December 17, 1917

The SPEAKER. This day has been set apart for the consideration of the prohibition amendment, Senate joint resolution 17, and the Chair knowing that it is an exciting question on the floor and in the galleries asks all of the Members to assist in maintaining order and decorum, and warns the people in the gall ·ie in advance that they a:re here tbreugb the courtesy of the House, and that any demonstration of assent or dissent is absolutely forbidden. If there is any evidence of anything of the kind. the Chair will have the galleries cleared. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Ca.r.olina [l\Ir_ WEBB].

l\.Ir. WEBB. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the unanimousconsent agreement, I call up Senate joint r olution 17, and before beginning the debate upon it I would like to have some under tanding as to who shall control the time both for and against tl'le re olntion. Of conr e, I would like to control the time in favor of the re olution.

The SPEAKER Has tile gentleman any su(,J'ge tion?

I· cr suggest ·

· · U::,g that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. VoL TEAD]; the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Com· mittee control half the time with the -:.mder tanding that I control the other half, with the further under tand.mg that half of my time be given to tho e on this side in opposition to the resolution and half of 1\!r VOLSTEAD' time be given to those on that side in opposition t~ the resGlution. b.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Why should not orne one in opposition to the resolution co.ntrol the time?

1\Ir. WEBB. We ha-ve tried to get somebody to . do that and no one seems to want to do 1t.

1\!r . . GILLETT. MI:. Speaker I under tnnd that l\1r VOLSTEAD IS going to make exactly that arrangement With tho e who are opposed to the resolution.

Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Speaker would 1t be agreeable to the gentleman from. North Carolina to Yield one-half of his time ill opposition to the ranking Democratic member on the committee in OPIJ?si.tion to the am~IDJ:lent,. and the. g.entlemnn from Minnesota y1eld one-halt of his tlme ill oppoSitiOn to the amendment to the ranking member, or next ranking member, on the Republican side of the committee in opposition to the amendment on the Republican Side?

Mr. WEBB. As far as I am concerned, I am willing to yield half of my time to some member of the committee who is opposed to the resolutiOn on the Republican SJ<le If the gentleman desues 1\Ir· G A n""~ER W,... t · ld •t t · · n....u.c'i • J:JY no Yie 1 o.som~ one on the Democratic

Mr WEBB I think that would be better but that was the suggestiOn of the gentleman from : msco:nsm.

Mr. FITZGERALD. 1\.fr-. Speaker, I insist that the time in opposition to this resolution be controlled by those who are actually opposed to lt.

Mr. STAFFORD. 1\fr. Speaker, will the gentleman from North Carolina yield until I make a suggestion to the gentleman frem l\Ir. WEBB. Certainly.

1\Ir. STAFFORD. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from New York whether the suggestion made by me a moment ago is not agreeable, · and that the gentleman from North Car . h f th' tim h · lina control half e e and t e gentleman from 1\fmnesota half the time, and that each of them respectively yield one-half of their ti:me to some one on their side in opposition to the resolution. In that way half of the , time mU be controlled ill opposition.

Mr FITZGERALD We . can .not ha.ve four men controlling the time and regulating the distribution of the order of speakers. . The time must be in the control of two men, · one representing those in favor of the resolution and one representing those opposed to it. I am opposed to this resolution , and I do not propose that two men in favor of it shall control the dispo ition of speaking upon it.

1\!r. GILLETT. Why should not there be four men? Why should there not be one on the Democratic side in favor of it and one opposed to it, and one on the Republican side in favor of it and Oile opposed to it? That will divide the time equally. 1\fr. FITZGERALD. This is not a partisan question. There are .some Member-s of the House in favor of the resolution and some against it, and on that the House will divide and not on partisan lines.

Mr. VOLSTEAD. If the gentleman will pardon me, there is not any disposition to take advantage. The idea is to divide the - time equally between the two sides, and it seems to me it can be done in that way · just as well as any other.

Mr. WEBB. I want to supplement the statement of the gentleman from Minnesota that there is no desire to take advantage of the opposition to this resolution. We tried to get two or three of the ranking men opposed to the re olution to take charge of thetime--

1\Ir. IGOE. Oh, no.

Mr. WEBB. I mean on the Republican side.

Mr. IGOE. That is all right.

