December 17, 1917

Mr. VOLSTEAD. . l\Ir . Speaker, I yield two minutes to tltc gentleman from Neurn kn [Mr. UEAns].

Mr. REAVIS. l\Ir. Speaker, I :JJall not attempt in tb e ~!tort time allotted me to debate tile merit· of tlti resolution. I am for it becau e I believe that whi ·ky, willi all of the mi~et·y antl \Yoes that it wears, should be driven from the haunts of this Nation. I think the time has come now to do that. l\Ir purp o:e in ri in:!, however is to call the attention of. the House to » ~­ tion 3 of this re ·olution, concerning which I am v ry nmn·ehensive. I 011posell it as a member of. t11e Committee on the J"udieinrr, and I intend to move to strike it out. The third section oC thi~ resolution declares that this · amendment ·hall be inoperntive if not acted upon l.ly three-fourths of the legi latures of the States Within seven years. Article Y of the Constitution WJ that a constitutional amendment submitted as "·e propose to submit this shall be operative when acted upon favorably by threefourth of the legislatures of the States, . There i · no time limit in the Constitution. The amendment is submitted unlil enough legi. latures have passed upon it to indi ·ate whether or not it will be approved by three-fourths of them. If this constitution amendment shall be · approved b~ tbree - ~oul'th · of the l~gisla:­ tures of the States in m-en years and . u month after 1t has been submitted, it will meet every requirement of the Con ·Utution, becau e the Constitution nys that it . shall be operative when three-fourths of the legislature of the States approve it. The reason for my apprehension i ~ this: I believe this section 3 is unconstitutional. I do not believe it i worth the paper it is written on; but if section 3 . should be held uy the courts as the section which indu ~ed the passage of this resolution, then the resolution itself is void. Section 3 is a joker. It ought to ue cut out of this resolution. Never be f ore has . there been in any constitutional amendment submitted to the l egislature iu the history of this Nation. a time limit. For the fir t time tn the . Ili. tory of the Nation you fiml a time. limit Uu~.t ii; !littmetrically opposed to that article of the Con. tltntwn which grants authority to make the . submission. It oug-ht to be cut out. It is <.lnn()'erons to leave it in.

1\lr. WEBB. 1.\lr. Speaker, . I yield 10 miuutPs to t!l(' ~~ttl •m;m from · Peni1!':.YlYania [l\lr. ,'TEELE].

lUr. STEELE. 1\Ir. Speaker, I shall confine my remarks to · section 3 of this proposed amendment. It is true, as the gentleman from Nebraska [1\lr. REAVIS] has said, that this is the first time that a limitation of time has been placed on the States for acting upon any proposed constitutional amendment, but the fact that a constitutional power has never been exercised by .Congress is no argument whatever against its existence. The question was raised when this resolution was upon its passage in the Senate, and while I admit that there was some conflict of opinion among the best constitutional lawyers in the Senate, the preponderence of opinion, the very large preponderance of opinion, was in favor of the exercise of the right. As was stated upon the floor of the Senate, this resolution would not )la\e been passed by the Senate if it had not been for this limitation placed in the resolution. I propose to show that this is a perfectly proper limitation and one that should be placed in the resolution. Otherwise, when a proposed constitutional amendment goes out to the States it rests there for agitation for all time without any limitation whatever, and, -as I understand it, there is one constitutional amendment that was proposed more than 100 years ago that is still out, and if the contention of the gentleman is correct it could still be acted upon by the State8, although it has been forgotten for more than a century of time and is not now u living question.

But let us look upon the language of the Constitution and ascertain whether, in accordance with the legislative and judicial practice under that amendment, the contention is correct. This article which permits Congress to submit amendments pro­ , ,ides ns follows :

The Congress, whenever two·thirds of both Houses shall deem it ,necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the :application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which 1 in either case, shall be . va1id to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution when ratified by . the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States or by · conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of t·atlficution may be proposed by the Congress. ·

Tllen in Article I, section 8, it is further provided that Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing power and nH other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof. ~ Therefore, so far as the power vested in Congress is concerned, it is a general power, without any limitation, without any prohibition upon the exercise of that power, and it is practically raising the old question which has been in existence from the time of the organization of this Government, the question of strict construction, the question of liberal or rational construction, which was raised in the first Congress under the Constitution, when provision was made for the establishment of the United States Bank in 1791. There was no express power in the Constitution to establish a bank. Nothing is said in the Constitution upon the subject whatever. Provision is made, however, that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes and regulate , interstate commerce, and because of this provision in the Constitution it was held to be one of the implied powers to carry out the express powers which bad been conferred upon the Congress, and the Supreme Court subsequently held that" it was a proper exercise of power.

NO":';, take your own experience here as Members of this Congress. The power is given under the Constitution, under the most general language possible, to declare war. There is no specific power conferred as to how war is to be carried on, nor is any power expressly conferred as t~ _ what shall happen after the declaration of war is made by Congress. Yet it has been held by the United States Supreme Court, acquiesced in by every Congress, that the mere general power to declare war includes the power to carry it on to a successful issue with all the means at band by Congress, and one of the first things done by this Congress after the declaration of war · was to pass a conscription act. Can anyone point to anything in the Constitution specifically authorizing the passage of a conscription act? I defy any to do so; and yet the power to pass the · conscription act is under the general power conferred under the Constitution and has never been questioned by this House . . Subsequently you passed a food-control act. Can anyone point to any specific pow r in the Constitution to control food, to enter every private house in the land and regulate what they shall do in the matter of food? It is simply under the general power to declare war . We then passed an espionage act. Is there any specific .. Power -in the Constitution to . pass · an espionage , act? There is none. And so with an the legislation that we have enacted . as war measures during this term of Congress, there was no specific warrant in the Constitution to pass, and it was only under the implied power that was given "When the express power w·as given to declare war. And . the same way with many other provisions in the Constitution.

w·e have upon our statute books a penal code. Can anyone point to any language specific in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to pass a penal code or to declare any offense a crime? It does not exist. It is simply part of the implied power conferred upon Congress, and this is under the interpretation of the Constitution the Supreme Court has repeatedly sanctioned. The Constitution used general terms, and whatever is prudent and proper and necessary to carry out those general and express powers are within the powers of Congress. The general power that has been conferred includes in it all that is necessary or proper to make it effective. Here is what Justice Story says upon this subject:

The Constitution unavoidably deals in general language. It did not- suit the purposes . of the people in framing this great charter of our liberties to provide for minute specifications of its powers or to declare the means by which those powers should be carried into execution. It was foreseen that it would be a perilous and difficult if not an impracticable task. The instrument was not intended to provide merely for the exigencies of a few years, but was to endure for a long - lapse of ages the events of which were locked up in the inscrutable purposes of Providence. It could not . be foreseen what new changes and modifications of power might be indispensable to effectuate the general objects of the charter, and restrictions and specification which at the present might seem salutary might in the end prove the overthrow of the system itself. Hence its powers are expressed in general terms, leaving the "legislature from time to time to adopt its own means to effectuate legitimate objects and to mold and model the exercise of its powers as its own wisdom and the public interests should require.

