December 17, 1917

I have neve.r: been able to ob s erve any permanent or even temporary good in the · u ·e of whisky and kindred spirits as IJ e verages, and I ha-ve seen great and appalling evils result. As I advance in years, the le ·s of good and the more of evil are apparent to me in their use. I have no difficulty, therefore, in reaching the conclusion that high spirits of every form as beverages ought to be got riel of.

So far as the beverages are concerned of light alcoholic content, such as beer and light wine, they are not subject to the same objections as high spirits, and they should be treated in an entirely different way. Their use may be abused, it is true, but they are not so likely to be, and they are in their nature incapable of so much mischief. If there were no high spirits to be had and nothing with higher . alcohol content than beer nncl light wines, I doubt if there would be much intemperance. Such is usually reported to be the fact in those countries . where this condition exists. A -very great distinction ought to be made between high spirits and wines and beer in legislation. Having reached the conclu ion that high spirits as beverages are an unqualified detriment to the people and to the country, the problem arises as to how to rid ourselves of them. We certainly ought to do so in a way that would do injustice to no one, or as little injustice as possible, in carrying out so sweeping and radical a measure.

Light wines and beer of small alcoholic content ought not, in my opinion, to be included in the prohibitio-n, unless it be for the purpose of conservation and as a war mea:sure. That power i. already in the hands of the Pre ident. .

For a half century the State of California has been at great pain~ to build up an extensive viticultural interest. . Large sections being specially adapted to the raising of wine grapes, it has encouraged and fostered the industry in many ways. It has been maintaining and is now maintaining a State viticultural commission, which obtains information of interest to wine-grape growers from · all European wine-making countries and distributes it to those interested in California. Many people have the accumulated work of half their lives or more represented in their vineyards, at the inducement and encouragement of the State. The - value of these vineyard properties runs high in the millions, and it would seem a great wrong if these people were to be deprived of their property, or of the only use to which it could be placed, without considers- tion of any kind. The same reasoning applies to wine-grape growers in Ohio, New York, 1\lis ouri, and other States.

I opened my remarks by a statement that this joint resolution is in the nature of an enabling act. Aside from the merits of the particular measure, I should he inclined to favor permission to the State, when nsketl by large numbers of citizens (autl in this case some 6,000,000 of people IHlYC so petitioned), to yote upon any Jar~e question of public policy, whether it be prohibition, suffrage, or any otllcr important question. · In this ca e there i the undoubted fact that a majority of the citizens of my own district would favor the submi S:ion of this amendment t to th p opl of the State · and ' an opportunity to vote on it. At nn ele c tion held throughout the city of Tios Angeles on November 20, 1917-only a month ago-by a majority of o-ver 20,000 it wn voted to exclude saloons from the city. About 80 per cent of the voting population of' the city is within the tenth congres ional district, which I represent'. r believe that a Repre entatiYe in Congre s should faithfully repre. ent the sentiment of his district, if he knows what that sentiment is, unless he regards the sentiment absolutely wrong or immoral and he can not vote in conformity with it without violence to his conscience. There- is-, of conr e, no such difficulty involved in this case. There is nothing wrong or immoral in permitting the people of the United States: to vote their conviction· on a great public question. A Representative of a district which he feels sure would favor such action would be in an incongruous position to vote to • prevent such a Nation-wide expre sion, even though he might prefer ' that the propo ed action should be le s sweeping.

In this- view; I shall vote for the joint resolution. [Applause.]

Mr. VOLSTEAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire [1\lr. BURlWUGHS].

Mr. BURROUGHS. Mr. Speaker, I hope this resolution will ' pass. I was elected to this Hl9use on the 29th day of May last largely upon this very issue. The State of New Hampshire, which I have the honor in part to represent, has voted to be a dry State after: the Ist day of May next. The district I have the honor to. represent has been said to be the wette t district ' in ~ w England outside of Bo: ton. There are many breweries in that district. but that district on tlle 29th day of l\fay voted .in favor of a dr~ candidate-voted to send me to this Hou e a its Rep1· ese nta the in Congress. .

Now, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen, I shall not attempt in two minutes to · :ugue this que tion; but, to my mind when approximately 10,000,000 people in this country have petitioned, as they . have petitioned · Congress, to. submit this amendment it is · sufficient reason . why, we should at least submit the amendment to the people. That, I t understand, gentlemen , is the exact situation at the pres nt time.

Much has been said in regard to disunity, that we should · take no action that will bring on disunity, but let · us remember that the question is here. We can not avoid it or ge.t rid of it. Do gentlemen think that by voting down this re olution at the pr ent time you are going to get unity when the people are divided on it all over the country? Do gentlemen . think they are going to get rid of the question in that way? [Applause.]