1\11:. WEBB. I suggest that I control the time in favor of the resolution and that the gentleman from Missouri [1\fr. DYER] be permitted to contr:ol the time m opposition of the resolution.

Mr. GILLETT. I object to that; I think Mr. VOLSTEAD ought to have half the time. ·

Mr. GORDON. I object.

1\fr. FITZGERALD. The gentleman from Minne ota is in favor of the resolution - and he i. not entitle(} to control half the time.

1\fr. GILLETT. Why not as much a · the gentleman from North Carolina?

1\ir. FITZGERALD. The gentleman from North Carolina is the chairman of the committee and under the unbroken u s ages of the House he is entitled to control it. If there is any gentleman on that side opposed to the resolution, this side is willing that he shall control the time against it, but is not willing for some one in favor of the resolution · to control the time against it.

Mr. GILLETT. I will not consent to that proposition.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for an hour.

1\Ir. KITCHIN. Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to the House that this constitutional prohibition amendment is before the Hous e with Republicans and Democrats favoring it and Democrats and Republicans opposing it, so why not let the gentleman from North Carolina and the gentleman from Minnesota control half the time in favor of the proposed amendment and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARD] and the gentleman from Mi s souri [1\Ir. DYER] control half the time against the amendment and then they can arrange it among them~elves.

Mr. GILLETT. That is satisfactory to me.

The SPEAKER. · The gentleman from North Carolina [1\Ir. debated. KITcHIN] asks unanimous consent that in the first place the time of course, be divided into two halves, one in favor and the other against; that the gentleman from North Carolina [1\Ir. WEBB] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. VoLSTEAD] control the time in favor and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARD] and th 2 g entleman from Missouri [Mr. DYER] control the time against.

Mr. DYER. I suggest that my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [:Mr. GRAHAM]; ranking me on the committee, con­ that hour. trol the time against the resolution.

Mr. KITCHIN. I would have put the gentleman from Pennsyl­ Mr. WEBB. vania [lUr. GRAHAM] in because I understood he is the ranking member after Mr. VoLSTEAD, but I understood he did not desire it.

The SPEAKER. Then the Chair will substitute llr. GRAHAM's name for Mr. DYER. Under that arrangement the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. WEBB] controls the prohibition side among tile Democrats and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. VoLSTEAD] among the Republicans in favor of prohibition, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GABn] the opposition among the Democrats and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GRAHAM] the opposition among the Republicans. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows: Joint resolution (S. J. Res. 17) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of th e United States.

R es ol v ed by the S e nat e and House of Representat ive s of th o Unit e d Stat e s of Am e rica in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurri n g therein), That the following amendment to the Constitution be, and h e r e by is, propos e d tu the Stat e s, to become valid as a part of the Consti t ution wh e n ratified by the legi s latures of the se v eral States as provided by the Con s titution :

"AnTICLI!l -.

"SE C TION 1. The m a nufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquor s within, the importation ther e of into, or the exportation ther e of from the United States a . and all t e rritory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

" SEc. 2. This article shall be inoperative unle s s it slul.ll have b e en ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within six years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

" SEc. 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

The amendments were read, as follows:

Page 1, line 9, after the word " The," insert "After one year from the ratification of this article the."

Strike out sections 2 and 3 and insert the following:

" SEC. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

" SEc. 3. This article shall be inoperative 'unless it shall have been ratified a s an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the se ve ral States, as provided in the Constitution, within s even years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress."

Ml'. WEBB. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire before I begin how much time I can have under my control, so I can gauge my remarks.

The SPEAKER. The Chair does not know ; there never has been any arrangement about how long this general debate shall l\:Ir. WEBB. At 5 o'clock all debate closes?

The SPEAKER. Yes.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I suggest that be understood, so there will be knowledge as to how the time shall be divided.

Mr. WEBB. General debate has already been agreed upon to close at 5 o'clock, all debate, so I would like to know how much time I have. ·

The SPEAKER. Five and one-half hours is the whole of it. 1\Ir. 'VEBB. That is right.

The SPEAKER. Now, a fourth of that is . within the gentleman's control.

Mr. DYER. Will the gentleman from North Carolina yield? 1\Ir. WEBB. I have not the time; I am making a parliamentary inquiry, which does not come out of my time.

1\ir. DYER. Did I understand the gentleman to say that general debate under the five-minute rule closes at 5 o'clock?

l\Il'. WEBB. Yes; all time.

