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

December 17, 1917

NATIONAL PROHIBmON~27 min read
481: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 481 (House1917b.Dec17.481)

To t ho e who contend that this i a war mea ure let me say that it will be at least two years before the requisite threefourth:? of the States will hold sessions of their legislatures; !Joth Hou and grunting, for the sake of argument, that the amendment will be adopted as soon us the legislatures have an opportunity to vote on it-which is extremely doubtful—there is a ptovi o that it shall not become operative until one year after its final adoption by the last of the necessary 36 State . This means it will be at least three years before national prohibition can become a reality. Let us fenently hope that the war will be over before three years ha · . '"'I elap ed.

482: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 482 (House1917b.Dec17.482)

We ha\"e alremly su · p udell the nmnufn: 't ure of · diF:tilled liquors for the period of th i".·ar: lmvP givt> n the Pre ·ideut authority to suspend tl're manufacture of malt liquors and wines, to commandeer and take over for g ,·ernmentnl purposes , liquors of all kinds, .. and to reduce the alcoholic content of such malt liquors a.s may be m'anufactured during the war ; and, ' in addition to this, have prohibited the sale of liquors in 1rnd around military camps-antl, incidentally , all of the e propositions have ilnd my unqualified 'SUpport--'but we can not ' by the widest stretch of the imagination · classify the pending amend- - ment as n war measure. 1\.rrsthi.ng in the 'nature of a war measure must of nece ity be temporary or provisional, to be altered or set aside at the clo e of the ~YaT. There is nothing of this character a:ttached to this }>ropo ed amendment. lt is to be a permanent proposition-an -amendment 'to the organic law of our country-ana when once adopted, can .not be re- pealed except by two-thirds vote of both branches of 'Congress :and affirmative action of three-fourths of the legislatures. Jo change 1h the organic law of the country ~an be regarded · as n. war measure, and we must not delude our elYe tJy ansr false notions concerning this am ndment. It pa age by · cengress \'fill not make the winning of rthe war ea ier, but, by plunging the country into the vortex of internal strife, will make • U more difficult.

483: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 483 (House1917b.Dec17.483)

If this amendment i appro ed ' by Oongre s a.nd sent to the Sblt for opprovnl or rejectil'>'n, · the que tion of tanding :by th e udministrntion and ' ttppottiug the 'WnT · will become . ecol'Idai'Y in the mind !Of evern1 million radical pr hibitionlst untl -extreme rmti)>rohibitioni ts wllen next y ar "' s -elections m-e held. he genernl 'fitness of canditlntes and the all-impo-rtant te. t of loraltr to th · ("'1{)\-eTnment m.n be lo . ;t · ight - of in t'he cilml>aigns that wiU binge on the uttitude o'f canilida:tes on tJ1e qu e t1otl of pr<Fhlbitiou . Tbe result trill be the election 1 to office ()f nwnerous unfit who wo-uW ne\er ' be beard of in 11n · ord1tr:t1·y ~-edtion. ,

484: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 484 (House1917b.Dec17.484)

The Anh- nloon Lea"'ue nnd otbe-r n~PHCieH \rho hm·c l.ccn o insistent rn d rnanding the pa ~nge of thi · · nmendlllent • by Oongr·e ha\"e a tunell a grave 1respon ibflity. - They are '!!GinO' too fast and too far at n tillle w'hen their energies miqllt · better be spent 1n co-n trncti't<e mo-vem€nts again · t · bootlegging, moonshining, and other violation of tbe liquor law-s on · our tatute lrooks. 'l:'her Would serve a better pucpo . e by ~onducting a c:lmpa1gn of education a-ga · inst liquor rather than precipitating a question 'that will rcreate ill feeling and recrimination among millions of our :peafile. .