Now, when the Constitution further declared that Congress should have the power to pass all necessary and proper legislation for carrying into execution this power, of course it conferred upon Congress the discretion in the first instance of deciding what was necessary and proper. Hence this term "necessary and proper," as conferred in this general power, has been repeatedly passed upon by the Supreme Court, and I will only refer to what is regarded as the classic definition of this power as used by Chief Justice Marshall in McCullough versus Maryland, where he said :

The determination of what are appropriate means­

He declaredbelongs to the government which is to employ them. The government which has a right to do an act and- has imposed on it the duty of llerforming that act must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means.

His interpretation of the use of the word " necessary " in this clause was us follows:

The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of the Nation essentially depends. It must have been the intention of those who were giving these powers to insure, a& far as human prudence could insure, their beneficial execution. This can not be done by confining the choice of means to such narrow limits as not to lea.ve it in the power of Congress to adopt any which might be appropriate and which were conducive to the end. This provision is made in a Constitution intended to endure for ages to come and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. To have prescribed the means by which government should for all future time execute its powers would have been to cha.nge entirely the character o! the instrument and give it the properties of a legal code.

So that in the language of the Constitution itself Congress has the discretion to adopt all necessary and proper means of carrying into execution the power of submitting amendments to the States. That power has been exercised in this instance, and a very appropriate power, in my judgment, it has been. Now, just one other thought and I have finished. It is contended here that if this proposed amendment is submitted to the States ht the form in which it is, with this limitation of time upon it, that then the States can act, whether it be 7 years, 10 years, or 15 ~-ears thereafter without any limitation upon them whatever. Is that a correct interpretation? Congress sends out to the States this proposed amendment. It attaches to it a limitation that they must act upon it in seven years. The State can only act upon the amendment us it is submitted to it by Congress. It is not within the power of the State to change any term of that submission. They must either accept it or reject it in the language sent out to them to act upon. Therefore, suppose that 30 States should act upon it with the limitation in it, ratify with the limitation in it, and then 7 States seven or eight years thereafter should attempt to act upon it, they could only act upon it with the limitation upon it just the same as the other States, and it would be clearly beyond their power to do so.

Now, that Congress can attach conditions of this kind to the action of the States has been expressly decided by the Supreme Court. And I wish to call attention to the facts under which it was submitted to them. In the submission of the fourteenth ' nth amendment to the Constitution there were three States which ratified the amendment, and subsequently, upon the election of new legislatures, those new legislatures rescinded the previous - ious action of the States and rescinded the ratifying resolution. It was necessary -that the votes of those three States · should be counted for the amendment or it · would not be ratified. l\fr. Seward, who was Secretary of State at the time, was doubtful about the matter, and he issued a proclamation reciting the e1:pired. facts and stating that if the States of Ohio, New Jersey, and New York had properly ratified this amendment, then the amendment was ratified, but otherwi e not. '!'he leader · in Congress were not satisfied with that statement, and they passed a resolution affirming that the · amendment had been properly ratified, and l\1r. Seward then issued a second proclamation, and in pursuance , of this resolution of Congress he proclaimed the ratification of the . amendment. · In the reconstruction legislation afterwards enacted it was provided that the States ' that had been , at war with the Federal Government should not be again admitted as member States of the Union unless they ' ratified this fourteenth amendment.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleroan from Pennsylvania has ex:pired.

1\Ir . STEELE. I would like three minutes"'more.

Mr. GARD . I yield three minutes more to the gentleman.

Mr. STEELE: The States of the South, in pursuance of that, were coer-ced into the ratification of the fourteenth amendment, and the question of the l.egality of the action of Con- gress in attaching that as a c.ondition before these States could be admitted as members of the Union came before the Supreme Court for action. Ancl you will be unable utterly to point to any provi ion in the Constitution which gave Congress the authority of imposing that as a condition upon the readmission of the States of the Union, and all the States, . even though in rebellion, were in fact never out of the Union, so far as the Constitution was conc-erned. They were simply deni.ed their political re pre entation here because they were at war with the Federal power. When the question came before the Supreme Court as to whether or not that was a valid condition attached by Congress to the ac.tion of the State the Supreme Court, in White v. Hart (13 Wall., 643) said :

The third of these propositions is clearly unsound an.d requires only a few remarks. Congress authorized the State to form a new constitution, and she elected to proceed within the scope of the authority th conferred. ~'he result was submitted to Congress as a vo-luntary and valid offering, and was so received and so recognized in the subsequent action of that body. The State is estopped to assail it upon such an assumption. Upo:n the ~me ground she might deny the validity of the ratification of the constitutional amendments. The action of Congress upon the subject can not be inquired into. The case is clearly one in which the judicial is bound to follow the action -of the political department of the · Government and is concluded i>Y it. [Applause.]

pon any point of -view therefore, the limitation o! time :for nction by the States i a valid exercise of power by Congress. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. VOLSTEAD. 1\lr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [1\.f'r. LEl\'TJWOT].

l\1r. LENROOT. Mr. Speaker, I shall support this re.Solution, whether amended or not; but I Wish to use the time allotted to me in a discussion of the very interesting question raised by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. REaVIs] and replied to by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEELE].

