Debates in the House of Representatives on the Eighteenth Amendment, 1917 (2d session)

December 17, 1917

NATIONAL PROHIBmON~41 min read
264: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 264 (House1917b.Dec17.264)

We have seen 1t in the PRl)er that the Anti-Saloon League has stated that they are raising a great amount of money for the purpo e of going out into the State , if this amendment carrier , in order to campaign for the adoption of the amendment. Could not the Anti-Saloon League do better With this money by putting it to the use of the war?

265: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 265 (House1917b.Dec17.265)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

266: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 266 (House1917b.Dec17.266)

Mr. WEBB. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from .Arkan as [Mr. CARAWAY], a member of the committee.

267: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 267 (House1917b.Dec17.267)

1\.Ir. CARAWAY. l\lr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, 1 shall make the a ertion, and prove it by the votes of the gentlemen in this Hou e, that the question of whether the State should be -permitted to deal with this que tion i not the reason that i. going to actuate them in their vote here to-day. I can prove by the REcOIID that there is not a consi tent State rights man in this House ; that there is not a man here who will not wap hl. position on that question any time the issue i one that he either approves or disapproves, as the case may be. [ApWhat does the word " prohibition " mean?

268: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 268 (House1917b.Dec17.268)

Now, prohibition does not neces arily mean to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. It means in its larger sense the prohibiting of the doing of - anything. Mo t of the Ten Commandments are prohibitions. They forbid act . Any question presented to the House, then, is always determined upon whether you are in favor of or against prohibiting the things propo ed and not whether you are in favor of or dis- - approve State right . It is merely whether you are in favor of or oppo ed to th e particular act that it i then proposed to be voted on. In order to prove this I want to read to you from the RECORD. I shall read and ask you who it was who gave utterance to the e sentiments .

269: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 269 (House1917b.Dec17.269)

A gentleman gave utterance to the following here on the- 26th day of January last:

270: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 270 (House1917b.Dec17.270)

Whenever you arrogate to one central government all the powers concerning the purely domestic and internal affairs of the people, which have always been left and are still left to the State to administer, then our Government will fall of its own weight.

271: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 271 (House1917b.Dec17.271)

Who said that? The distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary [l\lr. WEnn] said that last January. [Laughter.]

272: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 272 (House1917b.Dec17.272)

i\Ir. MEEKER. Will the "' e ntlernnn ylc!d?

274: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 274 (House1917b.Dec17.274)

~[!'. ~IEEI'EH. We will expect to hear it again in his uf- _. fra~e speech, will we not?

276: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 276 (House1917b.Dec17.276)

1\rr. WERn. You will not h ea r it on the suffrage speech.

277: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 277 (House1917b.Dec17.277)

Mr. 'AU n\'.AY. I shall show by this RECORD that the gentlemnu who interrupted then [Mr. MEEKER] is the strongest prohibitionist in this 'House. I shall how that by his vote . cast in thi · Hom~e. I hnY e it right here. I want to read further: ~'hi s bill is in line with the enlightened progress of the age, In line with advanced thought . I dislike to see and bear men falling back upon the Con . t itutio n of the United States when progressive legislation is urged in this holly . I have more respect for the men who framed the Constitution C'f the United States than to take refuge in that instrument whenever we attempt progressive legislation. While it may be a fact that the properl-y interests are better represented than the poor int e r st . by the m e n who made the Com •titution, still I do not believe that it was e y ever their thought to prohibit Congress from enacting legislation that would be of benefit to mankind in the suppression of child Jauor.

278: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 278 (House1917b.Dec17.278)

Inasmuch a the gentleman i not on t11e floor, I will not call his name but he will vote against this prohibition amendment when it come . · up. ·

279: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 279 (House1917b.Dec17.279)

I noti eu a gentl man a · moment ago interrupting the chair man [l\[1·. ''EBB] to set him right, as he claimed, on the attituue of labor toward. prohibition, and I take it from his remark be op11ose thi re resolution on the ground of interference with the right of the State to regulate its own affairs. I refer to t11e gentleman from New York [Mr. S~YDER]. If I am not co rect, , I '.\'ill expect him to correct me. l\lr. SNYDER, showing hoY : lit tie he think · the State ought to be consulted when it come ~ to regulating the internal affairs of State -when he ap­ man yield? vroYes the act-the prohibition of something he di approves..::._ I reml:

280: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 280 (House1917b.Dec17.280)

Therefore, is it a .· source of wonderment that we of New York favor the enactment of thi s law? It is a source of wonderment by some of our southern friends and neighbors who oppose it. Their business interest · will not suffer so greatly as - they appear to fear, should this measure become law , and they will enjoy the benefit of their enviable location. ·

281: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 281 (House1917b.Dec17.281)

He fa Yore 1 this prohibition, and therefore voted for the enactment of that law-the child-labor law. I also voted for it. Now. here is what I am trying to prove: That you vote for or against a measure as you favor or disapprove the proposed law. I am going to prove this by polling your votes as reYealeu in the . RECORD and show you how you voted on that prohibition law, to show how you voted to deny the States the right to regulate their internal affairs on the question of child labor and ·a id that the products of child labor - should not be vermittetl in inter tnte commerce; in fact, to prevent children from being worked in mines and manufacturing establishments within the several States.

282: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 282 (House1917b.Dec17.282)

The gentleman from Ohio [1\lr. GoRDON] voted for that measure. He was entirely in favor of regulating the internal affairs of State , provided he favored the prohibition of the things ought to be prohibited. [Applause.]

285: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 285 (House1917b.Dec17.285)

l\Ir. GORDON. That statute simply dealt with interstate colllillerce, and that i e~-pre sly authorized to Congre. s in the Constitution.