485: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 485 (House1917b.Dec17.485)

I an not rrgree that a vo-te in ' 0<Yugres for national . prohibition i. meTel. a 'referendum ;, fU'}('l tlmt tlte respon . ibllity in tlre m~ tter rest with the tate ·. ndeT our dual ystern of go\Ternment n 'IJI'Ol't ed umendment to the Fedru:.·al Constitution mu t fir · · t 'J.m ~ bot'h branche of (ltm-gr·e '"' ' br a two-tbiTds ote in each branch .uml then be Ta:tified by the legislatures of tlueefom·ths of tlle State.. There is no ucl1 thing as a referenuum, fol' thi implies a populaT Yote rather tllan a vote by 'the · legislature . 'l.,.he net of amendment -is, in 'tlle fir . t place, an act of ongre , s e1..-pi'e. ~ing it: judgment upon the q~:fe non at f~ · ·ue, and the action of the States i · ~condary, a check upon the acti.on o'f Oongress :md not a substitute. The Constitution rrrs nothing abol1t " st'lbmitting" an amendment to t'he 'States; it ·ay · that "the O<>ngre , svhenever two-thirds '()f · both Hou · es lmH <leem it nece . c;nry . ha1l pro1~ose · nmendmcnts to fbi~ Constitution," .unll that the:-:e shaH be<..'Orue valid ' ' w·hen rntifiell by three-fomths {)f the tates." ' The function of ongre s m tllis matter i not p'ul·ely mini teria1, bnt is an es enfial element in the · proce.: of amendment. : we-re there -any po sible room for donut a to this point, it would be l'emoved by the con iderntion that .a two-thirds vote in ench Hou e i requited for the adoption of n n amendment. Under the theory of " submi ion to the State " 'Of a proposal for their legi latm·es to · declcle, surely a bare majority in Congress would be · 11ffictent; but the idea of the framers of the Con titution was that a proposed amendment should . first of all, tand the te t of commanding not only orclinar;y approval in Congre s, but tl1e emphatic npproval em ­ bodied in a two-thirds \Ute of both House ..

1 connection
486: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 486 (House1917b.Dec17.486)

The con titutional provi ion which says an amendment rnay be adopted and . sent to the legislatures "whenever · two-thirds of shall deem it nece ary " place upon the individual Senator and Repre . Representative responsibility which 11€ can note·­ cap on the plea that he is ' voting for a " referendum," pru:ticularlr wllere no such in 'trumentality a . the referendum exist . . I hold no brief for liquor or tl1e liquor traffic-pal'ticularly for that sink lwle of inil}uity h.."'lown a . tlte saloon--but l can not and will .not be a party to any movement that I regard ns inilllicnl to the be t intere ts of my country. r hall , therefore , \"Ote against the . amendment, not only for the rea ons stateli lmt for the additional reason that the district which I represent, , eut, th people to whom I nm accountable, voted against bone-dry, tate-wide prohibition by a majority if 9,799 votes on tlle 7th day of November, 1916, the day that I was elected to my pre ent term in this Congre s. If I were to vote affirmatively on this que tion, I would deliberately misrepresent, not represent, the expressed wishes of my constituents.

487: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 487 (House1917b.Dec17.487)

In the language of our President in his great message of December 4, " · our pre ent and immediate task is to win the war, and nothing shall turn us aside from Jt until it is accomplished." The President appreciates the gravity of the situation; he not only defines our purpose, but he sounds a warning against questions that are beside the issue. Let us, therefore, keep our course clear and not wreck the ship of state on the shoals of internal <lissen ion. [Applause.]

489: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 489 (House1917b.Dec17.489)

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Oregon yield · back one minute.

490: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 490 (House1917b.Dec17.490)

1\I1~. VOLSTEAD. I yield two minutes to the gentleman from drinks to be sold in dramshops. Tenne see [Mr. AusTI ].

491: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 491 (House1917b.Dec17.491)

l\'Ir. AUSTIN. l\!r. Speaker, . Tennes ee has succ fully tried prohibition for ix year . It has worked so well that both political parties are committed to it, and no political organization in that State would dare attempt to make a fight for its repeal. A law which has emptied the jails in Tennessee · ee aiJ.d virtually wiped out the criminal side of the dockets of the c.ourts will do the same thing in every State in the American Union. [Applause.] c.] King Alcohol has filled the world already witl1 enough mi ery, with enough murder , with enough insane people, with enough unhappy wives and unfortunate children. Let us dedicate our el>es this day and this hour to the improvement of American manhood and womanhood by voting to make A.merica the be t country on the face of the earth. [Applause.] While our soldier boys are fighting to make the world free and . safe, let the American Congre s make the United States better phy ically, mentally, and morally. I predict that when the two o-reat political parties in this country next a ..., assemble in their national conventions they will both· adopt platforms favoring prohibition and woman suffrage. [Applause.]