I think it is of the v.ery greatest importance, because if the argument of the gentleman from Nebraska is c.ocrect, it is po sibl.e that if section 3 shall be held by the courts to be nn inducement to the passage of the joint resolution itself, and that that was beyond the powe1· of Congress to validly enact, this -entire matter may become invalid and fall to the ground, .even though r atified by three-fourths of the States.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me very clear that in th~ submission of the constitutional amendment Congr-ess is given the uaked pow.er of submitting p.roposed amendments, · and Article V itself takes care completely and effectually of everything beyond that. And if that is so we have no ~ower to attach any condition to the ratification. The gentleman fl·om Peunsylvania {l\lr. STEELE] undertakes to supp ort his argument by citing the section of the Con$titution that gives Congress the powel:' to enact legislation nece sary to put into effect the powers granted by the Con titution. But Congress has no power to enact legislation that is in conflict with the provlsion of the Constitution itself. And Ar-ticle V expressly provides that onc.e this proposed amendment has "'One from the halls of Congress and rests with the State&, when ratified by the States it beco.mes a part -of the CoD&1:Uution. And that being so, Congress has no power, with· out vi.oJ.ating that article it . elf, to s.ay tbat the States must do it within 1 year, 2 year , 3 yeaF , 6 years, or 10 years. I believe that section · 3 is absolutely . in'Valid , and if that be true the very .-eriou s que tion pre ent:s itself whetheP, when this amendment ·ha ll llaYe been ratified by three-fourths of the States, tile court may hold that section 3 \\as an inducement to the passage of the resolution, and if section 3 L<S invalid then the entire con titu~ tiooal amendment may be held invaU<l. ·

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

Mr. GARD. :Mr. Speaker, I ' yield five minute . to t11e gentle~ man from Dlinois [:Mr. GALL UimR]. · · • · 1\fr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, again the valuable time of this body is taken up and diverted from the consideration ot many important legi lath - e matters relating to the war and the general welfare of the country, again we are to interrupt and disturb business u e s throughout the land, and many who are now doing a prosperous mid successful business-aJld I do not me.ari saloonkeepers, either-will be ruined if the promoters of the pending measure have their way. A number of busy agitators and handsomely paid reformers are constantly nt work keeping this prohibition wrangle before Congress and the country.

They are the same forces that up . et and obstructed the Il1ans of the administration at the late special ses ion of Congress, and prevented the prompt enactment of a law for the conservation of food and fuel; as a result of needless controversy and delay at that time the poor and unfortunate in many sections of the country are to-day suffering because of the high and u.nreasonable prices demanded for food and fuel. There is a lobby here in the interest of prohibition, but none here in behalf of those who are suffering from hunger these cold winter days and fl'eez ­ ing for want of coal.

If the people of the several States are anxious for prohibition, if they have such a 1 desire as the promoters o! this legislation claim to live in dry territory, there is no need of coming here demanding the passage · of this joint re olution. The several .States now have the pmver aJl.d can regulate by law the ma:ou~ facture and sale of all intoxicating liquors. Congress has already stopped the manufacture and importation of whisky and has empowered the President to say whether light wines and beers shall be manufactured in the .country. In view of all this, is it not a fact that we have all the law that is now necessary to make this country dry whenever it is e sential to do so?

But this is not what the professional prohibitionists are after; Jd t tl th · f ,. d t N t• nl "'tat ey won · s op 1e ga ermg o needed taxes, a wo ...... , o e, and municipal, that are now derived from the sale of liquor, ruin millions of dollars' worth of valuable property without t th 1 t 1 t t 1 d t 1 recompense o e owners, c es roy real es · a eva ues an ren a s, make vineyards valueless, cause strikes and unrest among workmen and deprive them of opportunity to labor.

They would throw the entire country into violent anti <lestrnctive political turmoil; bring about expensive, angry, and riotous eleetion contests everywhere; disturb, hinder, and prolong legislati;ve sessions in the vaTiou.s States ; and destroy pub.- lie interest in a cause that · all should be intere ted in-thnt of winning this war. ·

I believe in temperan.ce and favor laws that will regulate the liquor traffic. I also have some respect for the per onal liberty . and rights o:f others. · I am against unjust and tyrannical laws. Merchants and manufacturers who contribute large sums of money to further this prohibition movement with an idea that they will receive greater efficienc-y from their employees may find in the end that it is simply money wasted, and if we knew now what it cost the Gove1 • Government to maintain a police force ot United States marshals in many oi the so-called prohibition States to prevent the manufacture and sale of liquor it might surprise many who fav-or this unnecessary legislation.

Many here who pretend they are anxious to pass this joint resolution that may change the organic act of the Nation to stop drunkenness and crime . will assume . a different attitude when the suffrage .amendment is before us, 'Ve can then tell by the vote cast those who really favor law. order, and good government.

I hate hypocrisy and false pretense; there i~ more unfairness, deceit, and insincerity mixed up in the prohibition movement than any other I know of. .A. secret ballot here would show it I am . opposed to the pending resolution :for national prohibition and will vote against it. President Wilson has wi ely saidthat every self-governing . community which constitutes a social unit should have. the right to control the matter of the regulation or th~ withholding of license.

And I feel positive that no people will be happy or contented in a State where the people of other States force up.on them laws that they do not favor; · and, further, I believe with t he fathers of the Republic, that the just powers of the Government -are derived from the consent of the governed. . [Applause.]

Mr. GRAHAM of Pennsylvania. l\11.'. Speaker, I yield four minutes to the gentle.man from New Jersey [1\lr. RAMSEY] .

Mr. RAMSEY. Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the Hou s e of RepJ tesentatives, this important matter · now before us is of that character which prompts me to make some expression upon it and to in a way demonstrate to my constituents and to the people of this House the reasons "\\·by I shall vote as I will in a short time. The Constitution of the United States is a document which ought not to be disturbed without the most serious thought and the greatest consideration. We all recognize that probably the minds by which it was framed were those of some of the strongest men of our Nation, and I am speaking upon this question principally for the purpose of demonstrating and showing that' I believe it ought not to be disturbed now. The Constitution of the United States, as we all know, reserved to itself certain policies of government, and it created practically a new form of government by giving to the States certain rights and powers. It provides as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States . by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively-

Ami o forth. l\1y conclusion is this: That until the Constitution of the United States is amended, and particularly that part of it which I have just quoted, this resolution is without right before us . This is a policy. It is not a principle of government. This matter which we are considering now is a police regulation which, under the Constitution, is vested in every State. I should like to know by what authority we have the right to interject as a constitutional amendment a matter _ ,Thich is merely a matter of police regulation.

