December 17, 1917

The President says that we must win the war. I stand upon that platform with all my heart and soul. But we can not expect to reach the maximum efficiency in war if we permit om·­ selves to engage ii). bitter domestic dispute upon a question already placed in tlie hands of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States. Nor can we prepare ourselves for. efficiency in war, unless we are willing to lay aside temporarily internal questions, to sacrifice our per onal and individual interests for the public interests, and to concentrate all of our resources, energies, and efforts into an: irresistible unit for the sole purpo e of winning the war. It is high time, in my judgment, that the good people of this country begin to realize that this Nation is engaged in a titanic conflict that threatens not only the security but the very existence of free democracies. [Applause.]

The adoption of the pending re olution will not save any grain nor sugar, nor any kind of edibles, nor decrease drunkenness during the war, if I am right in assuming that the war will be over long before this resolution, 'if passed in the House, shall receive the approval of the legislatures of 36 States. We all know that to bring about national prohibition by Federal amendment a long, bitter struggle will be engaged in between those for and again t. Such a contest will create much turmoil, much dis ·atisfnction, much - internal dissension, and antagonize million of workingmen in this country. It seems to me unwise to precipitate such a contest at ibis time .

We are pas ing through a tremendous national crisis that calls for a real exhibition of courage and patriotism. I realize that the line of least resistance is to yield to the demand of e:rtrerni t , but no pab·iot ever kept his ear to · the ground liste . ning for public clamor. If the Government should do that we would be likely to J.o e the war. Let us rather rise above our per onal and individual interests and base our official · action upon the sole consideration of the best interests of our common country.

All the cities in New . York under a local-option act, recently passed by the legi · legislature of that State, will vote on the third Tuesday of April next. The control of the liquor traffic has always been . held to be . properly a~ exercise of the police powers of the State. However, I have no objections to nationwide prohibition if the people want it. We ha e a form of government based upon the popular will and the majority must rule . I wish that it were legally possible · to have a nationwide referendum, and to permit the people to say by their votes what they want to the end that their will, if in favor of national prohibition, might promptly be written into the fundamental law of the land.

I am opposed to any limitation of time in a proposed Federal amendment. I doubt whether the Congress has the constitu tional po . power to so act. In any event, I think that such a limitation is unwise. If Congress is going to submit a proposed Federal amendment to the legislatures of the several States it should be in the usual form, and, when submitted, be beyond the further control of Congre s. Such a limitation can act only as an incentive to start at once a bitter fight in ~very State of this Union. . I do not intend to criticize, nor to impugn the motives of anyone, but I believe in calling a spade a spade. I think that the limitation contained in this resolution is a sop to the liquor interests, and that they figure that they can prevent the approval of the resolution if passed by the legislatures of 36 States within seven years. · . In fact, whenever I read this limitation I think of that memorable speech made in tl1e Hou e by the distinguished ~entlPman from Michigan [Mr. HAMILTON] when be repeatedly told us that Barnum till lives. The way I feel about it i this: ~ : If I were " wet," or a quart prohibitionist, and placed my toddy above all else, = would vote for this resolution. If I were ' ·dry " I would vote against it. It is probably useless to make to the ultra "dry" an appeal to reason . If this limitation were struck out of the resolution I should feel more favorably disposed toward it. As it is the resolution should be defeated by the "dry ," the substantial thinking men in the House, who with their faces to the sun, with the cards upon the table face up, having in mind only the public interest, vote in accordance with their convictions and the dictates of their conscience, dealing directly and squarely with the people in accordance with the • spirit of our institutions.

I want to say in conclusion that I bold no brief for "drys" or " wets." I assume to hold a brief for my country, and as between " drys " and " wets," and my country, I choose my country, first, last, and all the time. [Applause.]

l\Ir. VOLSTEAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. LANGLEY].

l\lr. LANGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not concur in the argument which has been advanced by some gentlemen here to-day that we should not always be influenced by the wishes of the people whom we represent and who have honored us with a seat in this great body. I take the very opposite view . This is a representative Go-rernment, a democracy, the chief corner stone of which is the will of the people, - ~hence springs the power of government. I conceive it tp be my highest duty to carry out their wishes or let somebody take my place who will do it. My district fir t and t _ he balance of the country next has always been my motto and will continue to be to the end of my service here. In this instance I am proud of the privilege of casting a vote which my people tell me they wish me to and which my con cience and judgment tell me is best for the Nation, too. [Applause.]

for VOLSTEAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. PowERS].

l\lr. POWERS. l\Ir. Speaker, I can not in the limited time at my disposal enter into much of a discussion of the merits of this re olution. Under the agreement no one Member can be given much time upon this occasion. I shall give tl;le resolution my hearty support. I doubt if there is a Member here whose public and private record is more consistently dry than that of my own. I · have throughout my life advocated prohibition and practiced what I preached. The district I have the honor to represent is overwhelmingly dry. In voting for this re. olution I not only reflect t11e sentiment and wishes of my constituents but do that which is in thorough harmony with the views I have long entertained . · l\fr. GREENE of l\1a sachusetts. l\lr. Speaker, when the constitutional amendment came to a vote in the House in December, 1914, I voted against it, because I did not then think it was a wi e mea ure to enact. Since that time I have received many communications from my con tituents urging my support both for and against that measure. To them all I have given most carefEl con ideration, supplementing many years of study and thought upon the que tion of liquor traffic and the best method of controlling it and of preventing the evils that follow in its trail, gained in part by an extensive municipal experience in a large city both · as i~ mayor and as a member of the municipal board.

At this late day in my life it is but stating what all men know who are acquainted with my record when I say that I have no sympathy with the sale of intoxicating liquors nor have I ever bad. I have never used it. If I could aboli h it from the face of the earth by my vote I would not he itate to do so. But no such millennium is possible, in my judgment, by the · adoption of the pending amendment.