492: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 492 (House1917b.Dec17.492)

l\Ir. YOLSTKill. 1\lr. Speaker, I yield five minut s to the "" ntlernan from Idaho [l\lr. SMITH].

493: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 493 (House1917b.Dec17.493)

Mr. Sl\HTH of Idaho. l\lr. Speaker, I am heartily in favor of this resolution. I am sure that there is not a Member on this floor, be he for or against this resolution, who does not admit to him elf that the liquor traffic is and lla always been the cause of a large proportion of t11e crime, poverty, and ineificiency throughout the land. And yet, when it is proposed to legislate upon this que tion, with the view of curtailing the sale of liquor, certain influences attempt to _ throw every hindrance in the way of securing such legi lation. Under ordinary condition , those engaged in the · liquor traffic make no apology for their bu iPJes , but when cornered they fall back upon the stale arguments of "per onal liberty " and the allege<! right of the individual to do a J1e plea es. This argument is . o ab urd thn t it. L . scarcely worth answering. The first law of society i . that individuals shall not be permitted to do that which, although co1 i.dered beneficial to themselves, may be injurious to others or to the community at large. The statute books, both :National and State, are full of restrictions founded upon that principle. Obnoxious factories · can not be operated if injurious to the health or comfort of those in its vicinity. A butcher is not permi.tted to offer for sale unsound meat, nor the grocer adulterated food . The public gaming tables o1· devices are not permitted to operate, because it is con. idered criminal to even tempt a man to risk his property, or to proVide himself \Yitll the means of squandering the . ub tance of his family. Indelicate or indecenct exhibitions are not permitted because of the danger of debauching tile minds of the people. :Ko one i allowed in any well-regulated city to drive a team or automobile along the left side of a street. . Nor are p rsons under the influence of liquor allowed to operate a c.ar be au .. e of tlle danger to otllers.

494: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 494 (House1917b.Dec17.494)

Why, , then, should there be any reluctance in re tricting the . ale of alcoholic liquors when their baleful effects on health and life are acknowledged by every disintere ·ted per on. We legi ·late to prevent the spread of poverty, crime, and <li ease. The u ·e of intoxicating liquors produce all of these, and are ,,.e not justified in legi · legislating to prevent the progress of its leva tating influence? ?

495: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 495 (House1917b.Dec17.495)

The liquor intere t uq~e the solving of the problem of intemperance through moral . suasion or education, but llavc they ever been . o in con i.-tent as to entleaYor to either publicly or through the JH'e.-s attempt to infltten e the people to tll·ink less? o the,y hire lt>c·tu•·et·s to ~o throughout the country nu<l hold m etiug .. and tell the people of lite injurious · effects of drinking too much liquor? Do they have any new papers or magazines · print any such arguments? A.s a matter of fact, do they do anything toward attempting to influence the people, by education or moral suasion, against the use of liquor? How absurd a.nd inconsistent their position. In tead of urging the people to drink le s, they spend millions of dollars in advertising and extending their business in every way possible.

496: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 496 (House1917b.Dec17.496)

The only person engaged in the liquor traffic who has offered any solution of the evils of intemperance is that high priest of the trade, August A, Busch, president of the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Co., of St. Louis . . I read from an article which appeared in the press recently which may be of interest: ST. Louis, December 5.

497: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 497 (House1917b.Dec17.497)

August A . Busch, president and principal owner of the AnheuserBusch Brewing _ Co., is starting a propaganda to combat the growing prohibition . movement in the United States. The chief features of the scheme are:

498: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 498 (House1917b.Dec17.498)

First. A strict enforcement by State authorities of all excise laws. Second. The establishment throughout the country of the German saloon system, which permits only beer, light wines, and temperance I wonder how popular it will be with the people of this country to have ingrafted upon u the German saloon system?

499: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 499 (House1917b.Dec17.499)

Third. Cooperation by brewers and State authorities to close up every saloon the owner of which does not obey the excise laws.