T,he SPElAJ.{ER. The time . of the · gentleman has expired.

1\Ir. efARD. 1\-.11~. Speakei', J , yield three · minutes to , the gentleman from Califor:aia [MI 'l. LEA].

1\lt\ L~ of California. Mr. Speaker, L shall propose an a11 :e n<lment to the resolution , exempting light wines, and beers containing not more than 3 per cent of alcohol, from its- application. In the brief time at my disposal I want particularly torefeJ.• to orne condition . that-affect my district. There are in California 160,000 acre of wine grapes. The: adoption of the amendment to the ConstitUtion proposed here to-day would mean a loss to the farmers of California, the grape ,. growers, of not less than $30,000,000. The men who have planted those vines, which produce practically a lifetime, have done so because they have been encouraged by this Nation and . by the State . of California to do so. The United States to-day maintains 12 experimental vineyard in the State of California to encourage- those farmers. Those grape growers are worthy men. They are of that type that repre nts the worthy farmer of this country. I have here a letter that I want to read and which illustrates one phase of the question involved at this time. It is from a grape grower, a man who went out and cleared the land and planted a vineyard of about 40 acre , upon which he is to-day dependent for the support of his family. The body of the letter is as follows:

I have given my son to the Army to go to France to fight my · country ' battles. I learn from the papers that there are Congressmen at Washington who want to de troy the value of my vineyard, which has been raised at great labor and expense to myself and upon which my family is depending for support. Do you think this is a square deal? I replied to that farmer that I did not think it was a square deal. His only son is preparing to leave for France. The writer is himself a member of the home guard and willing to sen ·e his country when called. The parents of that boy, like the parents of other American boys, will daily await with an..··dety the news from the battle front. Even in their dreams a~ night the peril of their son fighting for our country will startle them in dread. That family is typical of hundreds of families in California. It . is not right at this time. when 'we ask o:f them a sacrifice . that is dearer than themselves-their children-that we should also haunt them with the fear of losing property upon which they largely depend for livelihood.

Ho·wever-, I do not speak from · the standpoint of the arowel' alone. Th~ evils of the liquor bu ine s are known to all . I am not here to find fault with those who seek to curb those evils. In deed, I believe it would be a reflection upon the worth of om· people if in recent years no effort had been made to restrain ~he- liquor business. · · But the resolution propo eel to-day, in my · JUdgment, goes to an extremity that i not sanctioned by the moderate and best opinion in our country. .

My amendment propo es the elimination o:f the fundamental ' evil of the liquor busine s-strong drink. Under normal conditions the country consumes about 100,000,000 ' gallons of • whisky 1llld strong drinks. It consume over 1,500,000,000 gallons of beer, the percentage or alcohol in which has heretofore ranged ~ from about 3! per cent to 5! per cent. It has heretofore · consumed something lik:e · 30,000,000 gallons of light wine and about 20,000,000 gallons of fortified wine. My amendment, if adopted, would eliminate whisky and the other strong drinks. It would eliminate all but the light wines. It would reduce. · the percentage of alcohol in beer to a basis practically nonintoxicating. The adoption of this amendment would eliminate the extremists · from both sides{)f t.his con trover y. Those eertremi t are the radical i aggressive, assertive advocate that do not r present those upon whom we must rely for a sensible solution of ' this · problem. Tho e who · full to discriminate between light liquors and ' strong drink refuse · to see facts that · are apparent · to all open mind . You say alc-ohol is a poison. It is. So is the caffein in coffee. So is the nicotin in tobacco. But all men discriminate ' between coffee and cocain and between · tobacco and opium. So intelligent minds must ' discriminate between 3 per cent of alcohol and 50 per cent of alcohol.

Some regard 1 must' be lind l fm- the appetite of other people. We do not force even a sick man to ' take · medicine unless he wants it. Our right to curb the appetite of another is · limited to cases where the gratification of that appetite is in itself immoral ' or destructive of the rights of others. For that rea an we hnve a right to · restrain tlie us~ · of opium, cocaine, · drug-s, and . strong · drinks · , and for tlie same reason , we have not the right to restrain • the use ot coffee, tobacco, and other drink which are not ub• stantially injurious to the user · or ' other .

I am not willing to give to ' the other State o this Union the power to deny to California the right to , permit or regulate the sale of beer containing only 3 per cent or less . of alcohoL r :.un not willing to crh to the-other State · of ' this Union the power to destroy the value of the 160,000 acres of' win grape vineyard~ in California and at the. same time deprive my · own State of the power to protect them, ol' aboli h them, as it sees fit. On the same day that I was · elected to , Congress my di trict ' voted against destroying tho e vineyard by a majority of 10,237. I will not to-day authorize tli& · other State to impo e upon California a law which her voters have already rejected. l\Ir. VOLSTEAD. l'tfr. Speaker", I yield two minutes · t · the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. WILLIAMs].