This is not an amendment to the Constitution of the United State . It is a supplement or an addition to the Constitution. You might as well undertake by reason of logic and by reason ot thought to say that we shall pass a constitutional amendment whereby the rite of marriage in each State should be regulated under it or the right of divorce should be regulated under it, or the right of an in s urance company to do business in a State should come under a constitutional provision. My conclusion, as I read it-and I believe it to be true-is that it is not a matter of proper constitutional action.

On the other b a nd. under this provision of the Constitution each State has successfully, so far as the de ires of its inhabitants or voters go, determined the question of prohibition. I am not opposed to the regul a tion of the liquor traffic, even by prohibition, in the States where they desire to have it, nor in my own State, if the people therein so declare. A local-option bill will undoubtedly be passed by our legislature at its next se sion, and I am in favor of such legislation. '

Under an act recently passed by this Congre s, and for which I voted, the power is given to the President of the United States to exercise such privileges as to practically create prohibition throughout the whole country. The manufacture of spirituous liquors has been stopped, and under the regulations proclaimed by the President the percentage of alcohol in beer has been reduced to 2i per cent, which makes it practically a nonintoxicating beverage. 1\lr. Speaker, there has been and is great unrest in this country because of the war. This unrest should not be augmented and made greater. The war must be won, but I want to say that it is not alone the brave, courageous, and patriotic young men of this country who are and will be on the firing line that can or will win it.

There are thou ands-yes, hundreds of thousands--of American citizens who are employed in the performance of honorable duties in factories, mills, and plants of various descriptions, making not only munitions of war but every other device and thing that is of advantage to the Government's and our people's interest, who not only desire their beer but who feel as if they are entitled to have it. Must we by our action to-day deprive them of that privilege, or at least put in operation a constitutional amendment which, if adopted, will do so? I think not. It is the boast of our people and the principle which has been ins;tilled in the minds of American youth that we are a Republic of freedom, liberty, and democracy, and to destroy that conclusion by this proposed amendment, which I believe to have no legal standing here, I sincerly believe to be bad legislation.

It was only a few days ago when I sat in this House and heard With feelings of great pleasure and satisfaction · encomiums paid to one of our Members. I doubt during the entire existence of Congress has a living man ancl one of its .Members ever so justly received such flattering and just expressions as were accorded to him and his worth. They were based not only on the indi­ _ vldual worth o . f the man-and I .refer to the Hon . .JoHN .J. FITzGER-~LD, of New York-but because he was possessed of certain piause.] .attributes, namely, intelligence, judgment, and courage. When l1e came to a conclusion honestly formed he had the courage of his conviction. Probably no greater, and I am sure no better, legislator is now a Member of this body.

· And it is this courage of our convictions that we should have; and in the exercise of my prerogative at this time I am impelled by this alone, believing that my reasoning has brought me to the proper conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, the States that have exercised their rights under the sovereignty of the States as given to them by the Constitution of the United States upon the question of prohibition ought not to be permitted to fo1·ce legislation for other States contrary to and against their will.

Again, let me say that, in my congressional district there is not a brewery located, to my knowledge, and I have no personal acquaintance, with one exception, as I now recall, with an owner of a brewery, and further, may I say, that I have not been approached by any person connected with a brewery as to how I should or will vote 0:1 this proposed amendment.

Mr. Speaker, therefore, in justice to my constituents, in justice to the people of my State, in justice to the people of this great Republic, and · in justice to myself, I must conclude, for the reasons I have given, that this proposed constitutional amendment should not be adopted and made a part of the organic law of our country. And, regardless of the consideration of political favor or disfavor, I am constrained in the performance of an honest, fearless, and conscientious duty to vote against the resolution.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New .Jersey asks un - unanimous consent to extend his remarks. Is there objection?

Mr. STAFFORD. I object.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin objects.

l\Ir. GRAHAM: of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Connecticut [1\!t·. TILSoN].

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized . for one minute.

1\Ir. TILSON. Mr. Speaker, it will not require one minute for me to state my position.

In my judgment this i · not the time, the place, or the manner in which to bring about either prohibition or woman suffr-age. Both should be accomplished, i! at all, by means of the ballot at the polls within the several States, and at a time when the country is not in the midst of a great war. [Applause.]

I yield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. GRAHA.l\1 of Pennsylvania. 1\Ir. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from New .Jersey [Mr. PARKER].

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for three minutes.

Mr. PARh..'"ER of New .Jersey. 1\Ir. Speaker, I do not dwell upon the fact that the foundation of civil liberty lies in local self-government or upon the fact that the democratic power of the majority, exercised from a distant capital, may be just as tyrannical and arbitrary as a pure empire. This has been proved in Europe. Tl1e laws of the neighborhood, known and approved by the neighborhood, can be and will be enforced by the good will of the people; nothing else. One trouble with such a doctrine as National or State-wide prohibition is that it takes away the power to regulate according to the needs of locality, whether by license or by local legislation or by getting rid of saloons; I care not how. Let us have the locality determine what is best for itself.

But the main trouble is that this issue, when introduced, becomes the sole issue, as it has been in some of our States for 30 or 40 years. Our country has too many needs and too wide a variation of social requirements to be covered by the single question of rum or no rum, and in the States where this issue has once prevailed it has been paramount for years, with successive · evasions or else attempts to change the constitution. A law not approved by the people is likewise the fountain of fraud and evasion and contempt for the law. I have seen in an Eastern State whisky sold as soda water in the railroad stations. I have seen in Western States whole towns wide open in the face of the State constitution. It becomes a burning issue. That is our trouble now. It will last through this war-this issue.

I have just been to Europe and have seen that the effective way of carrying on war is for the whole people to think about and deal with nothing else and not to be divided on issues of that sort, which will make some of our localities discontented w-hen we want them all to be whole-souled for the war. [Ap­

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New .Jersey has expired.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas [1\!r. gentleman _

The SPEAKER pro tempore. - The : gentleman from Arkansas is recognized.