500: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 500 (House1917b.Dec17.500)

Can any of you point to any liquor dealers i · n this country who are cooperating toward enforcing the law against the enactment of which they fought so bitterly?

501: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 501 (House1917b.Dec17.501)

Fourth. The abolition of treating in saloons, ·, to di courage drinking to excess.

502: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 502 (House1917b.Dec17.502)

How inconsistent lle is in ugge ting a plan to dimini h the sale of his own wares. .

503: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 503 (House1917b.Dec17.503)

Fifth. The discontinuance of bars in saloon , substituting crYicc at tables at which customers will be seated .

504: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 504 (House1917b.Dec17.504)

How many of tho e who frequent the saloons would <lt'iuk les if they sat down than if they stood up? How absurd. Yet thnt i 1\lr. Busch's plan for solving this great problem. 1\iy impre - sion is that the American people will be no more likely to adopt the plan suggested by 1\fr. Busch to regulate the liquor trnfti r ; in this country than they will to take the . ·ngg stion. of th Kaiser a to how w-e should conduct the war.

505: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 505 (House1917b.Dec17.505)

1\fr. Speaker becau e of the scarcity of sugar throughout thi country the dealers, especially in the ea tern part of the Katiou, have been urged to sell not more than 2 pounds per <lay to nny one cu tomer, and yet over 70,000,000 pounds of uga r n r e annually used in the manufacture of beer, and in nearly on - half of the States in this Uhiqn the saloons are open. Ther i. no limit upon the quantity of food tuff· that may be user! in the manufacture of malted liquor. Because of the scarcity of coal the public school have been closed in orne of the Ea tem cities, union meeting are being held in tlle churches to . :nye fuel, universities are being closed, and inmates of th ho. pi tal .· are suffering from the cold, yet the cl1imney . · of the brew eric· throughout the United States, where prohibition i not in effe<:t, are belching forth the smoke from the thou and of ton of co that are being burned to manufacture beer. What con i. ten · y. Does it pay to permit a traffic which annually de troy 1 :-~.000 lives and the use of nearly $3,000,000,000 in order that a certain cla ·s of individuals should not be disturbed in their hurtful bu ine ? Does it pay to permit the continuation of a tiu inc~ which breeds paupers, lunatic·, and criminal ? Does it pa~· to enlarge our jails, asylums, and almshouses . es to take care of thos: who occupy these institutions as a result of the liquor traffic? I s it good sense to refuse to admit criminals to this country, a. provided in our immigration laws, and allow a traffic to exi. t which manufactures them within our own borders? Does it pay to send mi sionaries abroad to Christianize the lleatheu and permit a bu iness at home that re ults in the degradation f our own people? Does it pay to waste--ye , more than waste--million of bushels of foodstuff· when the price of living i . oaring day by day, because of its scarcity, in order that the liquor trnftic mav continue to exi. t?

506: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 506 (House1917b.Dec17.506)

If those engaged in the liquor traffic and tho e who are llpltol<ling the business had their way there would not be a prohibition State in this Union. There would be a saloon in each ntl of tlle Capitol, as was the ca. e about 15 year ago. There woultl be the canteen in every Army po ·t in the country, where . Jiquor might be bought, in tead of the law which is now upon ot1r ·tntute books preventing the sale of liquor to soldiers in uniform. There would be in the city of " 'ash ington eleven hundred open sa l oon , or more, instead of there being none as at pre ent, under the prohibition law which Jw.. been in effect but ix week .

507: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 507 (House1917b.Dec17.507)

The SPEAKER. The time of the g ntleman has expired.

508: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 508 (House1917b.Dec17.508)

.... it·. VOLSTEAD. ~Ir. 11eaker, I ~ · yield five minute to the gentleman from Maine r:.\rr. Hr-:nSEY].