Some of my constituents seem to . think that its passage will cause strong drink to di appear from the country at large and from every locality. Some have urged " that the interest of humanity will be . served by the abolition of booze . " I agree with this statement. If I thought this mea ure would accomplish that result I would support it, but the entire bi tory of the world shows that this would not be the outcome. The only way it can be totally aboli he<l is by losing the formulas by which such stuff is made . It is a question of the most available means of controlling the use of liquor and the be t and most practicable method of enforcing legal restrictions upon its abuse . .

Ours is not a Government of wishes but of law and its application in a practicable way to the ends sought to be obtained. Some who have urged my support for this amendment have evidently never read the measure nor considered how it would work out in practice. Others again have spoken of it as "a fair and equitable proposition to allow each State to register its opinion for or against the question . " With this view I agree, but these people fail to realize that this amendment does not give to the people · of each State the right to settle the question for them. elves. If the Massachusetts Legislature should fail to adopt this measure but a sufficient number of other State with other conditions and with different people and surroundings in life should accept it, nevertheless, , the people of Mas achu etts would have forced upon them a policy with which the majority of them were not in sympathy. The people of Florida and Colorado and other distant States might thus be dictating to the people of Ma sacbusetts what they might consume for food and drink . The habits and desires of the human race can not be changed by mere legislative enactment. A criminal law can not be succe fully enforced in a locality in which the majority of the citizens are not in favor of it. No way has yet been found that I e-rer heard of to make a jury of 12 men, upon whom under our Constitution the enforcement of such a law will depend in the last analysis, sustain the enforcement of a law with which that community is not in sympathy.

l\fy experience in life has led me to the belief that so-called local option is the best method of handling the liquor question ; that if to the people of each locality, as determined by the policy of the separate States, is left the decision of questions such as are covered by the amendment, laws satisfactory to a majority of the people of the various States and municipalities will ensue and the favorable will of such majority will be a guaranty of their enforcement.

. Principally ~or this reason I voted again t this measure be ­ fore and nothing has been called to my attention since to indicate that tran ferring the operation of such law from the favorable will of the locality in which it is to be enforced to the action of the Federal Government in places where it may not be regarded with favor will . eliminate the drinking of liquor or tend to increase respect for law or t~make better the morality of the people.

I am urged to vote for the amendment as n war measure and to protect our soldiers. This would be a strong argument were it not for the fact that the amendment can not be enacted by the different State legislatures within such time as there is any expectation that the war will continue. It should al o be remembered that Congress has already legislated for emergency control of this traffic during the war . It has given to the President full authority, which be has already used, to forbid the manufacture of whisky and to regulate the contents of beer, and the law now forbids the sale of intoxicating liquors to our boys who have entered the military or naval service of the country.

I have been in favor of such control and voted for that legisJation. I voted for the abolition of liquor from the Capitol long before this matter became a living issue. I have further shown my belief in and support of temperance measures by voting ~or the law that prevents the transmissiOn of liquor mto prohibition States, the so-called "bone-dry law."

Moreover I believe this question is not fundamentally a governmental principle such · as always has had a place in the Federal Con titution. it is a matter of policy, of police regulation. To force all the States to conform to . the police regulations of a majority of them will, in my judgment, tend to destroy that selfreliant lo ca l self-government which has been the security of our State and Nation since their foundation.

· So because I believe in using the strongest methods of control, those ~ that will nearest aproach the abolition of the evils of this accursed strong drink, and that this will be best accomplished by permitting the citizens of the several States to enact and enforce their o,,.n police regulations, I can see my way clear only to vote against the amendment. [Applause.]

I may add that to precipitate the conflict upon the country which would be involved by the passage of the pending amendment by the Congress during the struggle of war among many nation abroad, and in which our country is engaged, would be extremely unfortunate.

l\Ir. VOLSTEAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the o-entleman from Ohio [Mr. HoLLINGSWORTH]. o l\lr. HOLLINGSWORTH. 1\fr. Speaker, I am not vain enough to think that any words of mine will influence a single vote in this House for or against this resolution. I doubt if there is a single Member of the House expecting to speak on the subject whose ' " vanity exceeds my own in this respect. Manifestly, therefore the day is to be devoted to oratory for the benefit of the cou~try at large and our individual constituents in particular. On this question, as on all others, I have been frank With my own constituent . No one for or against the proposition has ever applied to me in vain for information as to my position.

I shall vote for there resolution. Therefore I only deem it necessary to explain to tho e friends who do not agree with me on the subject. I have done this in numerous answers to telegrams and letters sent me by well-meaning constituents within the last few days, one of which an wers, as a sample, practically covering the whole subject, so far as my conneetion with it is concerned [ap ­ plause], I ask to have read into the REcoRD with my remarks. It follows:

HOUSE OF read . REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, D. a., December 15, 1917. Mr. FRED A , BUECHE,

S ecre tary Jefferson County Trade a11d Labor Assembly, Steubenville, Ohio.

DEAn Mn. BUECHE: I have just received your telegram of to-day, in which you say: :

"The Jefferson County Trade and Labor Assembly is opposed to the proposed national prohibition to be voted on next Monday, and respect- request your vote and influ e nce against same."

The right and courtesy shown Tn by you in this t e l e gram and the many acts of consideration and good will I have at various times received from individual memoers of your association, and, in fact, from sincere lal>Oring men all over the district, lead me to feel that it ought not to be 1Jled away or pigeonholed without a frank answer and explanation on m y part. I hav e felt grateful and uniformly tried to reciprocate on all pr ope r occasions th e good will and courtesy shown me by labor, ana certainly I have never entertained a thought of discrimination ..