Mr. TILLMAN. Mr. Speaker, in this discussion it is neither my purpose nor desire to wantonly insult any man who may be engaged in the liquor business. The expression" Down with the saloon and up with the saloon keeper and the saloon patron u has obtained wide :currency and generous approval in pr-ohibition circles. But I shall not search for soft phrases in which to express an opinion of a traffic which is -destroying men and women in this Republic alone :at the rate of 100,000 a year, a traffic which :fills tile land with beggars and tramps, a traffic which dr'.aws from the pockets -of the people of the United States two and one-half billion dollars annually and gives in return sorrow and suffering and tears and poverty.

King Alcohol collects from his vassal more of his substance than is :required · by any other potentate on earth, and when be has stripped him to his foolish hide he kicks him <nrt of his palace int-o the street. The princes of earth, the ex-ecutives -of commonwealths, -send abroad their taxgatherers -once "3. year to collect from the people n small part of their .-earnings for governm-ent expenses, -and · they furnish · officers to protect the life · and preserve the peac.e and property of the citizen ; they provide armies, ho pitals, .asylums, and pensions; but King John Barleycorn, who bestrides the narrow world like a colossus, haughty. .(Uld heartless, the mightiest monarch 'Of earth, greater than George .the Fifth -or William of Germany, greater than Sultan or Mikado, stations his collectors all over the land and gathers tribute from his thirsty subjects every hour in the day and every day iin:the year. Fair and generous rulers pension their servants, soldiers, and sailors when they become old or disabled, and pro- 'Vide for their widows and orphans if they fall while serving the State. Individuals and .corporations -do likewise, but you may ser;ve this har.d master till your money, character, happiness, and life are gone, and you will find . that King JtOlm will not .-even prov.i"de a poorhouse to shelter your helpless wife .and babies. If a subject flushed with the king's beverages, in lightsome spo:rt or otherwise, kills . a fellow man, King J-otm does not draw from his well-filled purse money wherewithal to -employ counsel to def.end him, but he lets .him hang, undefended, . so far . as he is .concerned, when the real criminal is King John's , ag-ent. the man who sold the whisky. If a faithful.subjeet, after paying tribute ) for many and many a weary year, at last yields to delirium tremens and rues , a pauper's death, .King _ John does not even give him swift burial in the potter's field. Pitiless King John! .And yet men will march under his scarlet banner .and give up honor" home, wife, and children that ibe may reign in guilty splendor. 1\.Ien will serv-e this red despot ;and give him everything they have, even their bodies and their . souls, and get not a pl-easant look in return. The most . arrogant, the l.east · polite, the coldest mannered, the most disd-ainful citizen, is that haughty plutocrat, the American brewer, usually tainted with Teuton sympath:i-es .and damned by a German conscience. .The :average · barkeeper-and it has been my ill fortune t-o meet him :a .few times in da,ys long ,gone by-is as cold as the heart -of the dead. .One thing that can be said in his favor, however, he is always sober, because, paradoxical as it m:ay seem, saloon keepers want bartenders :who do not drink. They will cheerfully sell you their wares, but they hav.e too much sense to drink their -own liquors. A .cynical old miller ;Qf my town once .said of the flour made by a rival mill that it was not fit for anything except to - s-ell. rn the eyes of the sensible barkeeper, whisky is good for nothing except to ell.

Royal King .AlcohoL let us drink his health in pure water. Sweet, beautiful water. " Brewed in · the running brook, the rtppling fountain, . and the laughing . rill; brewed in the limpid cascade, :as it joyfully leaps down the mountain side ; brewed in the mountain top, whose granite peaks glitter like gold, bathed in the morning .sun; brewed m the sparkling - dewdr~~ sweet, beautiful water; brew-ed in the crested waves of the ocean deep, driven by th-e storm, breathing its terrible anthem to the god of the seas; . brewed in the :fleecy foam of the :whitened spray, .as it hangs like a speck over the distant cataract; brewed . in the clouds of heaven. Sweet, beautiful water ! As it sings in the rain shower and dances in the .hailstorm, as it comes sweeping down in feathery :tlakes, 'Clothing the .earth in a :Spotless mantle -of white, always beautifuL Distilled in the golden tissues that paint the winter sky at the setting of the sun, and the silver tissues that veil the midnight moon. Sweet, health-giving. beautiful water; distilled in the rainbow of promise, whose warp is the raindrop of earth. and whose woof is the sunbeam of heaven; sweet, beautiful water." But the drunkard prefers Budweiser or Anheuser, Old Cr-ow or Moonshine, to this blessed, God-made, health-giving beverage. And, King J-ohn, since the wor.Ld began history :records . no instance where an individual was injured by being -denied liquor .for beverage purposes; ; and, moreover, -your liquors, drunk as beverages, never yet ben-efited a single human being. either physically, morally, intellectually, or financially, but instead a million bloody deaths lie at your door, and the billion. heartaches, headaches, -and miseries you have caused would blight and . sieken your conscience -or your ~ soul if · you had either .. King John, you are -an awfully expensive luxury. Last year you taxed your · subjects in this Republic over 2,.()()() , 000,000 and gave them in return debauch, - disease, death. This ~ ni.St sum is paid by our 20,000,000 who drink, so that on e- fif nf our people drink .an average of $70 worth of liquor annually per capita. In 10 years this annual expenditure would buy a comfortable home, and at least one-half , of the 20,000,000 who drink are homel:ess. · These d:rin.kers, for the ..mo t part, campo e the dangerous class. .Besides this tribute, exacted by this royal despot, the tot.al · abstainers, - estimated at four-fifths of our population, are taxed to assist. in paying heavy court expenses caused by drink. This is King John's record, and yet he lords it over mankind like a ;purp~clad Cresar, and people say that lWe are too pitiably weak or too cowardly to · stab him to death as Oresar was stabbed. King Alcohol is a tyrant, and when men fight tyr.ants they · serve God. This amendment will pass and we will soon see a dry Nati-on. and King John's lofty cr.e t will trail in the dust forever .

Among others, I have three good reasons for being ag-ainst whisky; that is to say, I have three children. I -do 1.1ot fear intoxicants on my own account, because .I have been a total abstainer for more than "30 years continuously-practically ·o, 1n fact, .all my life-but parents live again in their children, and a p.arent who is normal w.ants to see his children sober and happy. I want our boys to keep as far away from liquor .as possible. Therefore I do not want the brewery, nor the distillery, no.r the saloon. I do not want the blind tiger, nor do I want th~ Jug trade. Make whisky difficult to obtain; outlaw 1t, anc11ess of it will be used. The farther removed . the bo_ss and men are from whisky the safer they are.