509: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 509 (House1917b.Dec17.509)

l\Ir_ HERSEY. l\Ir. Speaker. there :1 r' two arguments act~ vanced here again t the pl'Ol10 . :e:l (·onst i lui ion:tl amendment. One i . that it has no place in the Rational Constitution, and the . <'cond is that it would interfere with the proper conduct of the 'var:

510: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 510 (House1917b.Dec17.510)

As to the first, it has a place in the national Constitution, for the reason that State prohibition, local prohibition, can not completely prohibit. I come from a State that has had State prohibition for 70 years, by the most drastic State laws the human mind could devise, and what is the result? From the wet State {)f Massachusetts, the wet State of New Hampshire, from the licen e cities of Portsmouth and .Boston, on every train, on every steamboat, on nearly every auto that crosses the border the agents of these liquor dealers from the wet State· bring intoxicants into my State. Under the cover of darkness, while the people of my State are asleep, these agents of the liquor traffic steal in to rob, plunder, and murder my people. The same is true of every count;y, every township, and every city that is dry and is up again t a wet locality.

512: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 512 (House1917b.Dec17.512)

Mr. HERSEY. No. Here in Washington you have passed a dry law, and it is being violated by wet Baltimore every hour in the day. You never can have bone-dry prohibition until you have it through a national amendment to the Constitution. As to the war, we must conserve our food resources if we are to win the war. It is utter nonsense to try to win without it. The greatest waste of our resources to-day is caused by the breweries of this Nation.

513: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 513 (House1917b.Dec17.513)

I want to say that we ought to learn something from hi tory. Rome, once a great world power, collected her people into a great city and then sent her soldiers abroad to conquer her foe . She then took her resources-her foods, grains, and fruits-and converted them into strong drink and said, " Let the dance go on, the soldiers can take care Of themselves." What happened? Why, her armies never came back. Her enemies thundered at her gates, and " where the temples of the Caesars stood the lean wolf unmolested makes her lair." Mr. Speaker, I hope it will never be said of America that she gave her soldier boys to die to save democracy to the world but herself she could not save. [Applause.]

514: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 514 (House1917b.Dec17.514)

Mr. GARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [l\lr. GonnoN]. ·

515: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 515 (House1917b.Dec17.515)

Mr . GORDON. Mr. Speaker, Senate joint resolution 17, now under consideration, provides n.s follows :

516: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 516 (House1917b.Dec17.516)

The manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jtll'i diction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

1 connection
517: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 517 (House1917b.Dec17.517)

Thi measure, when passed by a . two-thirds vote of both branches of Congress and ratified by the legislatures of threefourths of the States, will become a part of the Constitution of the United States, which every person who hold a public office, from President to constable, will be required to take a solemn oath to support. By this measure it is proposed to confer upon the Federal Government the sweeping police power necessary to enforce this drastic piece of legislation in all of the States ' and territory under the American flag.

518: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 518 (House1917b.Dec17.518)

A proposition so radical and re-volutionary as this, which propo es to repudiate the principle of home rule and local self-governmeRt, to invade and violate the reserved rights of the States under the tenth amendment, to deprive them of a material source of their present income, and to take from them and confer upon the Federal Government the police power over what has always been considered and recognized as a subject · of State and local jurisdiction and control, ought not to originate in, much les be pas ·ed by, the American Congress.

1 connection
519: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 519 (House1917b.Dec17.519)

If this measure passes the House by a two-thirds vote and is appro-ved by a bare majority of the legislatures in W of the 48 States of this Union it will become a · part of the organic law of this Republic, although a large majority of the people of the United States may be opposed to its adoption.

520: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 520 (House1917b.Dec17.520)

Under the peculiar system of repre entation in the legislature which prevails in many States, by which the land area instead of the population is represented in their lawmaking body, tt frequently happens that the legislature is not representative of, the great body of tl1e people of the State.

521: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 521 (House1917b.Dec17.521)

Some of the New England States have a system of town and township representation in their legislatures regardless of the population that they contain, which creates a rotten borough system and denies equal representation to the great body of the people residing in the populous centers. Under the constitution of my own State, as amended some years ago, each county has a member of the house of representatives, regardless of its population. Omitting the 15 largest counties, the average population of t1le remaining 73 is but 30,853, while the populous counties have under the last apportionment only one additional member to each 47,671 inhabitants. So that in many States of the Union in which the people llave rejected State-wide prohibition by large majorities the legislatuxes would probably ratify this -amendment if given art opportunity to do so, and the action of the legislature in so doing would not be subject to review by the people, even in those States which have the initiative and the referendum provided for in their State constitutions ; and even if all members who vote to ratify this amendment should be defeated for reelection and be succeeded in office by Representatives opposed to the amendment, the ratification of the State could not then be withdrawn. This was determined when the fifteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution was ratified by the legislatures of the several States; a majority of the people in most of them repudiated this action of their representatives by defeating them for reelection, but it '''1ls held that the previous action of the legi Iature was final and irrevocable.