On the general subject of prohibition there i s, as you know, a. decided di.ft'ereuc e of opinion ID Ohio. The rE;cent State vote on. the subject was not deci s ive--at least was not sufficiently so to deter its friends from bringing up the subject again. But in the congressional dl trict .w.h~ ch for a time I have the honor of repr e senting the majority for prohibition was large, as it was also at the previous election when the question was suiJ~lttcd to the voters, so that it might be said to be an instruction on this point to th e di s trict Congressman, even if be did not personally agree in sentiment. t.

said es Yr Bueche, while I have always tried to deal squarely and treat every law-abiding citizen wit~ d~?e respect, respecting the individual judgment of all men in my district, my own home environment, personal thought, and feelings have always been practically opposed to the usP of intoxicants in any form.

.Again the qu estio n to be voted upon by Congress on Monday Is not strictly 'one of prohibition , as yoti state. It is rather one of whether or not Congress is willing to submit .to the people, under .t~? e . form pro ­ vided in the Constitution, the question of national prohibition. Such submi s ion i s not conclusive of its adoption. This can only come when the p eop le through thre e~q uarters of the State legislatures-that is, 36 of the 48 States-vote they want it.

Over G 000,000 people have petitioned Congress for its submission more than have ever before petitioned Congress ~n any subject. . Really, Mr. Bueche, do you not your ~e lf tbmk ~hat ordinary fairness aucl con. icleration for the right s of others require Congress under such circumstances to allow the p e ople to settle for themselves all such que st ion s when an orderly method is pro v ided for it in th.eir organic law? What fair answer can be given to the 6 , 000,000 petitioners for refusing their request for a vote on th e subject? Can we say that thP citizenship of the Republic is not to be trusted?

Be si d es, for me to r e fuse to so vote would be to stultify a long personal political and official record. . As early as 1881, when a member of the Ohio senate, as the journal of that year will show, I voted to submit the que&tion of State-wiU.e prohibition to the people of the State. The next year, 1882, as chairman of the Republican State convention at Columbus, in my opening address, I personally favored prohibition, , although it was not t.hl · D as popular as It 1s now. Freely recognizing, during the thirty-odd years interv e ning since I thus began voting on the subject, the right of everyone to exercise his own individual ju dgment in a political way, I hav e never . sought to hide under a bushel my own record or view s , public or private.

It is too late now to begin, .. if I wished; too late to dissemble even if a candidate for re election, whicb I am not.

La.bor, organized or unorganized, is the basic foundation of American hope to-day, and I shall not consc10usly do it an injustice. But .. as in other matters, I must follow my convictions of duty. It is the only way that I can pre ·erve my self-respect, and this to me is more precious than public applause.

Therefore, Mr. Bueche, I trust that you and your associates, whose past good will and friendship I have appreciated and shall always remember, will at least in this instance give me credit for honesty of pu1frft~· sentiments of personal esteem and respect, I am,

Very truly, yours,

D . .A, HOLLINGSWORTH.

Mr. WEBB . · 1\Ir. Speaker, I yield fi\e minutes to the ·gentleman from Pennsylvania [1\fr. KELLY].

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York [l\Ir. MAGE E] has asked why this resolution should come before the House at this time. I believe there is an answer which is irresistible, and that is that the sovereign American people, who have pledged their entire resources, all they are and have, to the carrying on of this mighty war, demand that this question be definitely settled at this time. If there is any one thing certain in this war-convulsed world, it is that the American people have definitely made up their minds to put the Government out of the liquor business, the liquor business out of the Government, and the liquor busine s out of business. The people have taken into consideration all of these arguments made here to-day. They have weighed the argument that prohibition does not prohibit and have proceeded to vote their States dry, with the re ult that liquor i s proved to be not above law and that prohibition can be enforced as satisfactorily as any other law . They have listened to the infamous doctrine that the Government would peri h were it not for the revenues d~rived from the liquor traffic, and have decided that they will no longer accept 10 cents in revenue for the sake of paying out a dollar to take care of the finished product of the business. They have weighed the nrgn- • ments of blear-eyed defenders of personal liberty, and have decided that the personal liberty which means wrecked lives, destruction of property, disease, crime, and degeneracy is a menace to the public welfare and should be outlawed . They have listened to the plea that an army of workers is engaged in the liquor business and have decided to put that army of workers into constructive employment instead of destructive. They have heard of the 300,000 farmers who grow crops to keep the breweries and distilleries running and have decided that the foodstuff s thus wasted shall be preserved for those who are starving for it. They have heard of the millions of tons of coal used in the production and transportation of liquor, and have decided that it can much better be used by those who are freezing without it. They have listened to the argument that compensation is due the liquor interests, and have decided that when those interests compensate the Nation for the damage they have wrought, compensation to the liquor dealers will be considered.

1\Ir. JAMES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield there? The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield to the gentleman from Michigan?

l\Ir. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Yes; I yield to my friend. l\lr. JAMES. The statement bas been made by some people that a man can not be a good munition maker unless he is a whisky drinker. Carrying that idea further, would it not follow that in order to make a good Congres mnn, m order to make us capable of being good men to legislate and carry on this war, it is necessary to drink so many drinks of grog each day? [Laughter.]

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania . Yes. The gentleman, as u s ual, ill exactly right. . His question answer!> itself . The American people are not being duped in this matter at ~11. They see through the sophistry of these stock arguments m behalf of a notorious evil, and they are ready to meet them at the ballot Above all, l\Ir. Speaker, the people have considered this mighty war in which we are engaged and which taxes every resourc e find every atom of our strength . They see every ideal of democracy and Americanism swaying in the balance . They see the Jiquor interests as a barrier to our victory and they propose to break that barrier down . They propose to destroy thiS force which endangers our chances of triumph in the holiest cause in . which America has ever engaged.