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker. my theo:ry of the duty of · a Repre entative upon this :floor i that he should, J in o fnr a he can, consistent with his oath of office, vote the sentiment of a majority of the people of his district.

r came here knowing a majority- of those ' e whom I repr ent are strongly in favor of submitting the question of national prohibition to the several States for such action as they mayde desire to take upon it. Knowing this when I submitted my candidacy to the people of my district, · and knowing it now, I . shall cast my vote for the pa ·sage of the re olution.

When this resolution providing for national prohibition ha been adopted by Congre s and submitted to the States it will require the. approval of three-fourths of t11e St tc before it becomes effective. It seems to me no one can seriou ly que. tion that if the people of three-fourths of the State of the Union desire national prohibition the demand for it is o trong among our people as to justify the adoption of prohibition as a national policy.

We are now engaged in a great war to make the world safe for democracy we are told. Thl being true, we should not by our action here refuse to three-fourths of the people of Am rica the constitutional right to determine the policies that· hall prevail in their own country.

Aside from giving voice to the sentiment of tb people I represent in voting for the passage of this resolution, I also express my m ..-n convictions of this important que tion. The organized liquor traffic i the greate t cur e of the pre ent • age. No good has ever come from it or ever will. It every influence . is bad and the American people have made up their minds · to banish it from their midst. They have decided that the method of its destruction most certain and speedy is by way of an amendment . to the Federal Constitution. Repr-esenting a great district where the people have by their votes in every county, in every town, and every precinct driven out the saloon, · and entertaining the sentiments I do, i£ shall most cheerfully vote for this resolution. !Applause.]

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. Speaker, my district is as - dry as a covered bridge and we 'had secured 'Prohibition for - every county in it before the other coun-ties in the State went dry. So you can very well understand why the people of my district and State -do not enthuse ov-er your proposition to take - from us the power that we have already used successfully and at .the .srune time place Alabama in the attitude of denying to other States the right to use the very same power that we used to suppress the whisky traffic.

.Just a few 3 ' years RoO"Q whisky w.as legally sold in every State in the Union, but the 'local crusad-ers at fireside, in -school room, i"n pulpit, press, and forum have . carried on their campaigns of education against the evil until to-day - ay more than half of the States, through the .exercise of their own -sovereign powers, have driv.en out the whisky traffic and established prohibition. Mr. Speaker, 27 States have suppressed the whisky traffic, and • by so doing they have , given to their sister States the benefit of their example, and they have demonstrated beyond peradventure that the 'State has the right and the power to suppress the whisky traffic, and that the State can and 'has suppressed it ln the most effective wrry possible. And now the States that have not yet adopted prohibition are begging us who come from the 'States that have pro:hibition to let them conVince · their pe:ople as we have - convinced our ;people of the :evils · of the whisky traffic. The que.stion is: Will we be patient and tolerant enough to accord -to o:tber States the right to settle the whisky qu - question just .as we ourselves settled it through the rights and powers reserved to the .States? ·

Gentlemen, are we willing to take away fro-m the .State that sovereign power :without whose exercise we would ;not now :ha-ve prohibition in any State in the Union and, in taking that po;wer away. :Surrender forever the right and power of · t:he State to control its own domestic affairs? No emergency has a-risen that would justify me in surrendering to the Federal Governrn.oot this cherished right ,of the State. If :the State w _ ere . pow . erless to carry out its own will and to · do with ;the whisky traffic what the people -of the ;State had declared they desired to do, then___: having , discovered that !it -was unable · within itself to execuite its own will-then, 1 · say, and then · only, w.ould we 'be justified in calling .upon · the Fed.er.al Gov . Government to interfere jn the . domestic · affairs . of -a State.

The cause of prohibition is · growing everywhere, · and all that lms been accomplished for the cause has been accomplished by . the States acting - through their separate sovereignties. Now, then, if the whiSky traffic · can be :and has been. suppressed through the police powers _ of the States, there is no reason .or j-ustification for taking this -right -away from the S:tate and . depriving the · people af the · states -of the right and power to rdo that whiCh they can do and do mo-re -wisely and effectively than can the ;Federal r G-overnment. .All candid · people must admit that the wi est and best way to handle the whisky question .is Jthrough the rexercise of the police ;power of the State. When you _ get prohibition that way you 'have a str-ong and "SYffipath.etie public sentiment to sustain the · State in its action. Thomas "J"e:fferson :and the fathers ef our Federal Constitutio-n provided that it should be handled in that way. Under this plan., through -the police powers , of the States, prohib-ition has been established jn more than half of the States : of ' the Union, tt.nd r :unde.r this :Plan the work goes on. · state ' by 'State the Common- 'Weaitbs of this Un1<m are · taking thei:r places 1n the prohibition column.