286: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 286 (House1917b.Dec17.286)

l\lr. CARAWAY. The gentleman certainly uoes not mean Is there objection? that.

288: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 288 (House1917b.Dec17.288)

l\lr. CARA WAr. Let me answer this question and then I will.

289: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 289 (House1917b.Dec17.289)

Mr. SNYDER. The gentleman made some remark. · concern­ object. ing myself.

290: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 290 (House1917b.Dec17.290)

l\lr. CAHA W .AY. I did; but I will give the gentleman an opportunity in a minute. If the gentleman wants to recant his position, I will give him the opportunity. ·

291: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 291 (House1917b.Dec17.291)

The gentleman from Ohio [l\lr. Gordon], who says tllat that act regulating child labor had to uo solely with interstate commere<", know~ that "interstate commerce" was merely t11e vehi ­ cle by which Congre s prohibited the employment of children within the States, prohibited their working in manufacturing establi. hmeut · nn<l mines under certain conditions and within certain ages . That is what the gentleman voted to prohibit. Applause.] The matter of interstate commerce was merely the vehicle by whi h Congre s undertook to prohibit child labor.

293: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 293 (House1917b.Dec17.293)

l\Ir. AHA WAY. Iu order to do that Congress cho ·e the Vehicle of interstate commerce.

294: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 294 (House1917b.Dec17.294)

l\Ir. SNYDER ~Ir. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

295: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 295 (House1917b.Dec17.295)

l\1r. CARAWAY. Yes; I yield now · to the gentleman from :\' New York.

296: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 296 (House1917b.Dec17.296)

::\lr. Sl'iYDEH. I wish to !'!flY to the gentleman that all I was undertaking to tlo at the time those J'E'BJ:trks that the gentleman refers to \H')'e mttde wn~ an Plltlca Ynr to bring the indu trial conditions of the outh nearer to the inllu . t rial condition in the North. That is alL [Applau e .]

297: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 297 (House1917b.Dec17.297)

1\Ir. CAllA. WAY. Let u . ee what the g e ntleman did say, since he makes that . statement. [Laughter . ] Let u see \Yhnt the gentleman's real reason was. He says:

298: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 298 (House1917b.Dec17.298)

The northern manufacturers, too, will be better contented to know that the present so-called unfair competition of their own country has been largely done away with , and that the R southern manufacturers, on the plane of labor cost, at least, have no advantage over them.

300: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 300 (House1917b.Dec17.300)

That is what i the matter with the gentleman. He was trying to protect his own labor, not regulate the South.

301: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 301 (House1917b.Dec17.301)

l\lr. SNYDER. That is all I was trying to do.

302: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 302 (House1917b.Dec17.302)

l\Ir. CARAWAY. Oh, well, you had an awfully unhappy way of saying it. [Laughter.]

303: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 303 (House1917b.Dec17.303)

1\lr. SNYDER. I would like to know what that has got to uo with this question anyhow. [Laughter.]

304: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 304 (House1917b.Dec17.304)

l\lr. CARAWAY. Well, l hope the gentleman will take a tlny off and find out. [Laughter.] Why, bless your heart, this book is interesting. [Referring to the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD.] I · wish I had time to read it all. [Laughter.] I would like to show that t11e gentleman from Pennsylvania [l\Ir. V .ABE] is the strongest prohibitionist in the House, if I llau the time to read what he says. He is most violently oppo ed to the States being left any right to regulate their own internal affairs o! anybody who spoke on that bill , and another gentleman from Pennsylvania likewise agreed , - with him. I commend this book to you. Mr. l\IOORE of Pennsylvania. l\lr. Speaker, will the gentle ­ l\lr. CARAWAY. I can not yield now.

305: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 305 (House1917b.Dec17.305)

l\Ir. l\IOORE of Pennsylvania. I would like the gentleman to be fair and quote some more.

306: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 306 (House1917b.Dec17.306)

l\fr. CARAWAY. Gentlemen let us be fair with each' othe,­ and honest with the country. If we favor the suppression of the liquor traffic--and God knows we should-let us vote for this resolution.

307: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 307 (House1917b.Dec17.307)

It is needless to recount here the reason that should impel us to this course.

308: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 308 (House1917b.Dec17.308)

Does not the blood of the victims of intemperance cry out to us for redress?

309: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 309 (House1917b.Dec17.309)

We have all seen women heartbroken by this cur e, children worse than orphaned.

310: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 310 (House1917b.Dec17.310)

Vice, poverty, and ignorance are its hanumaiUs, and these \\'ill curse the world as long as we permit the manufacture and saie of intoxicating liquors.

311: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 311 (House1917b.Dec17.311)

For one I shall vote :(o r this amendment. I shall vote for it because of the crimes it has bred, the sorrow and want it lws caused. I shall vote for it to make the world better for " · women and children now living and for those ye t in the womb of .time . God hasten the day when this cur e shall vani h · from the face of the earth. [Applause.]

312: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 312 (House1917b.Dec17.312)

Mr. GRAHAM of Pennsylvania. Mr. S11eaker, I yie l ll eight minutes to the gentleman from New York [1\Ir. CHANnu:nl .

313: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 313 (House1917b.Dec17.313)

Mr. CARAWAY. l\Ir. Speaker, just one moment. I want to ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the REcm:v.

314: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 314 (House1917b.Dec17.314)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from .\rkan s as asks unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the H1 -:c oRD. 1\fr. STAFFORD. Reserving the right to object, I\lr. Speaker, the debate is limited to-day on an important constitutional amendment. I think the debate in the llJ<:cor..n should show the true proceedings that take place here to-day, and therefore I

315: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 315 (House1917b.Dec17.315)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wi cousin objects. The House will be in order. The Chair wishes to remind the occupants of the galleries that they must not mauifest approval or disapproval and must not applaud remark. .