An .old king lost his charioteer and let it be known that he wanted another. Four :men presented themselves as candidates for the place. He said to the :first one, "' ' Tell me, sir, how near with safety can you drive my chariot to the edge of that precipice n-ear by the castle?" ":Sire," he replied, "I can drive you within 1 foot of the edge of the precipice at full speed and not endanger your life.” What can you do?” said the king to the next applicant. n Why,” he said, "I can drive you within .a hair's breadth of the edge and carry you safely by with -the horses at a .gallop." "What can you do?” he said to the third man. " Why, sire;" said he, "'I can drive your chariot so close to 'the edge of that dangerous precipice that .one-half of the tire will be on solid stone :and one-half extending over the precipice, tl.nd yet carry you safely by;" The 'king said to the fourth ma.n, -"What have you to say 'for yourself?” "Sire," aid the fourth man, " if y-our majesty directed me to drive you by that precipice, from which if you s'hould happen ~o f.all :you would go to certain death, I would drive your chariot just as far · away .from the edge of that dangerous cliff as the road would permit me to go.” You are the man 1 want for my charioteer,” said the ldng. And so our young men should keep as . far away from liquor as possible, and we should keep the saloon · and liquor liS far away from the boy as possible.

I do not want a saloon or blind tiger next to my home, and 1 run not going to have one there. I have as much .respect for law as a-ny man, but I think I have the right, 'llllder the common iJ.aw and under statute law, to abate an indisputable nuisance, and if nothing - else wiH suffice 'it can be abated by the open, notorious, and orderly use -of reasonable community, physical force. Let us .first protect our .own . homes, , and th.en our neighbors' homes, ruJd then drive the liquor nuisance from hamlet, city, Commonwealth, and Nation. w~ have now driven it out of so many States that the time has come when it is meet and p-roper te make a final drive and bani h it from the Nation. This has been no holiday task. Of all tthe trusts in this trust-ridden land, the most sinister, the most aggr ive., the best organized, is the Liquor Trust. We fight the BakingPowder Trust, while the · souls .of countless thousands, ruined by .rum, are baking in pnr.gatory. We :fight the Cracker Trust and forget the millions -of alcohol 'Victims now crackling in the fires of . eternal to-rment. We denounce Standard Oil and Jo'hn D. Rockefeller, and are selfishly indifferent to the · Pernicious activity of Sir John Barleycorn and Col. Gambrinus as they oil the way of .a million victims in their swift, descending flight t.owa.rd hell.

Liquor enjoys the countenance and friendship . of able u end· ers and ;advocates. You go forth to fight rum and you will m et a .Prince Rupert of the breweries at ~v-ery cro ~ road.s, armed from head to heel and ready to !fight you · to the death; and he oft E' n fi g hts an uncl e an fight and an unfair fight. If you are timhl or tl}in s kinned , you are in danger of being made uncom· foJ<t t ble, if you fight rUDL But get on one side or the other of the q ue tion; in • other words, , " under which flag will you fight Benzonian," un d er the milk-white flag of prohibition or under the b l ood-red banner of booze? '

You need oo t leave your party to fight for prohibition. Most men have a sentimental love for the party of their fathers and ~ their own. Third parties have played but a farcical part on the American political stage. There is one notable exception to this rule. 'l ' he Progressive Par-ty really · served a useful purpo e while · it strutted: its uneasy but wholesome hour upon the' . stage. And · it will not be forgotten. This is the gr-eate t question. before the · American people to-day, but it is not the · only question, and while we should labor earnestly and aggressively to properly settle this question, we should desire to take Ut hand in. settling other great issues at the same time. A party can not be builded upon a single idea: in a Government as complex · as ours. Besides this is no more a party Oil a: political question than " Thou shalt not steal " is a political question. It is a que tion of economics, a. question of business. a question of morals. In the South, the dominant party. there has given prohibition to Oklahoma, to Georgia, to Alnbama, to . 1\.Hssi.S­ sippi, to Tennessee, to Arkansas and ' other Southern States. We now have a practically dry Dixie. It is. distressingly dry to ju t a few of our · nonmilitary colonels. . These. colonels are golden-heaa.·ted old fellows, but occasionally · you will tina one who is not pleased with prohibition. To . cite an · instance; Colonel 1 Dryus Dustin Ashes, fond of rickeys, straights, and smashes, with n blinking of eyelashes, pushed the door to the · butret,

He was not an early - riser, but; on- rising be felt wiser for a bit of appetizer just to cheer him on his way. ·

To th e bar he strode not knowing how reform waves had been growing, n o \ · er ebbing, always flowing, and declared himself for rye.

Whereat Bill. the big . barkeeper, felt his sympathies grow deeper, and :

he rubbed his tea.J:ful peepe~; which is , common slang for ey:e.

Bill was used. to , thirsts diurnal, . thirsts a.utwnn.al.. . :md · thirsts vernal, and he knew the fretful colonel of his bitters was tn need

But alas, the new laws. drastic were not plla.ble or plastic, even if for rea ons gastric rye was half " the - colonel’s feed.

So with courtesy and tritely he apologized politely, smillng pleasantly and brightly, and said he had no grudge,

But as pity must not: swer:ve him, o cupidity ; unne:~:ve him, quite the strongest. he could serve him would ' be. buttermilk orr fudge . .

T he n the colonel . said . : "D~mnition, d..emn this . cleu . ced; prohibition! W.ho plunged. us in this _ condition.? " And the · faithful run replied "'Ti s a law theyve been enacting by the States · in concert acting; and the Union is.exactingA so the fount · of.joy is dried.”’

And the colonel, fierce umhragcou ', said " By jove, sir, 'tis outrageous that such blue laws should engage us and make gallant hearts to bl e ed.

"Of the Union I'm .a lover, but by all the skies above her, to perdition th e y may sh(}-ve her, for by jove, sir-, I'll secede."

