap, Savoy, 24th district, also made strong speeches against the bill. Senator Adelbert Roberts, Chicago, 3rd district, referring to the wet referendum result in his district, apologized for his vote for repeal. He said: “Against my better judgment and as painful as it is to me, I’m going to vote with the wets. You haven’t begun at the right place. Let me make this prophecy-— when you have repealed the Illinois search and seizure act you have not has tened the return of foaming beer, spark ling wine or mellow whisky—but you have paralyzed the arm of Uncle Sam in en forcement.” LATER The O’Grady-McDermott bill was presented to the governor on Thurs day, April 2, at 11 a. m. The constitution provides, Article 5, Section 16: “Every bill passed by the general assembly shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the governor. If he approves, he shall sign it, and thereupon it shall become a law; but if he does not approve, he shall return it with his objections, to the house in which it shall have origi ated. . . . Any bill which shall not be returned by the governor within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him shall become a law in like manner as if he had signed it. »> The governor turned the bill over to Attorney Oscar Carlstrom for an opinion on its constitutionality. He is reported to have rendered the fol lowing opinion: “I have given this bill careful ex amination and consideration and I find no objection to its constitu tionality or form. The bill is here with returned.” WOMEN’S NATIONAL COM MISSION TO STUDY PRO- - HIBITION A nation-wide study of prohibition from the women’s viewpoint will be made by an unofficial national commission composed of 20 prominent American women, and its results will be presented to President Hoo ver. This is the announcement made at Washington. The proposed commission is to be mod eled after the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, and will present, it is said, some phases of the liquor problem not touched by the official report. Chairman Wickersham of the Law Enforcement Commission says it is “an excellent plan.” Mrs. Came Chapman Catt, Mrs. J. O. Ross, of Houston, Texas, formerly mem ber of the National Democratic Commit tee, Mrs. Raymond Robins, honorary pres ident of the International Trade Union, Mrs. J. C. Urquhart, of Los Angeles, chair man of education in citizenship of the General Federation of Women’s Clubs, and others, are members of the commis sion according to the announcement. The committee will meet in Washing ton, April 10 to 12, to make public its re port. The report “will represent prohibi tion and its enforcement from the wom en’s standpoint.” A detailed statement and a formal report will be submitted to President Hoover. WET LABOR LEADERS ACTIVE A committee representing twenty-five national and international labor unions has been formed which will act in an ad visory capacity to labor’s national com mittee for modification of the Volstead act, says a Washington Associated Press dispatch.