316: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 316 (House1917b.Dec17.316)

l\Ir. WEBB. I yield fiye minutes to the gentleman f1·om New York [Mr. LUNN].

317: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 317 (House1917b.Dec17.317)

1\lr. LUNN. l\fr. Speaker, I was very much intere ted in the argument of my colleague from New York [l\lr. CHA ~ oLER] and to find that his vote is going to be . determined by the alleged decision of some court as to ju. t what he represents. . He is going to vote against prohibition, but he is going to vote in favor of woman suffrage. l\ow, I do not know how all men rea on, but I am of such a particular mental caliber that I can not see any difference, so far as submitting nn amendment i concerned, whether it is a woman suffrage amendment or a prohibition amendment. [Applau se. ] The same principles are im ·o h·ed in each.

318: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 318 (House1917b.Dec17.318)

1Ye are all agreed that our first anc1 most important object at the present time is to win the war. There is no uiver . · ity of opinion a to that. It is ab olutely essential that we preserve the utmost unity regarding t h e prosecution of the war. l do not want to see anything pnss this House that would pr o tlul'e disunity ; nothi ug that would , in any po . possible way, impair our effici e n c y. Th e r e a re some on this floor who argue ' that the pa nrr e of tbl amen d ment ,, - would produce di ensiou , ttllile our need i ::; · for unity. Do they l : eall y mean tlli ? Th y urge that w e ta nd by the· Pre ident , inferring that to do thi s the · amendment t mn t be <lef ted. T h e ir argument is unsound. Anyone who patrioti m i measured b y the quart has · a type of patriotism that need s to be watched and watched continually. These gentlemen infer by their argument that we must pla c ate certain citizens of this great Republic in order ' to secure then· fullest · . support of the Government. They infer 'that in order to be s ure that a certain class of om· citizens shall uphold · the arm of the President · with their right hand · we must nJ1ow them to have a bottle · of whi ky in their left. ~ [Applause.)

319: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 319 (House1917b.Dec17.319)

To my mind , there is no force in the argument , that the pa s­ age -of this am ndment would produce disunity. I ' want to ask this question o f those who think differently: Can ;ve consistently t take the po ition that we are in the pres-ent war for the purpose of t m:ik im:! the world ~ safe for democracy and then how by our a tion tn this · Hou e that w a:re afraid to trust democracy in this country in dealing wifu this important question? I it not 1 logical that we .allow the people to decide every question · tha.t • touches the ' life · Of our Nation? · Surely we are upholding 'democracy by submitting this amendment. I refuse to - be · a kaiser and decide the prohibition question i.n my district, • my State, • or the · country. I want the people af my ' dis- trict, the people of my 'State and ' the1)eople of the United States h1m. to · tlectde whether thiS Nation is to - be dry · or not.

320: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 320 (House1917b.Dec17.320)

Another argument is made to the effect that organized cl"lubor is against this amendment. ' .There ts ' no doubt but what • there are · many able leaders of organized 1 labor who are opposed, but even l\fr. Gompers, whom I greatly admire and respect for his splendid watk in behalf of the workers of the country , · distinctly · tly - states L that tn ' his stand against this amendment he is acting as · oo • individual and not • representing ~e ~ American n Federation of Labor. I have received a . great many 1 t 1 gta'l11S from various organizations of ' labor in my district, ' but, SO' 'far as I know, the rank and file of organized labor · ha e not pus e<l upon this . great and · important , question.

321: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 321 (House1917b.Dec17.321)

I have always · stood and always will stand for · the m s · or workers in all Iegi llltion, for their ' b st inter t is the l highest intere t of the country. I therefore refuSe ' to believe fbat organized l iabor, · as -suCh, i i · opposed to this · amendment; and, • on the other ! hand, l believe that the best thought of organized labor is beginning to realize a they are advancing ~ more ~mel more into power that it i · distinctly to their advantage to realize the evil · effects of liquor. If I · were opposed · to - organized labor, if fl : wanted to stop . the workers in their determin..'l:­ tion to gain more political power and 1 receive · a larger share of the product · Of • indu try, 1 would certainly try to give them all the liquor they could drink, in order tha.t they might be kept more ea lly • in · control. 'However, again t the -: argument advanced by certain ' leader' who are opposed to · this amendment may be placed the argument of equally · prominent leaders who are heart · and soUl in favor · of the amendment. ' I will always lift · my · voice ' in ~ behalf of the workers; "'I will always · U e my _' influence for their advancement. a principle to guide one in governmental affairs, I hold it to be true following the .advice or • the great Lincoln, that the first consideration -in an legislation-not lt he second, but tile first consid er ation~ · should · be for labor and not for · capital, and on that basis .1 intend to support 1 this national prohibition amendment. [Ap­ . plause.]

322: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 322 (House1917b.Dec17.322)

1\fr. GA.RD. Mr. Speaker , I yield seven minute to the - gentleman from ' Kentucky [Mr. OAr TRILL).

323: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 323 (House1917b.Dec17.323)

Mr. CANTRILL. lli. ' Speaker, it is known by all persons in Kentu c ky that the next legi lature, whiCh convenes ln January, will . · submit to the voters of Kentucky an amendment to our Stat e constitution prohibiting the manufacture of intoxicating liquors in our Commonwealth. This plan will enable each voter of th State to have a direct vote on the great question of pro- hibition. If this amendment for national prohibition prevails in this House to-day the members of om· State legislature will be the only persons in Kentucky who will be permitted to vote on this question. I prefer that each voter in Kentucky should expre s his opinion at the ballot box concerning prohibition, and I Shall therefore vote against the amendment now pending in the House. 'In this connection I will state that no man in Kentucky has taken a more pronounced stand for the sUbmission of the prohibition amendment to our State constitution 'than I .