Mr. DYER. Then I think we ought to have some time for debate under the five-minute rule.

Mr. KITCHIN. I suggest the gentleman ask unanimous consent that general debate close at a certain hour, and then we will take up the bill under the five-minute rule. I would say 4 o'clock.

The SPEAKER. That · would take unanimous consent.

1\fr. CANNON. It seems to me, 1\!r. Speaker, that the present agreement dispenses with all necessity of debate under the five-minute rule. · Mr. KITCHIN. I was speaking of amendments. · l\Ir. WEBB. They will be offered during general debate and ·

Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

l\fr. STAFFORD. As I understand it, the understanding that was had the other day was that the debate of all kinds should continue until 5 o'clock, when a vote should be had on the resolution and amendments pending. Now, my parliamentary inquiry is whether or not it was understood that during that time amendments could be offered to be voted upon at

The SPEAKER. There was not a word said about that. I think, Mr. Speaker, it was clearly understood from the trend of the debate, however, that during general debate te amendments could be offered and debated in general debate. _

· Mr. STAFFORD. If there was nothing said, will the gentleman make the request that amendments may be offered to be voted upon at 5 o'clock?

Mr. WEBB. Certainly; that is my understanding. I think gentlemen having amendments should be permitted to offer them.

Mr. STAFFORD. Will the gentleman make that request?

Mr. WEBB. I do request that during the general debate, if any gentleman has an amendment to offer, he · may do so, and it may be considered along with the general resolution.

Mr. KITCHIN. That will be so, anyway.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. WEBB] asks unanimous consent that pending this debate any gentleman can offer an amendment whenever he wishes to do so, and that it to be pending and to be voted on after 5 o'clock. Is there objection [After a pause.] The Chair hears none. l\fr. WEBB. l\Ir. Speaker, I would like to be notified when I have consumed seven minutes of time.

l\lr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, I believe I will take up your time but briefly in explaining the committee amendments to this resolution as 1t passed the Senate. The first amendment adopted in the Judiciary Committee was the new section 2. As it passed the Senate it provided that the" Congress" should have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Most of the members, including myself, of the Judiciary Committee, both wet and dry, felt that there ought to be a reservation to the State also of power to enforce their prohibition laws. And therefore we amended the resolution by providing that the Congress "and the several States" shall have "concurrent" power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. So the amendment reads:

Th e Congress and th e sev e ral States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legi s lation. ·

I believe, regardless of our division on the dry and wet question, every Member will agree with us that this is a wise and proper amendment. Nobody desires that the Federal Congress shall take away from the various States the right to enforce the prohibition laws of those States. If we do not adopt this amendment from the committee there might . be a fight in Congress every two years as to whether the States should be given the right to help enforce this proposed article of the Constitution. Because, as I see it, after the States have delegated to the Federal Congre s power to do a certain thing, for instance, to stop the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors for beverage purposes, the question is whether the State has not turned over to the Federal Congress the exclusive right to enforce it.

I recall the crime of counterfeiting. It is peculiarly a national offense, because it is offensive to the integrity of the national money, and yet nearly all the States have statutes con· demnin..,. · and puni. bing counterfei'ting. But there the jurisdiction is concurrent , and if the State get hold of a counterfeiter first the Federal Gove : ·nmen t sometimes lets the State handle it, but ofte1J1 a ks ti1e State to turn him over to the Fed'eral Go v ernment. But the States have the right o enforce their lawS' agn:inst counterfeiter becau e me <Dongre s has . giv n them the void: jurisdic : tion. thought it wi e · to give both t he Congress a-nd the several St a te concurrent power to enforce this article and let that power be t forth! and granted in the article we propo e to submit. H e nce the am e ndment we adopted was - ad.opted by tl'le · committee ami we hope the House will agree with u

1\Ir. CANNON. Will. the gentleman yield?

Mr. WEBB. I ' ill.