Th e South. has bad her share of problems. She sustained herself with credit under the blight of slaV'ery, during · th.e ravages of' a great w.a.r, and during the tragedy of reconstruction. ~he South is to - da}: the most intensely A.merica.n portion . o£ the Republic. The South believes in old-time American religion ancL is . d-ominated by it. No modernism, no higher criticism. Dixie is for prohibition. A$ this · House knows, we depend largely on negro labor and al li the negroes take SatUL'<ia ~ fo.r "town da-y," and the saloons on • that day strip him of his week's-- earnings, leaving him in such a condition. that he does- not feel like work until Tuesday or Wednesday of the coming week. They spend ~ir money for drink, which should go to buy tools or provisions and for the payment of their debts. The white- South is again t the saloon, becau e it is a bad thing foil the white South, a.nil also because it decreases the negro's economiC! efficiency and increases the menace of his presence. Discussing. for a mrunent the cause of this steady progress of the prohibition march through the South, many things have-- contributed to brin"g it . about, , the moral sentiment of the people, economic reasons, the con v i c tion that i t is right , a nd added to this the compelling argu­ , ment t hat drink influences the negro and prepares him. to commit t he crime which the South- regards as the blackest of all crimes. Thi s Gov ernment, ever sentimental in. dealing with the Indian, prope.rly makes . it a crime to sell him whisky, but the negro , who is ra p idly ruined by rum, can still in some sections purcha s e it without restraint . and drin.k- it without interference. The less liquor the negro drinks the fewer unspeakable crimes he will commit and the fewer lynchings there will be. I think an undefiled womanhood is more worthy of our concern ; indeed, I :value a million. times more the purity and happiness of even one American woman than. I do the pro.sperity of all the br:eweries, distilleries, saloons, and blind tigers on the wide earth.

A negro preacher once announced the startling doctrine that "there is a great deal of human nature in man " and declaim as we may against the sudden and terrible executions of Judge Lynch, deplore it as we may-and we do deplore and condemn mob law and mob murder-yet many a red-blooded Anglo-Saxon is tolerant of that wild justice which decrees the immediate death of : the man who outrages the home . Home! That is the dearest word in the language, save the word "mother," and both must be protected. Our civilization is builded on the home, and the saloon is the home's worst enemy. You assail the home and the babe with . his dimpled fist and toothless gnms will fight you back. You attack the home and the mother with bar·e hands will fight you as fiercely as a tigress fights fm· her young. You assail the homes of the- country and · the decent manhood · of the land will come to the rescue, and the blood of the brave · will be freely shed ' in their defense. I prefer to stand for the home-- rather than stand for distillery or saloon . I prefer- to take my place among the defenders of the home rather than among the apologists of the rum makers and rum sellers. Oh, but the saloon helps business. Yes; it does help some kinds of business, ro be perfectly fair. I ' rode on a- train theother day- with a man whose-- business is helped by liquor. Hewas in the tombstone business. The saloon is the best friend · the undertaker has. It furnishes business for the criminat courts. But it greatly injures other- business. A short time ago, in a saloon town, I saw a finished product of the saloon. Heo was · drunk and hungry and had no money with which to buy breakfast. The- hotels and restaurants suffered by reason of his poverty. Through his crushed · hat a lock of his un ­ combed · haiu protruded. The hat business was suffering because · of the saloons. His- coat was out at the elbows, and the clothingst-ores-were denied a.eustomer by reason of'the · whiskyi:l'affic. His toes peeped through his shoes. Therefore tlie- shoe business was not being helped · by. the saloons. Oh. the saloons help business. "You: hm·t business by- prohibition agitation," say the liQuor · Said the hawk to the farmer, who winged him as he swooped dOwn on a brood of chich-,m , u Don't you see you are hurting business by shooting: around here with that old · gun?"

(' Don't you see- YO'll are hurting busi.ness? " said the r ed fox . to the- hound when he chased · him away from . a flock of geese. " You are simply l'uining · business,” the gray w o lf said when a pack of offensive and · noisy shepherd : dogs camped on his trail so persistently that he could not get within striking: distance ot · a bunch o:t sheep.

The · saloon is everywhere cordially disliked . Women will not visit one. More than 50 fraternal orders exclude liquor sellers from membership. Most of the · saloons, a b.u i ge-- part of the breweries, and many distilleries are owned by men with foreign names . Read a . list or license payers, and you will find . such names as Sandefur, Steinberg, Schaunberg; Diffenderfer, and. Hirschbaum. So I am not attacking · an American institution. I am attacking mainly a foreign enterprise.

Three men were once - seated at a table in a · cafe. They were discussing the- future of their boys. One said, "I ' am a lawyer, and I want my boy · to practice law. He can have my library and the- benefit of my reputation and clientage." The other• man said, " r am a physician, and I now have my son in a medical college. When he fin.ishes I shall form a partnership with hi'm and thus start him on his career . " The third man said, "Gentlemen, you are- right ; but I do , not want my boy to follow my · bus-iness or enter- into partnership with me. I am the proprietor of a saloon."

It is a business that is hated by the very men who engage in it. The only reason men engage in it is because the profits are large . And I have often. thought how unfair and unfortunate it is that the farmer who sweats in the sun. to . raise a bushel of wheat, something that is absolutely necessary for men to- have, can get in normal times only a dollar for the bushel of wheat, a very small profit, but a distiller can take that bushel of wheat and by a simple process and with small outlay of money or energy convert it into 3 gallons of poison which is by no means a necessity, but which will make the cars. seem to run both ways at the same time, and this poison which makes the cars perform these stunts sells readily for 15 cents a drink. A bushel of corn ordinarily sells for 75 cents; convert it into liquor that will make a man whip his wife and it will bring a dollar a quart. The law should intervene to right this gross injustice by prohibiting the manufacture and sale of such beverages. Liquor is responsible for another queer- discrtmination. A man and a dog will go into a saloon together perfectly sober; and in 20 minutes they will come out. The ma:n will be drunk; he- will stagger and fall in the · gutter and lie there - like a hog ; w hil e the dog will walk away like a gentleman. I object to an institution that works such a difference in 20 minutes between · a man and a dog.