With that decision made in their heart of hearts, the American people are to-day asking their Representatives to submit this problem to them, that they may settle it in American fashion. The Con titution prondes the way, for the framers of that iJn.: mortal document, wi e and great as they were, knew well that new problem would confront succeeding generations, which mu t be ettleti . by themselves. . The 13 original States contained intelligence enough to frame the Constitution ; the 48 States to-­ day contain intelli gence enough to vote upon amendments to it. 1s there an y doubt · that the people demand this action and tlillt the que tion i big enough to warrant it? Scan the temper- . map of the United States and see where the saloon has been driven out of 88 per cent of the . territory of America, with 60 per cent of the population living in that area. See that six out of every seven counties are dry. Note that 15,000 towns and citie have banished the traffic. See the petitions of 8;000,000 people that this question be submitted in constitutional manner. Note that the United States Senate has already answered the people's demand by passing this amendment by the decisive vote of 65 to 20 .

In the face of these facts, can any Member doubt that this House of Repre entatives is charged with the duty of carrying out the will of the people, whose agents they are? No Member can justify his refusal to do that. Not his is the responsibility now of deciding the merits of that question itself. That rests with the sovereign power in this Nation-the , people--and they will meet State& their test · t by electing 36 State legislatures charged by solemn mandate with their duty-that of ratifying this amendment.

I am glad that . this issue is before us in this most memorable year in American history, the one which will be known as the year -of decision. Beyond this year all the currents of our history will run in new channels . . Definitely, irretrievably, America has taken a new path, and however rocky and rugged the road, she will never retrace her footsteps to the starting place again. The great decision in April of this year has changed the history of the entire world, and even to-day the destiny of unborn centuries is in the molding of the hands of America.

But let no man say that the decision could have been avoided. Conflict between America and Germany was written not only in the stars but in the very fiber and heart's blood of Americanism. There could not be a free America here and a triumphant Kaiser in Berlin. The Prussian idea and the .American idea could not live in the world together. One or the other must die. Just as inevitable was con:flict between Americanism and the organized liquor traffic. Let no Member think this decision could have been avoided. The e two can not live in peace together in this age. One or the other must die.

Everything which helps Prussian might is hurtful to America; and of all the allies of the Kaiser, giving aid and comfort to those who seek our overthrow, there is none so . men­ pact. acing as the liquor traffic.

The American people recognize this fact. They know that the outlawing of the liquor traffic will be the mightiest blow po sible at the Prussian idea, and . they are asking the right to strike that blow in peaceful, constitutional manner :with the ballot, the invincible weapon of freemen, in their hands.

That is the kind of revolution the American people have decided upon, Those who paint fanciful pictures . of revolution in case this measure is passed are totally mistaken. There is not going to be a revolution. There is one. It is not for the liquor traffic, but against it. The great heart of America, throbbing with the aspirations of its workers, its business men, its professional men, all cla ses, sects, and creeds, is determined to end the ravages of this iniquitous business now and forever. 1\.Ir. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, when this war is ended by victory we shall face some of the most momentous problems in our history. The great task which will be ours of preserving democracy at home, government' of the people for the people and by the people, would be made overwhelmingly difficult by the corrupting and debauching tactics of the liquor interests. They have shown their lawle sness in the past; they have polluted politics; they have used the boycott and tl1e black li t; they have sought to make cowards of public There is coming a new political alignment in this country, with Americans on one side and anti-Americans on the other. All those who fight under the black banner of corruption and the yellow flag of treason must be lined up so that Americans may know their enemies. That division will be made. That battle will come. The elimination o"f the liquor traffic in America will mean assured victory to the forces of Americanism. .

T.he adoption of this amendment to-day will be a pledge of moral progress to the world. It will be preparation for the day when America stands guarding a world set free. It will be a mighty blow in that · cause fm· whose advancement we have beaten om· plowshares into swords. It will be an omen . of . good cheer to every forward-looking man and woman in America. It "ill clear the decks for effective dealing with the problems of war and of peace. It will show that this Honse dares to meet a great moral, social, , and economic problem involving a mighty financial interest and that it trusts the people with the solution. [Applau e.]

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Penn yl­ -vania has expired .

l\lr. G.aRD. :Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Texas [l\Ir. SLAYDEN]. .

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. SLAYDEN. Mr. SpeaK:er, this resolution undertakes to deal with the terms of a covenant entered into between sovereignties 127 years ago. It is suggested that that agreement shall be broken and new conditions impo ed. It is proposed that a majority of the States, parties- to that contract, shall change the terms of the partnership-which is the American Union--and compel a minority of them to accept conditions that were not contemplated -when the Union was · formed and that are repugnant to them and to -at least half · the people of the country. It will sow the seed of dissension. It is the overturning and revolutionizing of the Federal Union and the destruction of the Of course, we will have a Government, even if the resolution should be agreed to by two-thirds of the Congress and three fourths of the States, but it will not be the Government our fathers gave us. The States will have lost their -police powers, an essential attribute of sovereignty, .and will have lost their control of local affairs. Thereafter the States will be mere expensive political shells, de-void of powers, without souls, and no good reason can be advanced why they should be maintained. As important political entities they will have passed into history. The historian of the future can say with truth that the American Union of free, independent, sovereign States died as victims of tyranny imposed by fanatics and that in its place was erected a strong, centralized government .such ns Patrick · Henry predicted and Thomas · Jefferson feared.