Mr. CANNON. Each State having the power to enft>r e e this Federal law, the (fltery is, With 48 States and the Go\'tl'nment, ] suppo e · the la.w that Idaho has pa. ed . would cover tlie whole country?

l\fr. WEBB. Oh , no .

l\Ir. CANNON. If the gentleman will allow me, under the yield? police powers of · the States every State can prohibit within its boundaries the manufacture and sale .

l\lr . WEBB. Indeed, within its boundaries. . And that is what we want to permit them to continue to do. We do not want 10,000 Federal officers, with all the expense of salaries, going over the · country enforcing these law when. the . State have their - own officer to do so and are willing to da · so, ,

1\fr. DEWALT. Will the gentleman yield?

l\fr. WEBB. I wilL

1\fr. DEWALT. Under this amendment in section 2 you are giving Congress and the several States c.oncurrent power. Another qu-ery: Su:ppose the State of Ohl<J should by Its legislature pa s a: law or laws for the " enforcement of this. constitutional amendm nt. Suppose that law was not in con• · fOl'IIlance with the regulations · as passed by Congress for the enforcement of this same provision of the Constitution, havin"'; as you say, , for this clause, concurrent power. Which of the two powers would be supreme, if any?

1\fr . WEB . B. The one getting jurisdiction first, because both powers- would be. supreme, and one supreme power would have no right to. take the case away from another supreme power. l\Ir. DEWALT . Does the gentleman say that as a lawyer?

Mr. WEBB. I unquestionably do. Both powers are supreme to , enforce this article, and the first getting jurisdiction would enforce · ce it .

l\Ir . DEW~ll.T. Will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. WEBB. I can not . M:y time · is running rapidly . I am embarras ed in not having more time .

l\1r. BENJAMIN L. FAIRCHILD. Suppose there is a con filet in the laws between the. laws of the State and the laws of the Federal Government? l\11· • . WEBB'. There would . be none, because. there would beno conflict of jurisdiction.

1\lr . BENJAMIN L . FAffiCHIL];) . This amendment is. that the State- shall have jurisdiction t() legislate ().It the subject? l\Ir. WEBB. If the State should get jurisdiction · first, the . State jurisdiction would apply ; and . if the Government should "'et jurisdiction first, the Government jurisdiction would apply Both would · be supreme, and it would only; be a question as to who get the offender: first. Now, the next question- · -

The SPEAKER. The seven . minutes have expired . - lli. WEBB. I will proceed a little while longer.

The SPEAKER. Row much longer?

1\Ir . WEBB. I will use 15 minutes.

The SPEAKER Fifteen minutes more?

Mr. WEBB. No, sir; eight minutes- more.

The next amendment is the one giving the brewers, distillers, . Mr . WEBE. and the bar rooms of the country two years in which to wind up their busi'ne s in case tlle amendment should be ratified by the States . Two years seems to be a little long, but the idea of giving the brewers and · distillers one year after ratification to wind up their business struck the dry members of the committee as being fair and just. We realize that the · brewing business- and the other? di tilling business are legitimate at present in - a number - of States. . If is legitimate to run bar rooms, and ' while we prohibitionists desire - to have the country go dry, we do not propose to let our zeal in that great cause destroy our sense of justice, and. I for one was willing to advocate the l'ight of the brewers and distillers to have one yem· to wind up · their business. We. have distinguished precedents for this · in the action of nearly all th <fry State . l\Io t of the States give them a year in · which th 3 may wind up their busine s . We saw no objection to giving them at least a year after this bu iness is outlawed to wind uv their affairs. I wanted to explain it to the House. r think it is a perfectly-fair amendment, and 1 will be very glad to vote for it, and I hope the dry :Members will vote for it. At the same time our opponents agreed to give the States · one year · long r in , which to pa s this amendment. As the amendment came f i' .om · the Senate, it was limited to ix year . I:ti it failed in that time ta be ratified by the ' several States it became inoperative and ' We agreed to add one year further and make it seven years, so that we have an amendment providing- that one year after the adoption of the amendment lly the several State · it wnr go into effect; we have given seven years in · whi c h the States may adopt it, and we have given the- States concurrent power with the Federal · Governm e nt to enforce · it. I believe that the committee lias · strengthened tlie ' amendment!. . With tho e amendments' I really beli e ve we- have made . the amendment stronger and fairer. l\ft. FESS. . 1\fr. Speaker, will ' tlie gentleman yield for · a: question?

The SPEAKER. Does- the gentleman from North Carolimt t l\Ir . WEBB. _ Yes; ; I yield just for one question. .