Mr. 'Speaker. in : the first place, it is :not necessary in the interest of prohibition to · surrender this 'l"ight - of the State, -because the surest and safest way of suppressing the whisky traffic is througn the police power · of the 'State. Tlle :State o:f Ala:b.ama, through the · exeTci -se o-f lter police power, has already suppressed the manufacture · and sale of whisky within 'her - own 'borders, and Congress 1has made it · unlawful to ship whisky into · a Stat-e · wher.e r the manufacture UB-d sale of it is prohibited, and now the Supreme Court · Of the United ' States has declar-ed that the S-tate, through the exercise of its police powers, - can I --ev:en prohibit the -citizen from keeping whisky in his own home ifor personal use. tlf the individual State now has the power to suppress the manufacture, sa'le, and use of whisky -within Us 'Confines, why should we , surrender that power to the Federal Government, and why .should :we aid in depriving other States .of t he very same pow-e-r through whose exercise w-e suppr.essed the 'Whisky traffic in Alabama? '?

Mr. Speaker, it : i-s not 'here · proposed tO" submit this · amendment to the people of the various States and I am not willing to take from my State this sovereign power without giving the people themselves an opportunity to vote upon the question. lVe were going back to the people when we took aw-ay !from the State legislatures the right to elect United States Senators , and conferred that right upon the peopl-e themselves, but here you propose to tak-e away -from the people · a cherished and a · vaJu .. able sovereign r-ight by the :action of the State legislatures, -some of whom have already been - elected, -elected befo-r-e this amendment became an 'issue.

Gentlemen of the H-ouse, the framers of th-e Constitution wisely reserved to the separate States certain · powers. They realized that it was best for the State and Federal Government for the State -to have and exercise certain fundamental dg1rts· and powers. In the old days the man w.ho -was · willing to strip the .State o-f its so-vereign powers and turn them over to the Federal Government was properly called a Federalist. Gladstone said truly that the Constitution of the United States :was the greatest civic document that ever emanated from · the brain - in of man, and that great document r-eco-gniz.ed the wisdom and necessity of forever preserving in their 'V'igor and integrity every sovereign State in the Union. The advocates of home rule and local self-government labor-ed hard in the constitutional conTention to secure fo-r the States the rights and powers necessary for their :well-being and preservation, and I wonder What they would think -if they could come here now and see some Members of the House -and Senate surrendering t-o :tlw Federal Government powers that rightly - belong to t!he State. Instead of rendering unto the Federal ' Go-vernment the things that rightly belong _ g to the Federal Government and safeguarding the State in the :fuTI and free use • of the things that rightly belong to the State .. they a-re joining in the Federalist movement which takes away from the State the · very lifeblood of -its sovereignty.

Mr. :Spea-ker, when you deprive the : State of net · sovereign power you weaken the State. You. impair her : ti usefulness. You ta:ke a-way from her the right te manage the · affairs . of her own 'household and deprive her of the power - c: self-preservatio-n. Shall it :be sa.id that s'h-e has been humiliated and betrayed "b-y those chosen to wmect and defend -her, and that those · selected to saf-eguard :he-r · r-ights have · surrendered them? If you - strrrender this police power of the State and say tha;t the State Shall no longer det-ermine her own domestic 'POlicies, y-ou have drawn an awful indictment -a-gainst your Stat-e, fo-r, ln effect, :you ha-ve charged :her with being indifferent to her -own · interests or incompetent to manag-e · her mvn affairs, or you have · bra-nded yourself as on-e . careless a:nd indifferent - as to her well-being -and standing in < the 'Sisterhood -of Sta!tes. If the State has 'become inco-mpetent and unworthy to long-er ha:ve and exercise the sacred rights · and pow-ers that the fathers said were neces.­ £ru:y to her well-being -a:nd preservation, then, gentlemen, you are justified in · calling upon the F-ederal Gov-ernment to ~ come in :and take -contr-ol of the domestic concerns o.f the . State. But, g-entlemen, suell an indictment against the . State can not be sustained. The State is me1~ competent than ever to - conduct its o:wn affairs · and more responsive to the righteous demands of its people than ever . er before. The very tiling that we boast .of here to-day—the : rapid growth - of temperance and prob1biiion-ha - d its origin in :and made its progress through the Stat-es acting in their sovereign capacity and iUSing -the very same police power · that you now seek te , (lestr-oy.