The purpose of the · :first Constitutional Convention, that which met - at Annapolis in September, 1786, was to provide, as far as the delegates could, rules of interstate conduct in commercial1;Uatters and· to care for the common interests of the States and insure permanent harmony between them. Their great purpose was to establish a constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union, to deal with foreign affairs in the interest of each and all of the high contracting parties, , and with the mterrelations of the sovereign powers that were making the comThe Annapolis Convention · was attended by delegates of only 5 of the 13 States. There was suspicion on the part of some of the States that the effort to adopt a constitution might become an assault on their independence and sovereignty about which they were properly jealous, and so some of them refused to attend the meeting. These fears were overcome and finally, although with g reat reluctance on the part of some, all were brought into the Union by subscribing to the Constitution adopted fu the following year.

No one ever questioned the fact of the independence and complete sovereignty of the States in their first political associa· tion, tlie Confederation, as it was called, through which the founders of our Government tried to work out their political deStiny. The Articles of Confederation developed certain weaknesses that compelled a new charter. It was provided in the Constitution of the United States and it is not the Constitution of a consolidated State. It is the written terms of the association of 48 separ·ate sovereignties. . The delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 went as the representatives of the States, and all the ability and eloquence of Edmund Randolph and Alexander Hamilton, who were believers in a strong, contralized, national, aristocratic government, could not persuade them to betray the States that sent them.

Few students of the history · Of that period could be made to believe that the Constitution would ever have been accepted if the plans of Randolph and Hamilton had been agreed to. There are many phrases in the Constitution that reflect the jealous care of men . like William Patterson and Oliver Ellsworth to protect the independence o"f the States.

The Centralists did not rest patiently under their . defeat in the Constitutional Convention, but immediately renewed their assaults on the integrity of the States, and the tenth amendment was intended to fix beyond doubt the relation of · the States to the Federal Government. It is worth while now to quote the language of that amendment, as it is well worth while for every citizen of the States and of the United States who wants to know his Government to read and reread the Constitution as a whole. It say-

The powers not deleg-ated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by It to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

Unlike the resolution now under consideration, which is frankly intended to be a mere police regulation and thus usurp the functions of the States, every one of the existing amendments to the Constitution is meant to be a guaranty of the rights of the citizen, or deals with purely political questions. This is a radical and dangerous departure from the practices of the past. It is, as I have already said, revolution. It does what the Southern Confederacy with a mighty effort failed to do; it breaks up the Union and in destroying the powers of the States sets up a centralized government, which, however, was far from the purpose of the Southern Confederacy.

To accomplish the purpose in the minds of the proponents of this resolution it is not necessary to amend the Constitution and to overthrow the union of the States. The power to regulate or destroy the liquor traffic already exists. Each State now has the right to forbid the manufacture or sale of alcoholic liquors within its jurisdiction and statutes of the United States protect it against shipments from other States. The validity of these . statutes has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

But that does not satisfy the supporters of this resolution. The people of prohibition States seek to impose their will on the people of other States, and to do so they are willing to undo the wise work of the founders of the Government. It is certainly un-American; it is rank tyranny and full of danger. Constitutions of great countries are not meant to be vehicles for the carriage of simple laws. That work may be safely left to the wisdom of the various legislatures. Guaranty of rights and the great principles of government are enduring, while a law that is expeilient iq one generation may be inexpedient and undesirable in the next. The majority may want a certain law now and abhor it later. As democracies are supposed to reflect the views of the majority-and the most rabid prohibitionists in this House say they want that wiU exercised-it is both unwise and unfair to make a condition where the majority can not do its will hereafter unle s it can control two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the States.

Suppose the prohibition majority of to-day should become an antiprohibition majority to-morrow, what would the prohibitionists do and what would be the situation? Would they, in their great respect for the democratic principles of the rule of the majority, help us repeal the amendment they now propose? No, l\1r. Speaker; they would not. In fact, they want to get the technical advantage of having this clause in the Constitution because under it an antiprohibition majority of the future will have to be so overwhelming before it can enforce its will that it will control more than three-fourths . of all the States. Supporters of this measure may be good men, but they are not good Americans, for they will, if they can, deny the right of the majority to rule, and they are not good Democrats or Republicans, although they wear party labels.

Let us, Mr. Speaker, consider another contingency of the future. It is conceivable that after this resolution shall have become part of the Constitution-if unfortunately that should occur-the people may change their views to such an extent that seventy-four out of every hundred voters would be opposed to prohibition. Could they rely upon the American doctrine of majority rule? Not at all, for twenty-six voters out of a hundred, just one more than a fourth of all the voters, with the technical advantage that would be given by the proposed amendment, could defy the 74 and laugh to scorn their efforts to assert a recognized principle of American democracy.

Do you believe, 1\Ir. Speaker, iliat practically three-fourths of all the people of this country would patiently submit to the indefinite control of the country b~· one-fourth? They would not, unless they have lost all their spirit and capacity for government, and they would surely find some way of expressing their will even if it involved n new constitutional convention or revolution. This scheme is dangerous from every angle from which one views it.

Where will this movement to control the habits of men stop? It is liquor to-day; to-morrow it may be tobacco, for already there is in existence an important association working to prohibit the manufacture of cigars and cigarettes. Why should not they do so, for they are convinced that its use is hurtful to the body and a needle s waste of money? It takes no prophet to foretell that if they should ever find themselves in a majority they will demand laws to prohibit ti1e use of tile most delightful and soothing of all the plants a benign Providence has vouchsafed man, Already some States have anticigarette lmYs, and the advocates of such legislation would certainly like to extend the prohibition to other preparations of tobacco.

Sumptuary legislation seems to appeal to a certain order of mind. It is progressive tyranny, as the history of this legislation shows. Just a little while ago, 1\lr. Speaker, the prohibitionists in Congress said they could not enforce the State laws against the liquor traffic, because they had no control over interstate commerce, aid that they would be satisfied if Congress would give them the right to forbid the introduction of alcoholic beverages into States that had prohibitory laws. Congress complacently gave them what they wanted.