324: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 324 (House1917b.Dec17.324)

U n de r the Federal law to-day the manufacture of spi:ritous liquors ~ is absolutely prohibited. Only very light wines and beer. c an now be legally made in this country, and the President f tlle United States can now by the stroke of the pen prohibit the manufacture of wines and beer · · and place the Nation s trictl y on a prohibitio n b asi~ .

325: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 325 (House1917b.Dec17.325)

Th e Congre s · bn p la ce< l !l b . · o lu k po w e r i n th e llanu . · of tlle Pre ident to · control the manufacture and sale of • piritous, vinous, · . and 1 malt liquors in the United Stnt e · . I am willing to trlli:lt this entire qu ..; question to his wisdom anti judgment , knowing that; he will use the great power he po e 'es for th e b e t mol'al and material inteT ts of the American people.

326: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 326 (House1917b.Dec17.326)

No man in history ever ' held ' tlle power which the repre enta· tives of the American people have ch rfully voted to our great P.re ident. By our legislation he control entirely the food and fuel · supply of this, the richest country in the world. If he o desires he can control the great transportation lines of om· country, employing more men and repr enting more dollars than any bu in in i: he · land. Under our law he controls absolutely the lives and de tinie of million of our boys who will be called for service in the Army and Navy. If the Congre s can trust the · President to control completely the food and fUel of the land and the li•e of the young m e n of th e rr Nation, why can not we tru t hin;t to control the liquor indu try?

327: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 327 (House1917b.Dec17.327)

'I will show my confidence in him 1 by voting to defeat the pending am e ndment. I know that he win use the great power ll.e has ' for the · moral Uplift of the Nation; · I know that he Will u e that power for the · prime pm·po e of bringing swift victory to American a.rm , and I · mlJ not vote to take away from him any power h has in handling the great problem which confront Und e r otrr 'Federal Con •titntion · our Pr Went i Commander in Chief of otrr .Army a-nd Navy. Th ' e burden of this great and terrible war istiPon his shoulder . The American people, in my opinion, have perfect confidence in his judgment on all of the great questions pertaining · to t the proper conduct of our war plan . This being ' tl:n , why single out t11e liquor problem nn<l - take only ~ that qu . question : :from his control . ? In • the great crisis • i which 110'\-v cor'ifi·Hnt n intemperate .. te legi lation · on · t h e liquor que .· ­ tion might re. ult in · great di aster. Whenever the Pr ~ President df the United 'States believes ' that nationa:l prohibition is a good thing for the Nation he c:m, · under the power be now ' hn , · bring it about by · the . stroke of his - pen. I think that · he can b tru tecl to exercise that power, anll there 'i · no · n ed for further legislation by statute 01: • con ti utional amendment on th :ubject bf the ll111.Dttfacture 6f intoxicating liquors. . it would e m · that our Government is in need of the ' hundreds of million of dollars rtt this time · from · the liquor business. . :U this amendment pre­ · vail , the : GO'Vernment 'loses hundreds <5f millions of revenue, and this deficiency mu t : fall on the necessities of the poor. Organized labor, which · is working so patriotically to equip our Army ::mel Navy, protests again t the :pn age of his amendment and is willing to leave tlu liquor question to · the judgment of the President, and without 'the · run cooperation of organized labor · the war will ; be lo t. The : president from · his exalted cl position know better than any man or any set of ' men -what is best for the welfare . of ' the Nation • in the great struggle through which we are pas ing. Full power is now in his ' hand , and the lawmakers of the · land make '110 mi take when · they permit ' him to handle the liquor question along With a multitude df other question s of equal or greater importance. [Applause.] This is no time for Members · of this Hou e to consider their individual political fortunes in making up their minds how they will vote on the questions which come before them. When war was · · declared I made up my mind that it was my · duty to full in behind our great President and Commander in Chief and do that which he desired a.nd ordered. He is our leader, and it is the duty of every American citizen to obey. In a life and death -struggle for national existence there can be but one commander and one leader if we are to succeed. I · have voted and will continue to vote for every request which our Pre id e nt de ms for the interest and success of our Army and Nav ·. I would not embarrass him by taking away from him the po ve r to handle at this crucial time the liquor question or any other question. In my vote to sustain the President on this and on other ques· tions I believe that I voice the overwhelming sentiment of my constituents, and I shall therefore vote against the amendment pending. [Applause.] ln the days to come history will record that Washington made possible the American Union , that Lincoln pre etved it, and that Wilson made our Nation the lending factor in a world union dedicated to universal d e m oc racy. TApplause.]

328: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 328 (House1917b.Dec17.328)

Mr. VOLSTEAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minute s to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. CAMPBELL].

329: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 329 (House1917b.Dec17.329)

Mr. OAl\fPBELL of Kansas. lYlr. Speaker, this i a big time in the history of mankind. This is a big question for the Am e rican people. No greater que tion has engaged the attention of the Congress than the que s tion now under consideration-important to the individual, to the community, to the Nation, to mankind throughout the world. . l\f~1ch depends upon the people of the United States at fujs hour. We need a sober manhood. We have responsibilities thrust upon us that demand the very best that is in every man and in every woman in the Nation. I do not agree with the gentleman from Missouri [~Ir. DYER], who says that liquor is essential to the laborer in the manufacture of arms and ammunition; that liquor is essential in the trenches. We want the best ability we have-and to be at its be t it must be sober-in the manufacture of arms, in the manufacture of munitions, and in the use of such .arm:s anct ammunition in the world '\\ur now being waged.

330: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 330 (House1917b.Dec17.330)

You hm·e a on; he is in the trenches to-day or on the way there. You want him supplied with the best arms, with the be t ammunition that the soberest men can make. You do not want him supplied with deficient arms and ammunition made by men under the influence of liquor. Further, you want that boy of yours to have comrades over there who are sober and ready fo do a man's part.