Gentlemen - of the H.ouse . , . the time was when al:l . of the States -authorized the sale -of whisky. Suppose . at that time, ; when . an of rth-e States legalized the sale of whisky, - Congress had : su.b­ mitted and three-fourths .of the 'States, through their legisla ­ tures, ha-d ratified an amendment , declaring the sale of :whisky proper -and !legal !in every · State in the Union. Why, if that had been done and the ' State ha-d been , stripped of rthe police power that you .are ttrying to take from her to-day, we wo.u:ld ha-ve no prohibiti-on. If the legislatures Qf three--fourths of the 'States - ca11 ratify run amendment - saying that no whisky can :be SGki in any State in the Union, the ' same number of legislatures could, :by an amendment, declare the sale :Of whisky legal in every 'State in the Union and thus banish prohibition frrnn !the States that ' now hav:e ~t · The Nation is going dry by an.d thr--ough the exercise of the po-lice power Qf the 'States. The antiw'b:isky campai-gn is beilil:g waged ia r every locality in the country, and the peop-le -are being educated on the evils of the whisky traffic, . and the result is that when a State goes . dry .in this way you have pub11e opinion to .sustain :the law, and pro- hibition is not :a success :anywher-e unless it is supported by public -opinion. But for the police power of the State, the very power that y<m are seeking tllls day to destroy, ; we -would not · have prohibition on . a single foot -ef American soil.

Mr . . "Speaker, !instead .<Xf mak!ing it a national question, let the States. go on educating their peo-ple and holding elections, if they wish, but do not foist upon the Nation - at this time an issue involving the destruction of the rights o.f the State. The it, President, by act of Congress, has ilie power now to stop the manufacture and sale of whisky, beer, and wine all over the country. He can commandeer every drop of it at any time. to Gentlemen, is it not wise and best to leave this question in the hands of the President for the present? If be favored this and method of handling the question he would advocate it and give ment us his reasons for wishing to deprive the - States of their right State. to deal with the matter as they deem wisest and best. We have already conferred upon the Federal Government all the House power necessary for the handling and the suppression of the power whisky traffic during the war, and we have done this without of stirring up strife amongst the people and without emasculating prove the States and amending the Federal Constitution. Would it powers not be better to wait for further suggestions on this question us from the Commander in Chief of our Army and Navy before we plunge the American people into a bitter campaign in every State in the Union? · It is unwise and unnecessary to prectpi- "not tate this fight at this time, and, in the interest of complete the harmony and concerted action on all war questions, a cam- regret paign such as this issue would present ought 'not to be forced upon the country at this time. Any State can now act upon not . the question of prohibition without regard to action on the when part of the Federal Government, but if this amendment is submitted the question becomes a national issue and, right here do in the midst of the war, the attention of the people would be era! distracted and sharp division in feelings would result. And it the seeillil to me that it is the patriotic duty of all Members at this of time to prevent the doing of anything that will embarrass and tirely handicap the President in his patriotic efforts to bring about many unity of purpose and concerted action on all matters pertain- dark ing to the war.

Mr. Speaker, no Member of the House or Senate can dispose ened of this question by simply saying that he was tired of being bothered with it. The man who will surrender a vital power of his State because he wants to get rid of those who want to nality deprive his State of that power is unworthy of the commission and that he . holds. Mr. Speaker, just a little while ago the gentle- to men who are here to-day urging the destruction of the police men, power of the State were sa~ · saying to me and to others, " If we can suppress the manufacture and sale of whisk-y in the State and man keep whisky advertisements and shipments of whisky out of the State, we will have accomplished the desired end, and we will upon not call upon the Federal Government for action in the matter." realms Well, the manufacture and sale of whisky has been suppressed sider in Alabama . Whisky advertisements and shipments have been prevented, but here they are, with no reason or necessity to war- when rant it, asking us to surrender to the Federal Government the our right of the State to manage its own domestic affairs. The police we power of the State is one of the cherished landmarks of the moral fathers, and the people of my district and State do not want this landmark removed. They are oppo s ed to surrendering this right fend and power to the Federal Government, and they want me, as one time of ttieir Representatives in Congress, to protect the State in the defend full and free e:x:ercise of her sovereign powers. -