522: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 522 (House1917b.Dec17.522)

The admitted purpose of this constitutional amendment is to override and nullify the action of a number of the larger States of the Union which have rejected State-wide prohibition. No power is given to Congress by the Constitution to submit this or any other proposed change to a vote ot the electors, either as a whole or by and through the State . The nearest .Congress can come to gi-ving the people of the several States a voice in the adoption or rejection of this propo ed amendment is to submit it to constitutional conventions ili the several States elected for the purpo e of passing upon -the question, but the proponents of this measure are unalterably opposed to giving the people of the States a voice in the matter, even to that limited extent, and will promptly vote down an amendment proposing to do so, as was done when the measure was under consideration three years ago. Article 10, amendment ' to the Constitution, provides-

1 connection
523: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 523 (House1917b.Dec17.523)

The powers not del ega ted to the United Sta-tes by this Constitution nor prohibited .by it to the States are reserved to the States, · respectively, or to the people. ·

1 connection
524: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 524 (House1917b.Dec17.524)

This proposed joint resolution i a bald, naked, and palpable repudiation of the letter and spirit of the tenth amendment to the Federal Constitution, the adoption of which was neces ary to secure its ratification by the requisite number of States.

1 connection
525: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 525 (House1917b.Dec17.525)

This joint resolution proposes to outlaw by prohibiting the use of many hundreds of millions in value of property now utilized in the production, manufacture, and sale of vinous, spirituous, and malt liquors, , and to clothe the Federal Government with the police power necessary to enforce this destructive and confiscatory enactment. It is propo ed to do this by a majority vote of the legislatures of three-fourths in number of the States of this Union. Eleven of these States-Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Vermont, Rhode Island, Utah, and Wyoming represented on the floor of this House by 18 Members and in the Senate of the United States by 22 Senators-had, by the census of 1910, an aggregate population of 3,365,953, while by the same census the State of New York bncl a population of 9,113,614. Neither of the e 11 States had as many people as the -city of Cleveland, Ohio, at that time, and all of them combined had 1,400,000 less 'People than the city of New York. Here we have the impelling force behind this proposition, because the people of States like New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Texas, Missouri, f.assachu ·etts Indiana Wisconsin, and New Jersey refuse to conform to the ideas of rural and sparsely settled States, like the 11 I have named, the latter propose to join with the other small and spar ely settled States of the Union and by their preponderating power in numbers, each State having 1 vote on amending the Constitution, to force this amendment on the 1.0 States last mentioned, who e combined population by the census of 1910 was in excess of on e -half the total population of all the States in the Union.

526: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 526 (House1917b.Dec17.526)

The injustice of this proposition is so apparent that even some of its advocates have sought to delay or mitigate the evil of its enactment by requiring action · upon · it by the several States within a limited time and by postponing its operation one year after it would otherwise become effective.

527: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 527 (House1917b.Dec17.527)

There is grave doubt as to the legal power of Congre s to limit the time within which the requisite number of States must ratify this amendment, and if that provision should be held to be inoperative, it will remain open for adoption by the legislatures of the several States for an unlimited period. Its rejec­ -tion by a majority of the States, or by all of them, would not settle the question, .and its submission by Congress will simply "Open and keep open, for an unlimited period of time, a raw and bleeding sore on the body politic of every State in this Union to the exclusion of intelligent consideration of · every other public question, however pressing.

528: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 528 (House1917b.Dec17.528)

It is propo ed to postpone the operation of this drastic legisla· tion one year after it has been ratified by the requisite number of States. I~ this not :tn ~Hlrni~don of tht> inju~ti e of the propo-l sition? '! If it is :l wi~c, just. and JWOtJei· t-na<:tmont why defer it!' ov •I'Iltiou o::<' year m· a11y otl t:>r lJf'riotl of time? Why do the udYo(·ate.<; o: · this · mea~nre try to shrink :nnQ· from unt.l defer the ·o11 ·e-queH<:f'.' of it: enactment? Is it because - tlte~· believe rhnt it \\'ill result in tin::mcial eli. a ter nncl ruin?