331: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 331 (House1917b.Dec17.331)

There never was a time when the ability of the manhood of Ameri-Ca, all the ability we posse s, was as much in demand · as it is this very hour. I do not believe that labor organizations are in favor of devitalizing the manhood of the Nation at an hour when the very best that is in man is in so great demand.

332: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 332 (House1917b.Dec17.332)

No man speaks for the laborers of America when he says that they are . all opposed to this constitutional amendment. Individuals? Yes. As an organization? No. More men united and affiliated with labor organizations are in favor of a sober man a sober community, a sober State, a sober Nation than are in favor of the open saloon. The time is past in which it is neces ary to talk upon the effect of the use of intoxicating liquors. Every man here can count by hundreds young men of his acquaintance who have gone to inglorious graves before they have pa · ed the age at which they would now be taken into the service of the United States, where, if perchance they lost their lives, they would go to an honorable grave. Every year this stuff that is to be prohibited by this resolution has taken its toll by the thou ands ; yea, by the: hundreds of thousands. I am in favor of the resolution. [Applause.]

333: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 333 (House1917b.Dec17.333)

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

334: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 334 (House1917b.Dec17.334)

1\Ir. GRAHAl'\1 of Pennsylvania. 1\lr. Speaker, I yield seven minutes to the gentleman from Ma sachusetts [Mr. \V .ALSH].

335: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 335 (House1917b.Dec17.335)

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the members of the Committee on the .Judiciary who voted to report this resolution w the House with a favorable recommendation, reserving the right to vote against th~ resolution. I desire briefly to set forth my reasons, but before I do so permit me to congratulate the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. C.u.IPBELL] upon his high, patriotic courage. He, sh·, would win this war, but he would not win the war nor would be support the men who are fighting the war if, perchance, they are going to shoot a rifte containing ammunition that has been made by a man who drinks liquor ! Temperance in thought and speech, Mr. Speaker, is sometimes as wise as temperance in the use of food and drink.

336: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 336 (House1917b.Dec17.336)

Anyone who has read the debate and what took place in the memorable Constitutional Convention when that great document was framed will see how strongly the delegates to that body were opposed to the passage of sumptuary laws, and I, sir, do not believe that this measure should be considered, as the gentleman from New York has stated, with a view of simply the district a man repre ent . This is a proposition to amend and to change the fundamental law of tl1is great Nation, and we should consider, I believe, not simply the interest of the district we have tl1e honor to repre ent but we should look at it from a larger viewpoint, a to whether it is for the best interests of the Nation as a whole. I do not believe that the gentlemen in the sand river bottoms of Arka.n as prefer to have the people living in the Back Bay district of Boston to legislate and say to them what their pet· ona.l habits shall be. We have in the State which I have the honor in part to repre ent what is known as a localoption law which gives the people of the smallest municipal division the right to say O!lee each year whether they believe the sale of intoxicants should be permitted or not. I say that we should not embark upon this program of changing and amending the fundamental law by injecting into it an article which would deha e that great document to the mere level of a criminal statute. If you m·e going to write this article into the Constitution, why not go one step further and include within the Constitution the penalty for a violation of it? It is said that democracy is precious, , and that we :ue engage<] in a strtig"'le for democracy, but to say that the States in one section of this country shall dictate to the State . in another section of th~ country upon matters which heretofore have been within the sole control of the people of the several States, upon matters which by the fairest and p. ' plainest interpretation of tl1e Con titution are reserved to the States, is not in the interest of democracy. So, for the reason that I am opposed to including in the funda ­ mental law propositions of this so-rt I am opposed to tills rosolution.

337: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 337 (House1917b.Dec17.337)

Further, I am opposed to it, because I do not believe that this is the most important question that ever confronted the American Congress. There are some gentlemen here who, when they rise to address their colleagues, are swept off their feet by their enthusiasm for or against a measure. The most important question confronting not only this Congress but the entire Nation-yes, even the enti:r-e world-i the winning of this · war, and I submit that we ought not at this time by our action here to transfer to the States a contest which will result in di cussion and occupation of time, the expenditure of effort and money in each of 48 States of the Union, which same time. effort, and money might well be u ed toward the winning of this war. If the States desire to enact prohibition legislation, and I understand 27 of them have already d-one so, if they believe that by the enactment of that legislation vi . victory will be more speedily assured, they can do so. The people of the States ought to be the best judge of that proposition. So I say that in submitting this resolution to the States and by permitting this discussion to arise and these differences of op.inion, these clashes between classes of people, we will do more to divert our people from the supreme test confronting the country than we will if we concentrate our efforts and our thoughts and to en courage tl1e expenditure of effort and money toward winning this great world struggle. [Applause.]

338: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 338 (House1917b.Dec17.338)

l\fr. GARD. 1\Ir. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes t& the gentleman from North Carolina [l\fr. SMALL].

339: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 339 (House1917b.Dec17.339)

Mr. SMALL. Mr. Speaker, this resolution propo es an amendment to the Federal Constitution which prohibits the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors, or the importation thereof, into the United States. I am constrained upon my conscience and in the exercise of my best judgment to vote a-gainst this proposed amendment. I shall not discuss the merits or demerits of prohibition. The attitude of a citizen: . or a Member of the House upon that question should not determine his vote upon this resolution. There are those who gravely doubt whether the attempt to enforce throughout the country total abstinence is the best solution. Many believe that the discouragement of the manufacture apcl use of distilled liquors and the encouragement of the use of light beers and wines would best subserve the interests of genuine temperance and good citizenship. But, as I have just stated, total pro hibition, or partial prohibition, is not the issue before us. We are called upon to determine whether we will propose an amendment to the Constitution depriving the States of their present exclusive jurisdiction to regulate and control intoxicating liquors and transfer the same in whole or in part to the Federal Government.