Some of the leaders in the movement on the floor of this House vehemently denied then that it was their wish or design to interfere with the right of an individual to import liquors for his own use. They claimed to be after the traffic in liquor, the saloons, and not after individuals. You know what happened. They have now thrown off all disguise, and, emboldened by these successes, frankly proclaim their purpose to regulate th~ habits of the individual citizen. They now urge the most outrageous sumptuary laws ever sought to be forced on any people who fancied themselves free, independent men. ~-day they tell Americans what they shall drink. How long will it be before they will tell them what they shall eat and wherewithal they shall be clothed and how they shall worship the Lord?

How any man who ever believed in the rights of the States can support such a resolution passes my understanding. How any man who calls himself a Democrat and who believes in the principles and traditions of his party can do so is incomprehensible.

Here is what the great Democratic platform of 1868, on which Horatio Seymour, of New York, made his race for the Presidency, bud to say about certain rights of the States and principles of government. It would be well for members of the Democratic Party to read and consider it. It is specially commended to the attention of Members from the South, in which section these doctrines once bad their staunchest defenders. And we do declare and resolve that ever since the people of the United States threw off al! subjedion to the British Crown the privilege and trust of suffrage have belonged to the several States, and have been granted, regulated. and controlled exclusively by the political powers of each State, respectively( and that any attempt by Congress, on any pretext whatever, to depr ve any State of this right, or interfere with its exercise, is a flagrant usurpation of power which can find no warrant in the Constitution, and if sanctioned by the people will subvert our form of government, and can only end in a single, centralized. and consolidated government, in which the separate existence of the States will be entirely absorbed, and an unqualified despotism be established in place of a Federal Union of coequal States.

That plank in the Democratic platform of 1868 refers to the que tion of suffrage, an issue that came out of the war between the States; but the argument is even stronger when applied to such a resolution as that we are now considering. The question of suffrage is more important than the regulation of the liquor traffic, un<l I shall vote against its control by the Federal Government, but I can see many more reasons for supporting the so-called Susan B. Anthony amendment than I can for supporting that now before us. Yet, I dare say, some of our friends who sit on this side of the House will be able to persuade themselves that they should vote to take away from the States their police powers over the liquor trade and at the same time deny women the right to vote. Wonderful logic, that! There is no · reason why the Constitution of the United States should d~!'l with either, for the States huYe ample power over both subjects.

The Democratic platform of 1880 'declared specifically against sumptuary legislation. That of 1884, when a great Democrat, Grover Cleveland, was nominated, says:

We oppose sumptuary laws, which vex the citizen and interfere with individual liberty.

The platform of 1888 reaffirmed the declaration of 1884, while that of 1892 said : ·

We are opposed to all sumptuai 'Y laws as an interference with the individual rights of the citizen.

The party platform of 1896 reaffirmed the allegiance of Democrats to the great principles announced in other conventions, specifically pledging loyalty to freedom of speech, freedom of the pres·, freedom of conscience, the preservation of personal rights," and to all the great doctrines "which the Democratic Party has advocated from Jefferson’s time to our own." Furthermore, it denounced " arbitrary interference by Federal authorities in local affairs," which denunciation must apply to the sort of thing now col'ltemplated.

Mr. Speaker, the individual rights of the _ citizens do not appear to interest many people who call themselves Democrats. Legislation like this is only one step in the encroachment on the rights of the people. The right taken now encourages the believers in a . centralized government to assault another in the future. No right, personal or political, will be sacred or safe against the whim of the majority, which, with this resolution agreed to, can impose its will in our social system or in religion. From coutroi of the person anu habits of the people to control of the-ir r lig1on~ faith is no O'reat tep.

I shall Yote against this re olution becau e it i undemocratic, becau e it destroy· tlte States, becau e it destroys local selfgovernment :tn<l i · revolutionary . l is the sort of law that might be written into statutes to protect 'imbeciles and children, but should nev r be applied to the average American citizen, who e per cnal liberty it kills and whose political and religious liberty it puts in jeopardy.

Under the prhi l ege conceded me by the House, I print RS part of my speech an editorial, thoughtful and powerful in argument, from the Washington Times of December l4 :

'On Monday Congress will consider the advisability of changing the National Constitution to make H take the place of local policemen. The proposition i to alter the Constitution to oblige prohibition fanatics that have succeeded in making a servant of the United States Senate through political blackmail, and now find it convenient to alter the Constitution to suit · their purposes.

Congressmen from the South are 'Supposed to believe in State rights and State authority. They are considering the proposition to permit the Nation to do police work in the States.

Let them oblige the Anti- aloon League by -making the Federal Constitution an Anti- aloou League 'Plaything, and the South will formally indorse an ending of State authority and open the way for o . other kinds of Federal police work that will not suit the South so well.

J:1 Congressmen "from the South wish to open the way for future Federal amendment and populate their States with Federal spies enforcing a prohibition amendment, and available for use at elections, and in other ways that might please a new administration after 1920, let them 'fool with the Constitution now and pull it to pieces in obedience to the orders of Anti-Saloon League threats.

The State police has power to regulate prohibition. Every State has prohibition that wants it; every State can be bone dry if it chooses. L et the South now force prohibition on New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, using the · Constitution as a club, and later thos~ States may use the al:IDy of Federal spies that this constitutional amendment would create in a manner not exactly welcome to southern statesmen, in a manner that might seriously interfere with Democratic supremacy in the South.

Cnngrl:' men from the ~ South, think that over before you meekly bow your necks to the · latest Anti-Saloon 'League order.

This constitutional amendment, if passed in the House, would represent not the · convictions of the Congressmen but hypocrisy.

Every Congressman ' knows that this statement is true .