But they say you can not make a · man sober by law. Not entirely, but law works wonders and makes :nen do many things theY t\o not want to tlo. Lnw k a great civilizer mula great pm: · ua<.le1·. It i · interesting to trace law to its birth. I imagine · it began in . U1is way: A giant in the pre ence of his fellows struck a weakling to the earth. Out of the giant's presence the friends of the weakling conferred together and agree(} to combine to protect each other from the assaults of the giant. · So they notified the giant that in future they would jointly puni h him if he injured without cau e any of their number. The runny would be more than a match for the giant. One of their number unaided was defenseless. I imagine the first crude larceny law was enacted in like fashion. A strong and vicious character by superior strength took from one of our rude ancestors his l!or e or his wolf-skin coat and the friends of the loser rea oneu like this: Unless we combine and punish this man and let others know that we will punish such offenses none of us are safe in our property. From these crude beginnings a splendid system of law has been' evolved, protecting the citizen in his person and his property. Legal suasiOn is stronger with the vicious than moral suasion. Law and order rule the universe and people should be made to respect the law yo ted. and usually they do re pect it. Lincoln aid: "Let reverence for the law be taught in the schools and colleges, be published from pulpits and proclaimed in legislative hou es, and enforced in the courts of justice. In short, let it become the political religion of the naticn." The law should prohibit wrong and uphold the right. Law, of course, will not enforce itself. You rnu t ba\e officers behind U1e law. You may go to a hardware store and purcha. e a wood saw, but that saw, no matter how bright and sharp it may be, will not cut your wood by itself. It is neces ary to have a man behind it. If you have no law against whi ky, it will certainly be sold, but if you have a law against it you will in time get officers who will enforce it.

The 'Ten Commandments are often violated, and yet God never did a greater kindness for humanity than when he gave us these commandments and ordered their ob ervnnce. Who would wipe the e blessed laws from the record, although they are broken by thousands every hour in the day? Who wants to go back to savagery? Laws prohibiting murder, ar on, burglary, larceny, pi tol carrying breach of the peace, and a ault and battery will not enforce themselves and are violated every day, and yet shall \\e turn back the dial of progress 4 000 years auu repeal the laws declaring these things to be offen es simply becnu e these statutes do not altogether prevent the commis ·ion of crime?

They say prohibition does not prohibit. It does . not annihi­ licen. e. late, but it does withhold legal sanction from a crime-producing traftic; it does seek to uphold right and to discourage wrong; it i · a bold step forward toward an ideal civilization, and not a cowardly standstill or a still more cowardly retreat. God give us men who go forward, men who do thing~, men who act, men who are willing to blaze out a pathway to higher and better things! Who says prohibition is a failure? The men who uo not vmnt it, the men who contribute large sums of money to defeat it, the men who violate the law under high license or no license, . e, the wine merchant, · the distiller, and the beer baron. The e disinterested witne es loudly proclaim the failure of the law. Who says prohibition does prohibit to a succe sful degree? The people who want it, the people wllo have tried it, who have lived under it and watched its operation, compared it with high license, and vote for it year after year because it reduces drunkenne s and crime. No one need expect a perfect y tern of law enforcement. Where there is prohibition whisky is shipped in in nail kegs, in coffins, in disguised packages, under false bills of lading, but it is under cover, unlabeled, and out of sight. It is outlawed, and hence less dangerous. The saloon is worse than the tiger or the bootlegger. It is bold, brazen, boastful, stamped with the tainted 0. K. of Federal, State, and municipal government. The tiger is apologetic, blind a self-confe ed public nuisance, and hence less harmful. An u'nlicensed grog shop compared to a licensed saloon is like a tieti-up blind puppy compare(} to an unchained mad bulldog. The solution of the liquor problem is attempted in three ways-local option. license, and prohibition. Local option is an t . t t It 1 8 11 It i t 1 attrac tve sys em o many.- · sount we · s ca c ly. allows a majority to say whether or not liquors shall be sold; I before. but here is the distinction: Local option applioo t? material questions 1s all right, but. npplleu to moral questions IS all wrong. No count~ has a right to vote to uo wrong, no brutal! majority has the right to vote away tb~ health, the peace, or ~e He aid: morals of Ule people. High hc.en~ IS going into partnership with wrong and crime, anc..l accepting n bribe to allow men to I poison their fellow men. .

. · t' · .1 .. 1 . t tl . . "' p. 1 'b' 1 t' ·

L 1cense IS a IIDiu suuem et o le "IOn~. 10 u bold chnllenge to fi~ht the wrong. License is a cowardly yieluing to expediency. Prohibition is a brave repudiation of outla\\Ty. If public sentiment indorses a glaring and outrages evil, then public sentiment should not prevail. I. If a thousand burglars form a majority in a \Yard or county and vote to legalize burglary, burglary should still be a felony and punishable as such. A law that sanctions wrong is a legislative crime. Duelling and smuggling and piracy were once popular, but they ·were not right. The law and enlightened conscience have made them disreputable.

In Maine prohibition has reduced the ratio of drinking. Kansas has had prohibition a long time and shows no disposition to go back to license. Years ago a legislative act made it unlawful to sell liquor in my town. It has not been entirely free of liquor, but no one would think of going back to saloons. Prohibition does prohibit. I can quote you by the hour the bought opinions of ministers, bu iness men, physicians, Congressmen, governors, Senators in support of this statement. The claims of the liquor men that more whisky is sold under prohibition is discounted by their frantic efforts to have license Now, let me call .some distinguished witnesses in support of prohibition, witne ·es whose characters are unimpeachable and whose means and opportunities for knowing the facts to which they testify are exceptionally good. l\Io t of them have passed away, and yet they are like "tho e dead but sceptered sovereigns who still rule our spirits from their urns."

, Senator Frye, of Maine: "Prohibition law a. wonderful success.” ."

Senator Hale: "Maine people believe in prohibition because every day they witness its good effect."

Senator Ingalls, of Kansas: "Drinking of intoxicants enormously decreased under prohibition." ·

Senator Plumb, of Kansas: " Great diminution in con tunption of liquor under prohihttion."

GoY. l\.Ia1·tin: "Nine-tenths less of drunkenness than under llcense." In Maine 49 per cent of heads of families own their own homes—nearly twice as many as in any other State or country . She has larger per capita interest-bearing accounts in savings banks than any other country in the world. She has llnu more than half a century of prohibition.

I quote from reports from counties in Kan a , in answer to the que tion, Does prohibition prohibit to a succe ~ · ful degree ' ?"