340: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 340 (House1917b.Dec17.340)

I am opposed to this resolution because it proposes to incorpQrate into our organic law a proposition which is distinctly legislative. There have been 17 amendments to om· Constitution and not one of them invaded the field of legislative action. They all relate to the Bill of Rights or the instruments of government itself, or, in other words, they relate to the form of government or the powers of Congress. If Qle Constitution is to forbid the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors there is no reason why in the future. in response to reformers, it should not forbid the manufacture and consumption of other products which may be deemed deleterious to humanity. The Constitution has been the great charter of our liberties. . It describes th-e powers of our Federal G<>vernment and fixes the fine balance between the States and the Central G<>vernment. It has been the coh~ve bond which has bound together tlie sovereign States into one indestructible union. '\Ve sh<>uld not mar this great instrumimt by making it the reeeptacle of prohibjtive or permissive legislation and thus mar this fine structure and bring it into disrepute.

341: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 341 (House1917b.Dec17.341)

I am opposed to this amendment because it proposes to take away from the States an essential right of local self-governm nt. It propo es to impair the police power of the States. This is concededly true, el e this amendment would not be propo ed. If Congress had jurisdiction to regulate or prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors it would not be necessary to incorporate this legislati've provision into the Constitution. The perpetuity of this Republic is based upon the maintenance of the right of local self-government in each of the States of the Union. If the time ever comes when the States are horn of. the right to govern themselves in all local matters and n.re deprived of the right to exercise their untrammeled police powers in th~ enforcement of the ame we will see the becrinning of the end of this Republic. When all go\ernment is centre at Washington there \\·ill come local and State disaffection, loyalty to the Central G<>-vernment will be impaired, and ultimutely revolution will stalk abroad throughout the Junu. It may be aid that this invasion of a right of the States co n stitut e s only one instance and that other invasions will not nece · necessarily follow. In a matter of such supreme import even o n e in"Vasion of local self-government may not be justified, but unfortunately this is only one of a number which are now being pressed l>y zealous reformers. . The first error will make easier subsequent efforts. When we have once weakened the fine balance of powers between the States and the Federal Government we will have endangered the stability of the entire structure.

342: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 342 (House1917b.Dec17.342)

The Constitution was framed to protect the States in the right of local self-government. It was particularly intended to protect the small States. All the early efforts to amend the Constitution were prohibitions against the Federal Government and in favor of the integrity of the States. In the first 10 amendments which were adopted soon after the original Constitution, their provision.:; were so basic and fundamental that they have been universally denominated as the "Bill of Rights." So jealous were our fa-thers that some of the reserved and essential rights of the States might l>e impaired that in the tenth amendment it was provided that- · the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. nor prohibited by it to the States, are re erved to the States respectiv e ly, or to the people.

1 connection
343: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 343 (House1917b.Dec17.343)

They thought they had settled for all time any possibility that the right of local self-government reserved to the States should ever be successfully attacked.

344: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 344 (House1917b.Dec17.344)

This amendment is not necessary to enable any State to control or prohibit the manufacture, sale, consumption, or importation into such State of intoxicating liquors. Each State has the power, to use a familiar expression, to make it elf "bone dry." Not only may each State pass laws prohibiting within its borders the manufacture, sale, or consumption of intoxicating liquors in any form, but under the Webb law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, it may prevent the importation of any intoxicating liquors into such State. Through its administrative officers and by its own courts each State may literally enforce such law . The statement may be emphasized that each State now has the exclusive power over intoxicating liquors.

345: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 345 (House1917b.Dec17.345)

It may be n asked, then, What is the nece sity of this amendment to the Constitution? Is it to enable one State in combination with others to exercise power over another State? To express it baldly, the purpose of this amendment is to enable the legislature of one State to join with the legislatures of 36 other States and impose absolute prohibition over the remaining 12 unwilling States. If the subject of prohibition is now a matter of local self-government with each State, which will be admitted, then it may be stated with equal force that it was never intended in our scheme of. government that three-quarters of the States should take away from the remaining one-quarter any reserved right of local self-government. My own State of North Carolina, which is dry, can not consistently claim the right to join with 36 other States and impose prohibition upon the States of New York or Massachusetts or Wisconsin against the will of the people of those States. Such a result would be resented by the people of those States who are not yet ready to adopt prohibition. Let me give a concrete illustration. In 1881 there was a referendum in North Carolina upon the question of State-wide prohibition. There were cast for prohibition 48,000 votes and against prohibition 166,000 votes, an adverse majority of 118,000 votes. So long as the majority of the people of North Carolina were opposed to prohibition, I ask in all good faith what impression would have been made on the people of that State if 36 other States in a proposition to amend the Federal Constitution had ~creed that North Carolina should be dry, contrary to the solemn vote of the electorate of the State? The question answers itself. There would have followed re . resentment, and the people of the State would have felt that they had been deprived of a sovereign right to settle this question for themselves. In 1908, 27 years later, North Carolina had another referendum upon prohibition, at which time a majority was recorded in its favor. May I ask if this change in the attitude of the people of the State toward a sumptuary law necessarily changes the fundamental propo ition involved? If the people of North Carolina would have re ented in 1882 the action of 36 other States in imposing upon them prohibition against their will, are the people of that State justified in 1917 in trying to impose prohibition upon tl1e people of an unwilling State simply because the people of North Carolina have reversed themselves upon this question? The query answers it elf. ·

346: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 346 (House1917b.Dec17.346)