Mr . FESS. I think this is the only ca e where there was a limitation of any ' sort as · to time. Why was any limitation put on it, as, for instance, seven · years? ·

Mr . WEBB. I will say · to · my friend that that was · a com pro mise in · tlie Senate between om• dry friends and om: vet friends; and ' :f. understand ; and ~ so far as- I am concerned I believe, that every consti'tutional amendment ought to have- · some limitation of this kind to it. I do not believe in Congr · submitting to the 48 States au amendment and letting- it r main out forever, mth no limitation attached to · it. fu the interest of definite and certain legislation ' there ought to · be some limita ­ tion to the · pa: sage · or adoption of ' an these · constitutional amendments suBmitted · l.)y Congress. . I will say to my friend that personally I wanted 10 yea-rs as the limitation, but, not being able to get that, I was willing to accept 6. But, being able to get 7, we thought that more- agreeable and atisfactory to the u drys · " and acceptable ' to the- " wet ,'' and therefore we made it '!years.

Ml' . FESS . It w::t.s not · true with re pect to the · fncome-t'ax r amendment or the - amendment in reference to the election of 1 Senator · s · directly by tfte · people.

l\lr; WEBB'. No; but our- committee put it in the seven-~'ear limitation with reference to woman suffrage. I do not believe th'at" hereafter there will be an. amendment submitted to the · States without a limitation being attached to it. There i {In amendment or two-and I will ask the gentleman from Petln - sylvania [Mi · . STEELE] to di cuss t1ie · legality of the e limita tions presently-an amendment or two that have been out for a hundred years and ' lia"9'e been forgotten.

Mr. RUSSELL. · SIDLL . Mr _ Sp.eaker, will the gentleman- yield?

Mr . WEBB. Yes. . . .

Mr . RUSSELL. Has there not been some question as to i whether or not the Congre s has t11e right to place this limitation on it?

Mr . WEBB Yes . 1 1\fr: RUSSELL. If so, what do~ the gentleman think about that legal proposition ? .

Mr. WEBB. I think we ha.ve the power to do . it. But 1 · am going, as I said, to call upon the gentleman from Penn· ' sylvani.a [Mr. STEELE] to go into that. . At my request he · has made an investigation of the matter. I know he will do · it well. 1 Now I have hurriedly:- explained the amendments. I will say that they were agreed to by practically all of the committee, regardless of how they stood on · the · wet and 1 dry qu tion. j Mr. DENISON . ~I"r. Speaker, will tlie gentleman yield? ' I w:ill yield. to the gentleman for. a que tion.

Mr, DENISON. I would like to · ask the gentleman his opin - ion on · this que tion : Section 2 · provides- that the · Congre s of the United States shall have the. concurrent power of . en ­ forcement. What does the gentleman think of the exercise of power by the one excluding the exercise of power by the

Mr . WEBB. I do not think the punishment of ' the offense by the State government would be followed by the punishment of the same offense by the Federal Government, or vice ver a . Three years ago, in passing on the prohibition amendment, we provided that the State and Federal Governments might jointly or separately exercise jurisdiction and ' punish. That meant that t11e Federal Government might punish a man for tlie same offense that the State would punish him for. But one punish- .. ment ought to be sufficient, although the offense may be com ­ mitted against' two sovereignties . Now having concurrent power, I think the Federal Government can not do it if the State gov-ernment does it, and vice : versa ..

JUL DENISON. l\f r Speake r, will th e g entlem a n permit anothe r ques tion?

1\lr. WEBB. Yes. .

M r. D E NISO rJ . If that is true-and I think the gentleman is correct-if on e of th e S ta te s should provide very small penalt ie for the viol a tion of the law, and had jurisdiction first, woul d no t that pra c tically defeat the operation of the law in that State?

1\1r. WEBB. It might do it to a limited extent for a little whil e .

Mr. DENISON. What doe the gentleman think of the wisdom of that?

1\fr. WEBB. I think it is an right. I am not afraid to trust the States about that. The gentleman need not worry about the States. I never saw one that went counter to the United States Constitution, or whose law officers failed to enforce the law.

1\1r. DENISON. 'But would not that lead to lack of uniformity?

J\1r. WEBB. If the States did not do it, the Federal Govern­ . ment will nab a man who has violated the law. If the States will not do it, I do not think the violator of the la.w can get away with it so long as he is violating a Federal law also.

1\fr. DEWALT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

~1r. WEBB. Yes.