Every Congressman knows that if the ballot on "the constitutional amendment were a secret ballot. making it impossi-ble 'for the AntiSaloon League bo ses to punish disobedience, the amendment wouldn't pas . Far from getting a two-thirds majority, it -wouldn't get one-fifth of the votes in the House.

This - constitutional amendment would make labor dissatisfied, with just cause, and injure the Nation 's efficiency in war .

It would inject into all oi the 48 States a bitter controversy, a savage political fight now, when the Nation needs harmonious united action, freedom from bitterness, and especially freedom from dissatisfaction among t he worker<> upon whom d e pends sncce s m this war.

A prohibition amendment to the Constitution might be effective as ments. regards the harml e s mild stimulants ; it would not be effective as against whisky or drug after a few months.

The habits of the human race can not be changed over night to oblige fanatic . 1\Ir. Hoover, head of the Food Departm e nt, told the truth when he said, " Those who wish brewing entirely suppressed should bear in mind that if such a course were pursued the country would be placed upon a whisky basis e ntirely."

The President has dealt with this vitally important question wisely, con ervatively, and effectively, using the power given to him by Congr ess . He has r e duced to a .minimum the alcoholic content of bee r.

He has forbidden the further · manufacture of whisky. . Thi s has more than doubled the. price of that alcoholic drug. In consequence, official statistics in the State of New · York show that drunkenness has dimini shed by 50 per cent, and the alcoholic wards are practically empty . In New York there is no prohibition, and the consumption of beer among workingmen has increased, while drunkenness has diminished, because those that formerly drank whi ky now content themselves with beer. Cvrus H. K. Curtis, own er o f the Saturday evening Po t, the Ladies' Home Journal, and the Philadelphia Public Ledger, , is an earnest worker for temperance.

Let the many sincere temperance men in Con ~re s read on the first p ge of this new _paper what Mr. Curtis in his Ledger says about the propos.:!d constitutional change :

"The Con titution has never been the >ehicle for declarations of polic y . Not even the Monroe doctrine has been incorporated in the fundamental law. To compel all the States to conform to the police regulations of the majotity of States would be to destroy local government." Let Con;ressmen from the South think over this statement in the paper of one of the mo t u seful and sincere temperance workers in thn United States. Let them think well before they "destroy local government."

'l'he fanatics that are forcing this constitutional amendment upon them are planning to send thousands of Federal spies and investigators into every southern community, and those Anti-Saloon League fanatics will be first and most energetic, under some other administration, using tho e f:.-pies in their own particular wr.y.

Congre smen from the South, remember that when you vote for this proh ibition amendment to the Con titution you do more than vote to permit a. littlt> band of fanatirs to control great Northern States and gr at bodies of workmen, coercing them against the:ir will.

You are proposing to give to the leader of the Anti-Saloon League t housands of F deral agents to be 1.1sed -as they please in your districts, in you r local affairs, in your elections .

You know the character of the .Anti-Saloon League well; many of you have described it to this writer and in a manner none too complimentary . ·

It may eem to you wl>:e to oblige these gentlemen by turning over to them polic e powers in Northern tates, wh e re the prohibition that you app,_rove, for local reasons, is not necessary and not wanted.

rake care how you twist the Con titution in such a way as to give some future Republican President, closely allied with the Anti-Saloon League, a well-organized band of Federal prohibition agents, with wide powers, capable ot being made highly useful on election day, in your territory. Don't be -in too much of a hurry to change the Cons.titutio:n of the United States-you might regret 1t.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.

Mr. SL--\YDEN . l\lr. Speaker, I a k unanimous 'Consent to extentl my remark in the RECORD.

The SPEA.KER. The gentl em an from 'Texas asks unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the RECORD. Is there objeCtion]

Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Speaker, I will have to object.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Wiscon in objects.

Mr. SLAYDEN. He will relent later. [Laughter.]

l\1r. VOLSTEAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. GRAHAM].

'The SPEAKER. 'The gentleman.from Illinois is recognized for fiv:e minutes.

Mr. GRAHAl\1 of Illinois. Mr. Speaker and gentlemen, this resolution proposes to submit to the people of the United States the question as to whether the sale and manufacture .In and the export from and import into the United States of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes shall be prohibited. In my view of the matter but one main question presents it elf t~ us for solution, namely : I-s it wise and advisable for the Congress to submit this matter to the people of the United States in gross .for determination? There may be other collateral questions involved here, but only in · so far .as they affect the main . question that I have stated. We are not now <liscus ing the moral question of whether the use of intoxicating beverages is wrong or is right; it is rather for us to say whether the people of the United States 1 as a whole, shall have a right to pass upon this question or whether they shall not.