It i~ contended that national prohibition is necessary in the interest of good morals. The leaders of the Anti-Saloon League say that they can not await the slow process of adopting prohibition State by State, and that they prefer the summary method of imposing . ing it upon all of the Stat e s withcut having to und rgo the trouble of di. cu ·sion and education, in order to effect a change of public opinion in each of the State . I submit that the maintenance of the basis and the fundamental· of our Govern 4 ment is superior to the virtues of prohibition, even if we co) ~ cede all it s ble sing s by the mo t enthusia tic advocates, I confess that I deem it of more importance to d e fend the in 4 • tegrity of the States and to a sure the perp e tuity of our nc 4 public than t o anticipate the will of the people and to attempt to force prohibition by this summary process upon unwilling States. -

347: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 347 (House1917b.Dec17.347)

There have been 17 amendment to our Con titution. E n cll one of these amendments dealt with the fundamentals of government and did not attempt to invade the reserved right of local self-government in the States except the fift nth amendment. Thi s amendment forbad e any State to d e ny the right of suffrage to any citizen on account of race or color. It was intended to compel the Southern State s to g iYe to the negro equal rights ot franchise with the whites. I shall not combat the righteous motives which actuated the advocates of that amendment. But I do submit these comments. Until the fifteenth amcnument the right of the . States to fix: and regulate the qualifications of the franchi e was not denied, It has always been conceded that the right to vote comes as a privilege from the States and not from the Federal Government. This amendment was an attempt to control this right of the States in so far as the negro was concerned by giving him equality of suffrage. It was contended by the white citizens of the South that the negroes as a whole were not qualified for the suffrage, and that to give literal effect to this amendment would imperil their civilization and make pos 4 sible bad government. It is unnecessary to describe the results of this amendment. Reconstruction followed in its wake, racial disturbances · were frequent, progress was checked, and evil government prevailed. The fifteenth amendment till remains, but by common con ent in all sections of the country, the intelligence and the civic virtues of those who are qualified to ordniri and preserve good government are left in the several States to settle this matter in the light of their consciences and their responsibilities.

1 connection
348: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 348 (House1917b.Dec17.348)

In the face of the result of this attempt to invade the rights of the States to fix the qualifications of suffrage, I am led to inquire, What ought to be the attitude of the Members of this House from the Southern States in the consideration of this proposed amendment? Simply because most of the Southern States have adopted prohibition, shall they favor an amendment which would deprive other States of settling for themselves this question of prohibition? If they vote for this amendment, they will be doing an act which they would openly resent if an attempt was made by other States to invade their rights o local self-government. Very soon this Hou e may be called upon to vote for another amendment to the Federal Constitution for woman suffrage. It o happens that in mo t of the Southern States public opinion does not yet favor equal suffrage, and th y will vote against such an amendment. Why not be consistent? As a great fundamental of government, is the right of local elfgovernment upon any one question to l>e determined by the attitude of the voters of a particular State upon that que tivn? The very fact that an amendment proposed by Congress is to be ratified by the legislatures of the several States rather than by the popular vote throughout the country indicate~ the firm attitude of the fathers in pre erving the rights of the small States again t the encroachments of the large State . It never occurred to the framers of the Constitution that Delaware anll Rhode Island, or Nevada, would join in depriving the people of the State of New York of any es ential and reserved right of local self - government. The fear was that New York and Pennsylvania and Virginia might unite with other large States and deprive Delaware and Rhode Island of some e sential local power. Therefore, they provided in the ratification of an amendment that the vote of Delaware and ol Rhode Island should count just as much as the vote of New # York and Pennsylvania. What is the duty of a Member of this House? A hi~h official of the Anti-Saloon League recently made this statement:

349: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 349 (House1917b.Dec17.349)

The Anti-Saloon League -is not asking any Member of Congress to declare that he is in favor of national prohibition, but simply that he shall not become an avowed exponent and protector of the liquor traffic by refusing to vote to allow the people of the Nation, by States, through their representatives, to determine this question in the manner provided therefor by the framers of the Constitution.

350: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 350 (House1917b.Dec17.350)

This has been a familiar form of expression by some of the advocates of this amendment. In other words, they contend it is the duty of a Member of Congress to vote for any proposed amendment if a considerable number of the voters of the country appear to favor same. There can be no more solemn duty imposed upon a Member than in determining his attitude toward a proposition to amend the Federal Constitution. Congress ruru t initiate tile amendment, and each :Member must consider it in the light of his intelligence and patriotic judgment. w·e are not mere automatons to regi ter the will of the Anti-Saloon League or any other organization of reformers. \\.,.e are sworn to defend the Con titution a it stands, and it is our solemn duty to avoid any action which will impair or imperil the foundations of our Government. Any Member who votes for or against this amendment solely actuated by fear of his political fortunes has little comprehension of the fundamentals of our Government and is elevating his political preferment above the preservation of the es entials of sound democracy. There has been already too much of intimidation and coercion. The highest . t ideal is to discharge one's duty, and if one is to adopt the personal view it is also the best politics.

351: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 351 (House1917b.Dec17.351)

We are engaged in a great war. The President, in his recent epochal address before Congress, invoked unity upon the part of all the people. He declared that we should mobilize every re­ -source, material and spiritual, in the successful prosecution of this war. The adoption of this amendment will thrust before the people a mooted question upon which there are strong differences. In the famous " Shannon " letter of the President in 1911, while he was governor of New Jersey, he referred to the acute divisions in public sentiment which followed the in- jection of the liquor question into any party organization. This proposition ought not to have been brought into Congress at this supreme moment in the national life. Congress has heretofore enacted all necessary legislation regarding intoxicating liquors for the period of the war. The further production of distilled liquors has been forbidden. The President, under the authority of law, has decreased the production of beer and the time. percentage of alcoholic contents. · The great body of the people are satisfied. For patriotic reasons alone we would be justified in defeating this measure at this inopportune time. [Applause.]