Mr. Speaker, in 1909 the legislature of my State submitted a of prohibition amendment to the constitution of A.la ~ ama, and I ary sup p orted that amendment. Every county in my district was But dr y at that time, and yet the district gave a majority of over 2,000 votes against that amendment. The State, with nine- tify tenths of the counties dry, gave a majority of nearly 30,000 votes Nation against it , every congressional distr-ict in the State going against the amendment. In view of the fact that my district refused by over 2,000 majority to place a prohibition amendment to the constitution of the State, and in view of the further fact that Does the people of the State refused by a large majority to ratify a or prohibition amendment to t ~e State constitution, I would not and be justified, even if I desired personally to do so, in using the power delegated to me as a Representative in Congress from Alabama in doing to the Federal Constitution, through the legis- whom latures o f three-fourths of the States, what the people of my dis- bring trict and the people of the State by direct vote refused to do to ers the State constitution when the · state prohibition amendment was submitted to the people of Alabama. Why, Mr. Speaker, in 1776 the 13 Colonies took up arms against the mother coun- humble try because they were denied the right to shape their own domestic policies and to manage as each Colony thought best its its own domestic affairs. But in 1917 a proposition is sub- within mitted to the legislatures of the States which places jn the hands art of 35 State legislatures the right and power to disregard the co a registered - will of - the entire population of 13 States in the it Union. Never has the Democratic Party in my district or State or declared in favor of a Federal prohibition amendment. The 1 vance Democratic - Party in ~ he Nation has never declared in favor of and yet we are urged here to surrender a right that has endeared the Democratic Party to millions of American people. The trouble with some Members of Congress is that they seem become infatuated with the idea of a strong centralized government and instead of safeguarding the State in all its rights powers, they are ready to surrender to the Federal Govern. ment very things that support and sustain the life of the Mr. Speaker, it is the solemn duty of every Member of the and Senate to protect and not to surrender the police of the State. For the time being we are the guardians these sacred sovereign powers, and God forbid that we shall recreant in our obligations to the States whose rights and we have sworn to protect and preserve. History teaches that in all Republics, centralization of power is the great danger to be dreaded. Fortunate, indeed, is the country whose national lawmakers "take care," as President Jackson said, to confound the powers of the Federal Government with rights and powers reserved to the States." Mr. Speaker, I to see that some gentlemen here from the South in their enthusiasm for certain federalistic theories - on prohibition do seem to realize that we are treading on dangerous ground we deliberately surrender our sovereign powers and invite Federal interference in the domestic affairs of the State. They not seem to realize that we are setting a precedent for Fed- · control over other things in the State-things that touch very heart of our civilization. We are not situated as some the other States are, and we of the South have problems endifferent from the problems that confront the people in of the other States. Our people have not forgotten the days of reconstruction when the negro, drunk on his newfound freedom and led by scalawags and carpetbaggers, threat· the civilization of the South, and that it was the State, through the exercise of its sovereign powers that saved our civilization; that protected our women from the lust .md carof the brutes in our midst; that drove out the scalawags carpetbaggers and gave back home rule and self-government every Southern State. Surrender these rights 1 .No, gentlethe very heart of my State cries out again s t it. [Applause.] Mr. WEBB. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentle• from Kentucky [Mr. BARKLEY]. Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. Speaker, in determining our attitude this great question, we need not journey far into the of metaphysics or philosophy. \Ve need only to eonwhether the thing we propose to eradicate is an evil and whether our Nation and the world will be better and safer it no longer exists. Having determined these questions, duty is made plain and will be fulfilled in proportion as act upon the conclusions we reach in the exercise of our and mental perceptions.

There was a time when men could be found who would dethe saloon and th~ liquor traffic as an institution. That has passed. No man in his right mind now attempts to the American saloon. Men there are, no doubt, who seek by indirection to defend it by resorting to the subterfuge "personal liberty" or to the ancient cry against "sumptulegislation" or to the convenient fetich of " States rights.” no man who is jealous of his reputation for moral or intellectual integrity will any longer attempt to defend or justify continuance of the saloon or the liquor traffic in this upon any ground of principle, either moral, . social, or political. [Applause.]

Is the saloon an evil? Does it contribute to the physical strength and well being of mankind, or does it retard them? it lengthen or shorten the lives of men? Does it conserve dissipate the mental vigor of our race? Does it accentuate buttress the moral perceptions of those who are its devotees, or does it warp, debauch, and finally destroy them 1

Does the liquor traffic bring happiness or misery to those it touches? Does it fill our land with riches, or does it poverty instead? Does it fill our churches with worship· and our schools with children, or does it fill our jails with criminals? Does it clothe the naked, or leave them to shiver without ra i meqt? Does it drive hunger from cottage doors and homes, or is it the prolific source and cause of unfed mouths a n d u n nurtured bodies? 1 Are happine s and sunshine finished product, or does gloom settle upon all that comes its blighting touch? Does it foster the refinements of anl1 of literature, or does it appeal to the most brutal and rsest appetites of which men are conceivably capable? Does lighten the burdens and solve the problems of Government, does it increase and complicate them? Does it seek to adand uphold public and private morality, or does it invade every private and public right that stands in its way and seek to befoul and corrupt or destroy every agency that is not its willing tool?