529: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 529 (House1917b.Dec17.529)

Tl1e enactment of the \\ e!Jb law and the Heed law removes the only po.·:ihle ju;·tifi('ation or ex:cu · e for thi. measure. By the tt"rms of thes, ~tatute. th . eyeral State. of the Union mny by their own enu<.:tment render them. eL\e entir·e ly immune from 1l1e imp01'tatinn or t1·nn:portation to nny point within their bountlrie: of intoxieuting . liquor:. The truth i. tllat many m n \Tho will vot' for this measnre uo so against their O\Yn be . t judgment nnd under politi ·nl <lures:.

530: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 530 (House1917b.Dec17.530)

-o provi~ion i · mnde fot· compen~ating those of our citizens who llftY large . um . of mone~T inn~. tetl in the manufacture ann protludion of ~vi.rituou~, vinous, ot · malt liquors. The enormou: ~ increase in the ·al of the many different varietie: of patent medicine· containing lar ..... e per ·entuge . of alcoilol th roughout r>rohibition tenitorr in the United State:, whereby the con- ~umption of :11iritnou. liquor . has actually increased with the as S\Yeet." ~ro\\·th of dry territo ry , wlll probnbly l)revent any loss nnd t1amnge by the manufach.u·er:· of wlti k;\ T and other har<l liquor The c'OnHtantly in(·rensing demand in dry territory of alcoholic lit!uor: for "medicinal" purposes, nlthm.t...,.ll : oltl in the form of 1mtent me<li ·ine~. \Yill no doul.Jt continue to increa. e with the inerea:e ii1 !-<o-calle<.l (lry t rritory; but wine autl beer contnining a very :·mall 11er en tag of alcohol can not be . thu. mixed and :-;old and their manufacture and snle wonlcl top if this measure f'oultl u enfo r ce() . Xo lll'OYision is made in this joint resolu 1'ion for supply ing the (leti ·iency Of uet?;·een three hun<lred and four humlred million· of llollru· annually which will ue lo:t to t lie public reYenue . of the l nited 'tates by the adoption of this measure. to say nothing of the los ~ · of re\enne to the States and 1 . heir different . uhdivh;ion~. The consequences of this legi sla tion J1aYe not been fully ·onsiueretl by it· author; ~ and proponent. .

531: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 531 (House1917b.Dec17.531)

'Youltl the people of States like New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinoi.~ after h:win1; this amendment forced upon them by the leg-islature. of such StatE's us New Mexico, Ke,nda, Wyoming, . an 1 Arizona be dispo e<l to enact the nece ary legi~- lution to enforce it'? The qu :tion an wers it. elf .

532: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 532 (House1917b.Dec17.532)

The only re cour:e, then, for its enforcement would be th rough deputy United States .• nlll.r:hnls . Hmv tilany would be required for a serious attempt to enforce :uc h a law no one can even esti- )))ate. · The only result certain to follow it: adoption is a complete breaking down of tile whole system of attempted law enforcement by the National Government, and a sickening disre- ~nr<.l ot this and nH other laws ns a natural consequence. I! it should be adopted a majority ~ of the States would soon "dsli to repudiate it, and it would hang like a millstone about the neck o! t hf Nation until three-fourths of t!J State . could be induced to join in it<> repeaL

533: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 533 (House1917b.Dec17.533)

But we are told thn · t all these con~ ideration mu t ue disr regarded hecnu e the country i. engaged in war and we should adopt prohibition a . an 'efficiency mea ure . " \Ve have been ~olernnly urged to profit by the mistakes of the other nations enf!nged ' in this war, , e pec:ially the . mistake of our allies. The only one of the allied <1 nation to adopt prohibition was nu ssia, where the manufacture and sale of their alcoholic stimulant (vodka) was a Government monopoly. The czar uy an imperial ukase adopted prohibition, and it Te sulted in the lo s of llis imperial crown and scepter and the national demoralization and anarchy which now obtain in that unhappy country . If nationwide prohibition promoted efficiency in nn .. in nohooy hn disovel'ert any e Yiden ce of t11nt :!uct.