352: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 352 (House1917b.Dec17.352)

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, my time is limited, and I can not therefore enter upon a general discussion of the subject of prohibition. I am in favor of this amendment. My judgment approves it and it is entirely in harmony with my personal views. It meets the approval of the people of my congressional district. My constituents are largely in favor of prohibition. Finally, the passage of this amendment, the submission of the prohibition amendment to tile Constitution to the several States for ratification or rejection will be approved by the great majority of the people of Oklahoma, the State which I have the honor in part to represent. And, :Mr. Speaker, when the roll is called and the vote is taken on this amendment in this House there will be a unanimous vote in favor of this · proposition from the Representatives in this House from the State of Oklahoma. In due course the legislature of the State will ratify this amendment, and Oklahoma will be one of the 36 States which will ratify this amendment and make it forever a part of the organic law of this Nation. .

353: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 353 (House1917b.Dec17.353)

~e gentleman who just preceded me [1\.:Ir. SMALL], as I understood him, contended that Congress had no real authority to propose an amendment to the Constitution upon a subject like that of prohibition. I do not agree with my friend. The authors of the Constitution recognized that it was not perfect. They knew the changes which time inevitably brings would make modifications in the Constitution necessary. They wisely provided for its amendment. This provision is found in Article V of the Constitution. It contains only three limitations upon amendments. These are found in a proviso and are as follows Pro -d ded, That no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the third and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article ; and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its suffrage in the Senate.

1 connection
354: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 354 (House1917b.Dec17.354)

Two of these restrictions expired in 1808, more than a hundred years ago. To-day the only restriction, limitation, or reservation imposed upon the people in amending the Constitution is " that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." With this limitation the whole matter is l-eft to the people. If they desire, they may by amending the Constitution change the form of government.

1 connection
355: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 355 (House1917b.Dec17.355)

Some one in this debate, I think it was the gentleman from New York [Mr. CHANDLER], said that in his vote upon this resolution he would follow what he regarded as the sentiment of his constituents. He a erted, as I understood him, that a large majority of his constituents were opposed to submitting the prohibition amendment to the several States for ratification or rejection, and that, therefore, he should vote against the resolution. That question confronts Members of Congress o-n - many occasions. Sometimes it is necessary for a Representative to decide whether in casting his vote he will be guided by his own views and convictions or follow the popular sentiment of his constituents. Ordinarily legislation does not involve qUJ tions of morality. The annihilation of the . liquor traffic is essential in order that the American people shall attain the highest standard of morality. I would resign my seat in the House of Representatives rather than to vote to perpetuate the liquor traffic. Ever since I was a young man this has been my attitude on this question. I have been ready at all times, in public ' or in private, to · strike down the liquor traffic, and there is where I stand to-day. ' Some one has said that this is not the time to submit this question to the several States. They assert it will develop controversy among the people at a time when all of our energies should be devoted to winning the war. That is one argument that appeals to me with some force. Yet we should remember tllat the controversy between the liquor traffic and its opponents can never end. They represent two opposing forces between which there can be no compromise. Good can not make peace with eviL So the controversy must and will go on until the cause of temperance shall triumph over the evil forces of tlie liquor traffic.

356: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 356 (House1917b.Dec17.356)

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

357: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 357 (House1917b.Dec17.357)

Mr. GRAHAM of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 1.\IA.GEE].

358: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 358 (House1917b.Dec17.358)

Mr. MAGEE. 1\Ir. Speaker, as a member of the Judiciary Committee I voted to report out this resolution to the House without recommendation. I am opposed to the resolution at this time and in its present form. I stand for temperance and against intemperance. The question, however, in my judgment, is not temperance versus intemperance, but whether we are willing to use the condition of war as the chief instrument in attempting to bring about Nation-wide prohibition at this particular Prohibition is an internal and domestic question over which the Congress has given the President full' and complete control during the period of the war. I voted for the food bill, which prohibits the further manufacture of what are commonly known as alcoholic beverages and gives · to th~ President power to com· mandeer existing stocks for purposes of redistillation. I do not know what it would cost to commandeer, under the pl'ovi· sions of the act, such stocks, but taking into consideration that the actual quantity remaining in bonded warehouses on October 31, 1917, approximated 175,000,000 . taxable gallons, I estimate that such cost would exceed $200,000,000.

359: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 359 (House1917b.Dec17.359)

The annual report for the fiscal year 1917 shows that the Government collected from distilled spirits $181,131,770.62, and from fermented liquors $91,094,677.70. These items, though material in nature, are significant when we come to consider that the amounts authorized by Congress for this fiscal year, in· eluding loans to our allies, aggregate nearly $20,000,000,000, and that the estimated expenditures for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1919, aggregate nearly $14,000,000,000, which huge sum is bound to grow and does not·include, as I understand, prospective advances to our allies.

360: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 360 (House1917b.Dec17.360)

The President is further authorized in such act to eliminate, in his discretion, the use of beer and light wines. Under such authority the President issued a proclamation on December 8, 1917, reducing the alcoholic content in the further production of beer to 2i per cent. Thus it will be seen that the Congress has given to the President power to bring about Nation-wide prohibition at any time he may see fit to act during the period of the war. It seems to me, in view of these circumstances, that the patriotic thing to do is to trust the President to act wisely in the premises and to let him alone during the war. Wh e n the war is over the people of this country can permanently settle the matter as they deerri best.

Connections graph

Enter all results↑ ↓ then Enter to open oneTry “Federalist 51”, “Article I, Section 8”, “Amendment 14”

Where you've been

    The places you have read, newest first, kept in this browser only. Nothing is sent anywhere.