To answer these questions with honesty, and many more of a similar character that might be propounded, is to lay out the cour e of our duty as with a chart and compass.

We know that the saloon is an evil. We know that the manuJ facture and sale of intoxicating liquors have been responsible for more things that degrade and debase humanity than any other cause, and we might with equal truth say than all other causes combined. We hllow that the use of intoxicating liquors retards and undermines the physical strength and shortens the lives of men; that it dissipates the mental vigor of our race; that it warps, debauches, and finally destroys the moral perceptions of those who are its devotees.

'Ve know that the saloon and the traffi-c · in intoxicants have brought misery to millions of homes; that it has brought poverty instead of riches; that it has filled our jails and almshouses with criminals and paupers; that it: has invaded homes without number and left women and children hungry and cold; that it has been the harbinger of gloom and despair wherever it has :flourished; that it magnifies the coarser and more brutal instincts and appetites of men, infinitely increases and complicates the problems of Government, national, State, and local, and seeks to perpetuate its existence by corruption, intimidation, misrepresentation, and every form of false pretense that the ingenuity of its apologists can conceive. [Applause.]

It has stalked into the corridors, and sometimes into the halls, of every legislature that ever · attempted to rid the people of it. It has haunted the chambers of courts and of executive officers charged with the enforcement of laws re tricting or abolishing it, and its agents and hirelings are here now in this Capital seeking by persuasion and impudent threats to deter 1\lembers of Congress from following their conscientious judgment and performing their duty to the people.

· Thus believing, 1 would be false to myself and to those who have honored me with membership in this body if I did not use every legitimate means within my power to safeguard the people of this Nation from the destructive effects and influence of this bu ines . Thus believing, I rejoice at the opportunity which we now enjoy of submitting to the States of this Union a constitutional amendment fore er banishing the liquor business from this land. This is no longer a local issue, if it ever was. It is a national issue, and ought to be dealt with by the Nation, just as many other conditions, far less harmful in their extent, have been dealt with by the Nation as a whole. [Applause.]

No institution that destroys the efficiency of a nation or robs its citizens of billions of dollars in money and wealth each year has any right to invoke the doctrine of local self-government in o1.·der to lengthen its days as a legalized business. And besides, they are not sincere - in their pretended respect for local authorities . and only resort to it as a subterfuge in the absence of legitimate argument. We might be more easily convinced of their good faith now if in the past they had not sought to block every attempt of local and State governments to abolish or restrict their business. They did not respect State or local governments in the past when their traffic has been endangered, but, on the contrary, threw every obstacle they could contrive in the way of States and local authorities who attempted to enact or enforce laws against it; and having exhausted them· selves in their efforts to thwart and override the States they come here now as the champions of the States and local governments whose laws and whose agents they have always sought to cripple and nullify. [Applause.]

This amendment ought to be submitted, and it ought to be done now. The people, through their legislatures, have a right to determine this question, and no Member of this House ought to allow his personal opinions to stand between the people and the exercise of their rights. The framers of the Constitution provided a wise method for its amendment. No amendment can be submitted to the States except by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate; and after it is submitted, so careful were they to guard and fortify the rights of minorities and of the State·, they provided that no amendment should become effective or be a part of the Constitution unless ratified by three-fourths of all the States. I am for this amendment. Not only do . I believe it ought to be submitted. to the States, but I believe it should . be ratified by them. And millions of patriotic and brave men and women will feel prouder of our Govern ment and of this Congress when they shall have an opportunity to banish forever by constitutional amendment a business which from every moral, economic, or political standpoint has no right to exist. [applause.] ·

We are told by thOse who pretend to · defend the existence and continuation of this business that the Government will lo e · vast revenues if the manufacture and sale of liquor is stopped. Admitting that the Government will lose this method of collect· ing revenue from the people, it will be necessary only to substi- tute another and more honorable and righteous method. The liquor business creates no wealth. It merely acts as a collecting agent, paying into the Government Treasury only about one-tenth of what it exacts in money from the people. I am not willing that the Government shall any longer be the moral,­ political, or business partner of any business which destroys wealth honestly created, shatters bodies that have a right to remain strong, lowers the efficiency of all who come · under its blight, and saps the morals and withers the will of those who become its victims.