1\f r . DEWALT. The gentleman refers to the case of counterfeiti u g, in which he said the United States jurisdiction and the State jurisdiction were concurrent.

Mr. WEBB. Yes.

1\Ir. DEWALT. Is the gentleman aware of the fact, or is it a fact, that if a - sta-te takes ju:risdiction of a counterfeiting case and there is a trial and a conviction and a sentence, the United' State Government can still try the same offender for that offense and punish him under the criminal satutes?

Mr. WF~. That is because Congress pas ed a statute giving the States power to enforce the criminal law against these various acts, and only concurrent juri . jurisdiction is given and that by Congress and not by · the Constitution. We propose , to give concurrent power by the Constitution itself.

Mr. DEWALT. If this portion of your amendment passes, would the same fact remain-that is, would the State and the Federal power have jurisdiction, and the party be liable to two punishments?

1\lr. WEBB. No. I do not think it shoUld be. In the form in which we passed the amendment three years ago that was so, but when the State convicts a ' man I do not think it wants a man to be convicted again by the Federal Government of · the same offense, and vice versa.

Mr . ALElXANDElR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? 1\fr. WElBB. .Yes .

Mr. ALEXANDER. · Does not the gentleman think the law should be uniform in all the States of the Union? If we are going to ha.ve prohi'bition, ought not the law to be uniform in all the States? If three-fourths of the State adopt this amendment, and the .others are . unfriendly to it, can they not adopt laws giving a minimum penalty and thus defeat the law?

Mr. WEBB. No. In that case the Federal offic-ers will be aft e r the man who -violates the law pretty soon and will bring him into a Federal court. ·

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

1\Ir. WEBB. I regret I have not the time now.

Th e SPEAKER. The gentleman has consumed 15 minutes. ~h·. WEBB. One minute more, · Mr. Speaker, before I sit 1\fr. WEBB. down. The papers are full this morning of letters bo t h for and against this amendment. One that has · attracted some attention is from Samuel Gomp e r s, president of the American Federat i on of Labor , addressed to me as chairman of the Commi tt ee on the Judiciary of the Hou e <>f Representatives, wh er ein some people claim he is trying to invoke the power of th e federation of Labor in opposition to this amendment. Sam ue l Gompers never did speak for and never will speak. for the American Federation of Labor in opposition to the national prohibition amen.dment. [Applause.] He take s particular pain s in the body of his letter to me to disclaim that he is speaking for the American Federation of Labor. It would be a sland e r upon th e American people, and especially upon the American workingman, to say that they as a cla s are oppo ed to National or State prohibition; and as Mr. Bryan said this morning in answ e r to Mr. Gompers, it would be a worse slander still to intimate that the great laboring classes of this country have got to measure their patriotism b y the quart or by the amendment. schooner. It iS not so. [Applau e.] Mr. Gompers says he does not represent the American Federation of Labor, and well may he say it. And while I am on this subject, here are the statements of a . few American Federation of Labor president ) · and labor l e ader s f r o m c h·y , ' t at e::; . Th e fir :t on e L f t·om the S t ate of \Va hiugton:

I wa opp o.·e d to th e pas s ag e o h th e pr o hi bi tion a ct in t hi s St a t e . To t he great bod y of our wortrtngm e n, h o w evC'r t h C' la w ha b ee :n a di t in c t b lessing .

IT. P. ~f.~R CTI ,

Pr esi d e nt · wash i n g ton tat e F c d c mt i Oi l of Labo1· .

Her e i s one from C olorado :

I voted again t prohibition. I am now irr ev ocably oppo ed - to the saloon. You could not dig up a corporal's guard of trade-unionists who would vote for a r et urn of th e s aloon.

WILLIAM C. THOR. ' TON ,

Pr esf d e nt D e n 'l/e t· Trad e s and Labor Assembly.

JULY 22, 1917.

Here is one from Arizona :

Arizona workers are certainly bett e r morally and financially than they were before prohibition was . adopted.

.JOHX L. DO:Sl\"-EI . LY,

Pr e sident Arizona State Fedemtion ot J,nb01". Ten years ago thi towll boasted 37 saloon . If anyone mentioned prohibition he was sneered and laughed at. Now, if a vote were taken, this district would vote dry. The workers now almost all have a bank account. The banks instead of saloons are c1·owdcd on S!lturcluy night.