534: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 534 (House1917b.Dec17.534)

The only other n . nation engaged in this war to attempt even to restrict the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor was En()'land, who in the fir t year or two of the war limited the amount of grain which might be used in the manufacture of beer, but this re triction, I understand, has since been removed. The contention that by outlawing and de. troying hundreds of million of dollars in value of the property of our own citizens we would thereby promote the efficiency of the people of tbi. - · Nation in the pro . prosecution of this war, or for any other )lurpo. e is the wildest delusion that ever took pos . e ·sion of a l1t1man brain. Every man of common sen e antl business ;- judgment knows that the enactment into law o! such a drastic and revolutionary measure a ~ tbi . will embitter against the Government thou:arHls of our citizen , who. e property will be thereby •l er~tr _ oye(1 or . it value greatly reduced by it· enactment. To . :.: t c ure the united and 1JC'nrtr support and cooperation of all of our citizens in the successful oro. ecut ion of this war, in rlli. ; tl;p ~I'C'J.tf':t this ·i. , ; in _ tllf' Nation'~; history, ought to be the ! l im awl L•f'f'o1:t of all guu : l c itizl•n:-;, in clmlin~ ' 1\Iembel~ of Con gre~: . This a ·t will repel nnu not attract . u h upport . antl cooperation .

535: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 535 (House1917b.Dec17.535)

But we are told with vehement emphasis that the propo:-ltion to force this measure upon tile different States of this Union, Which IlaYe rejected prohibition and adopted regulation as a mean. of providing against the evils re ·ulting from the ale of intoxicating liquors, is a moral que . question which justifi s the in"'la ion of the reserved rights of the State· and the rE'pudiation of the principle of home rule nncl local self-government, upon which our dual system is ba ed. If by this it i meant that legi latlve prohibition raises tlte . tanunru of . morality iu the prohibition States above that of · similar States having a ~Y tem of regulation I emphatically deny it aml cite the exp ri nee of the ~ New England States as example , all of which have had prohibition at one time or :woth r aml all of which have abandonell it with but one exception. ‘There . i: not much virtue in the term applied, either to an individual or to n sy. tern or policy of government. ,.o improvement will be noted in tile odor of a jim. on weed uy calling it a ·unflower .

536: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 536 (House1917b.Dec17.536)

"That whieh \Te call a rose by any other nnme wouhl men TheJ e gentlemen from tlle rural tli. ·tri<:ts who propo. e to a ume the guanlian hip oYer the moral ~ of the people who · r i<le in the gr at anu populous State. of this Union are remin<lell that the great mas· of the pe011le of tho ·e Stat s \Yere horn and have grown up in their own Commonwealths, are more ;familiar with the people and in titutiou . of their own .~t:ttc: :t;llan nonre:itlent · po ibly can be, anu that the mon1ls of the people, o far a· the arne are affected uy \Yhat they cat anll urinl•, nre not likely to . be impro\ed by outside interferen ce. Thet·c i: probably inYe ted in property use<] in the lll:lllllfacture, lll'Oduction, and sale of spirituou:, vin'Ons, anti mnlt liquors, by people resiuiug io the territory co Yf'r ed IJy this joint r e~olution . more than one thou:and miUion of dollm-:;. It i: propo. ed by U1is mea ·ure to outlaw thi. prot)erty hy prohihitiu~ its u:e for the only purpo ·e to whicll it i ndapte<l :uul to plncc it in the . ame ategory with gambling implements an(t hur~l:u· - ·' tool· without notice and without compen. ation.

537: House, December 17, 1917, ¶ 537 (House1917b.Dec17.537)

Whatever may be our opinion . of the brU'iue:;; . of tH'Ollucin~. transporting, importing OL' exporting, or selling intoxi<'ating liquors, the wholesale confi. cation propo ed uy this me:tsun~ t1oes present a moral que tion of much graY r magnitude anil COIIRequence tltnn is involved in the ue · desire to regulate the nppe-tit : by controlling through one enactment the business . relation aiHl per onal habit· of all the people who 1iYe under tlte Amcril'an tl.ng. r Applau. e . ]

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.