Those who oppo e this .resolution strenuously contend that the manufacture -and sale of intoxicating beverages are local matters and should be left to the jurisdiction of the States and their res.Pective municipal subdivisions, while those who favor this resolution contend that it is a national question. The framers o- the Constitution, having in mind, no doubt, the many differing custom , rules of living, · and methods of self-government that had grown up with the widely separated American colonies, wisely concluded to preserve to each . colony, thus to be made into States, as great a measure of local self-government as was possible, but that when the activities of one of the e States might overlap and conflict with the :activities of . any other, the jurisdiction of the common · General Government would obtain. So far as I can read our history there was no oilier underlying reason for the retention .of State and local governAs the years have gone by our boundaries have expanded and our population has increased wonderfully, until the peoples of the sparsely settled colonies have flowed together and filled up the waste places. And when they began to .flow togeth e r the activities of the people of each State began more and more to affect the peoples of other States. More Federal · regulation became day by day more essential to the mutual welfare of all the people. Que tions that were local and sectional in colonial days became national as the Nation developed. The development of home industries, at first local, became a national question, -and the great Republican Party was founded, in part at least , on its demand that the protection · of American industries be made a national que s tion, a view that just now the bitter e . enemies of that doctrine, the members of the Democratic Party, are preparing to embrace, and which before the lapse of three years they will be openly espousing. The question of human slavery, at first local, became national, and the recorder of hu- · man history turned a bloody leaf in Writing it down as such.' The development of the waste lands by home stead laws, by irrigation projects, and by flood control, and the national banking system were made necessary by t11e e interlapping activities of the people of the States. But it i in recent years that the most surprising developments of national activity are to be observed. The antitrust law s, the interstate-commerce acts , the so-called Mann Act, the Federal reserve banking act, the purefood law·, the farm-loan act are some of the evidences of broadening national power. I do not speak now of the many acts by which we have concentrated in the National Executive extraordinary powers in this time of war ; they are powers that will di appear when the war is over. But I speak of the widening circle of Federal authority in times of peace. These are not · usurpations of local authority, but are the natural and legitimate result of our growth of population. As our people become more homogeneous and nationalized we shall irresistibly be forced to strengthen our National Government. If the Constitution does not warrant it, then for the public welfare the Constitution must be amended. For instance, t11e time mu t come, and come soon, when we shallh.ave a national law merchant and uniform rules and laws as to' negotiable instruments and bills of exchange; we all appreciate that there must be a uniform law regulating marri-age and divorce. At an early date there must be ]ncrea ·ed ' Federal conh· l oYel· public utilities. . While 'this war i. 'in progre ,· .· \Te may by om· war powers ao what must be done; but no one can new 'the future after th~ war iS over, and all the mighty · l}nestion s are to be adju ;ted without misgivings ; when the nations turn to peace and suddenly 'we go back to our ta k , doe anyone d:oubt thut thete mu t be Fede'ral control to a degree never drMmed of by tl1e 'f'ound€rs of the Governm~nt?

ow, the oiily qu tion in my mind is: 'I the sale and munufactu-re of intoxicating bev-erages such a · matter as to seem to call for Federal control? In the matter of its shipment from 'Staw to State it certainty does; but that p wet i already enjoyed by the General 'Government. 'Does the mere matter of its manufacture and ' sale in on:e - State aff'ect the people of other States so tJ1at . the nati.onal good ma-y require that it be regulated · or stopped? I can not come to any other conclusion than that 'it l <lOt-~. "'he be . ·ct nti:fic information I he ve, ' together 'nth my own per-sonal knowledge and experience, teaches m€ • that the phy iological effects of intoxicating beverages are bnrmfttl; its habit · ual use weakens antl renfeebles a majority of its users. l\Iany incidental evils • travel in its wak-e, and . these evil· are not c onfined locally, but may .and do affect the whole body politic. The whole structure of government is kept up by all of u ; from it · T\"e derive equal benefit·. The people of my State have a right to h"llOW that the people of Indiana or Iowa, our partners in this governmental entet·pr.i e, n.re not pursuing a course that leads to poverty, · wealrne s, and di ea e . ; they have a reciprocal right a to our actions. We have an equal int rest in · the health and welfare of each 'Other, for side 'by . side we must work out the problems of peace, and side by side we must perform the ouer H:-J duties of war. Di~mj s the matter f n "L-s, if you please. l'nt it on t11e . simple ~round of nationc l efficieu y and ccohom.r and we 1 must be 1:0:rced to the unalterable ,. conclu- sion that this is a · national question and one timt the people ns a whole - ought to have · the right to S€ttle.

Thi question ltas _:perplexed the Jle<>Ple of nll 'the Stntes 'Since the fa.rmation · of • the Republic. n ba t been n constant ource of (li~enston ancl political · contt~over. v. Liet the 1 people decide thi · matter. He who opposes thi -resolution must do so with the idea that three-fourths of the people of the United Stnt€9 do not have a right to decide • this matter. I uo not flO'ree With · tms contention, au .- d because L I da • not, and b <tnu . e • I d'O believe this to be a national que. tion, I fuvor the ubmission of there oluUon to the people for a vote. _

The :SPEAKER The tim of th gentleman has · expired.

Mr. GRAHAM -&f llli'nobs. I a ·k ummimou con nt to ex~ t JH1 nud t'evi. · my rema'l'k. _

The PEAK:Ji~H. Tbe gentleman from lllrnoi a ks unani~ mons consent to extend <s'tld revi hi remark . . I tbet·e 'Objection?

1\Ir. STAFFOUD. · 1\Ir. Speaker I hall bave to object.

At the request of the g-entleman from Pennsslv:ania, I yield to the gentleman , from - Oi.~egon ; [1\fr. McARTHUR] five minute . Mr. McARTHUR. Mr. Speaker, if there ever was a time \ hen thi. rttiou. houW • be united in. pirit an(! in t pnrt o . rnttrer than torn asunuet· by itlternal · di ""en.sion, it is now. We are acti\e participant in the b ·eutest wru· in histo1~, and om· .peo~ ple should b stnuding shouldE'r • to boulder again · t the :rom~ mon enemy rather than quarreling among themselves over que s tion that mi...,.ltt be hetter . ettled n.fter the war. To inj ct :1 que tion such a n:\tinnnl prohibition will not tenll r tu ·olidify the peopl-e of the countt'Y in support f n common cn.u e, but will o upset busines , economic, and political conditions that the war will become of . econdary importn.nce iri the minds of millions of people. The campaign that will naturally develop for and aga . inst the adoption of this amendment by the I gi lnturcs -of the , - nriou Stnte · will create much bitterne s, will call for the expenditure of laxge sums thnt would ene a better purpose if in\ested in Liberty bonds or donated to the Red Cros , and will les en the public interest in the war. As pt·oof of thi , I hn._ve only to cite the prohibition elections that were held la t month in . 0111 of our large tate "' and cities.