ERNES'l' BECKMAN,

Business Agent, Deputy Orgatrlzor, A. F. of h,

No . "1!0 Carpenters and Joiners of America, Wallace, Idaho, .

JULY 7, 1917 .

"That is one of the very organizations that was mentioned by Mr. Gompers in his letter, as suggested by Mr. Denham, who ­ ever he may be, and that letter was written in July 7, 1917.

Mr. SNYDER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WEBB. Wait until I finish. Here i the great State of Iowa, Mr. · speaker:

At the annual convention ot the Iowa State Federation of Labor, , this year, I was . surprised to find a number of the boys who used to _ think it would , be a calamity if the State went dry, telling · of the improved condition in their cities since -the saloons closed.

LEO~ A. LINK,

Secn ~ tar-Jt-T,·easurel· Waterloo OeMI'al Labor Unio1~.!.

Waterloo, 10100 .

JULY 11, 1!)17.

Here is one from Oregon:

Since the bone-dry law went into effect a rich man's law is seldom referred to. I might say that if the question of repealing the pres· ent law in Oregon and · going back to the saloons was left to a vote of the union men only, that the State would be so dry that none in 100 years would h·y to wet it up again. W. B. SOMERVILLE, Oregon Labo1 · Leader.

JULY 9, 1917 .

And you can multiply letters of this kind. The Washington Sunday Star printed more of them yesterday morning, from labor leaders all over the country. The brave ones who love their homes know that the liquor traffic, the saloon, is doing more to destroy their happiness and to destroy their bank accounts and the effectiveness <>f labor than all other evil agencies - of every kind in this country combined, and that is why intelligent labor has ri en up and repudiated 1\ir. Go.Qipers's idea that we ought to keep laborers drinking in order to keep them at work, while we keep our soldiers sober in order to enable them to fight their best. That would be the attitude that Congress would put them in if it should refuse to pass this amendment.

Mr. SNYDER. Has the gentleman received any petition from any labor organization with a considerable number of name , the signatures of which he knew were correct? Not one to me personally, so far as I remember. I have not received a petition from a single labor organization in America, so far a I know, protesting against this amendment. I had a request from a man by the name of Denham, from Philadelphia , representing some of the joiners and brewers and saloon and bartenders, or something of that sort. But they need not worry. All the e legitimate tradeunions know that the demand for labor i greater now than it ever was before, and that if they remain sober they will save more money, and the only jobs that will be lost will be those of the saloon and bartenders, and they ought to be put out of business. [Applause.]

I say this, gentlemen of the Hou s e, to let you understand the relation of labor to this question . I do not carry a labor card. I do not believe I have a l a b o r union in my district; but it is a very significant fact that during all this fight I have not, so far as I remember , received a petition signed by individual laborers prot e sting a g ainst th e pa ss a g e of this constitutional 1\1r. SNYDER. I should like to say to the gentleman that his experience with regard to labor organizations is entirely diff e rent from mine. Within the l a st few days I have had petitions representing union labor to the number of thousands of nallles, mnn~ · of wholll I ui. ~ tiuctly uuu per s onally know, who are opp o ::-e<l to tl1 resolution. .

~Ir. \YEBB. I llo not say all the labor people are for the constitutional tUllendlllent. A ~ great many of them are again t it, like a "r e at many lawyers atHl doctors and bankers who are oppo. ed to it, but I ten you it i a slander to pick out the labor people of this · country a· a cla s and say that they are opposed to this re ." resolution, because that is not true, and it is a worse slander to . say that their patriotism depend on the amount of beer or liquor that they may be allowed to drink during the l\Ir. GORDON. Do you claim that the Judiciary Committee has not re c eiYe<.l thousands . ands upon thousands of remonstrances against this re olution?

Mr. WEBB. They may have in p as t day . , but not " · within the past few month that I recall.

1\Ir. GORDON. I have filed thou ands with your committee Illy. elf; what did the committee do with them?

1\fr. WEBB. What is done with all of them-filed them in the file room. The . Clerk handles those matter·.

Mr. GORDON. Then why did the gentleman say that they had not received any?

:\fr. WEBB. We htrre not, as far as I know, received any directed to me per onally as chairman or to the committee.

Mr. GORDON, One of the gentleman's colleagues says that they have received more than a million of them.