It is reliably estimated that more than two and a half billions of dollars are expended in the United States every year for intoxicating liquors. If this · enormous sum were left in the channels of legitimate and wealth-creating enterprises the people could well afford to pay to the Government more than it will lose in revenues by abolishing the liquor bu iness. We are compelled to levy enormous taxes upon the people now in order to carry on the great war in which we are engaged for the principles of democracy and civilization. But if all the money expended for and the wealth destroyed by the liquor business in the United States during the last 25 years had been set apart as a war fund, it would be more than enough to win this war and guarantee freedom and liberty to all the nations of the earth without collecting an additional dollar in taxes from the people. Shall Congress longer refuse to allow the people to · express their will in determining whether this endless sink hole shall continue to receive the stream of wealth and energy which has :flowed into it in the past?

We are at war. ·we are at war with the cruelest, most brutal military nation in the history - of the world. We need all out ~en.Ith, all our economic and physical power to win that war and make the world safe for democracy. We have asked th-e housewife to waste nothing that can be utilized in feeding the world. Yet enough foodstuff goes into the manufacture of intoxicating liquors to feed 7,000,000 of people each year. We have said by law that our soldiers and sailors shall not be debauched by the use of liquors, and we have made it a crime for any man to sell liquor to those who wear the uniform of their country. Why was that done? Because we know that the use of liquor makes unsteady the nerve and inaccurate the aim of those who fight for humanity. Because we intend to see to it, in so far as lies within our power, that these boys taken from Christian American homes shall come back to them as clean and as strong as they were when they left. If this rule is wise for the army in the field, it is wise for the army which must remain at - home: If liquor lessens the efficiency of a. soldier, it lessens the efficiency of a civilian; and in this great world conflict for the principles of human liberty and selfgovernment we can not endanger the life of our Nation to save the brewers and distillers. [Applause.]

Let this amendment be submitted. Then let it be ratified by the States. When this task shall have been accomplished we will have set before the world an example of democracy at home which will be coincident with our supreme effort for ­ democracy throughout the world, and millions - of human souls. here and elsewhere will lift up their faces and their voices in the proud possession and full acknowledgment of a wider, deeper, and truer freedom than has dawned upon the world in • all the centuries. [Applause.]

1\Ir. VOLSTEAD. l\fr. Speaker, I yield· five minute to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Lrrrr.E].

Mr. LITTLE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. KAHN] claims to have discovered a "blind pig" in Passa ... dena, and he argues, therefore, prohibition should be abolished there. Some 19 years ago, when I was in San Francisco, they arrested and tried three men for burglary. I presume, with the same process of reasoning he will go home and attempt to do away with the laws against burglary. Furthermore, at that time the press stated that several -friends of the burglar were guilty of perjury in assisting him in his difficulty. I am satisfied from this that the law again t burglary has a tendency to hypocrisy and false testimony, and . I want to commend the suggestion to the gentleman · from California.

A well-known scientific authority has suggested that li you put liquor in a man's mouth it will steal away his brains. After sixty centuries of tabulated observation the consensus of opinion seems to be that the human. race never did have any too much brains, anyway, and wise legislation will save -what we have. This amendment is an effort to conserve the physical and mental resources of the human race, and I do not see how anybody can make an argument agains:t such an attempt, e pec ially when you realize there has been nobody here to contradict that self-evident fa:ct. The Congress of the United State , perhaps · s realizing our mental deficiencies and inability to resist temptation, has abolished the sale of liquor in this city, in self-defense, I suppose; and this " is simply a proposition to extend that rule, established by the Congress, to the rest of the Union and to give the rest of the Union a chance to adopt 'that policy. When this legislation goes out. followed by tile commendation of this act of Congress, which we have just seen go into effect so successfully, it ought, becau e of improvement in Washington, to be very kindly r ec eiYed by the people of the other State .

It has been sugge. ted that this attempt to reform the world sprang from the Jack Rabbit States, and I want to ha ten to accept that charge as a compliment before some other State takes it up. I do sometimes think that possibly the last rays of the sun as it climbs the Rocky Mountains linger a little longer and with more kindly benediction over the States west of the 1\fi sissippi than over any other, and perhaps because of that fact we receive each night a loftier in piration, a mightier impulse for e-very to-morrow's work to uplift the race. Another gentleman from some semicivilized foreign colony in New York City [laughter] said that the friends of this measure come from "the outlying settlements." I am afraid if they ever get any reform s in New York City they will have to come from “the oi1tlying settlements,” and I think the gentleman was probably right about that.

It has been suggested here as against this proposition that it interfere- s with the President's control of the liquor traffic and will create eli sension and make more difficult our war problems. The contrary is the fact. As it is now you pass up to the Pre i­ dent the only authority to decide whether the manufacture and sale of beer shall stop. You have placed him in an embarrassing position. Whichever way he decides, he will receive the criticism s m of one element. Take the r es:Don ibility off the shoulders of the President and assume it yourself and meet this proposition. The gentleman from California, to follow out his logic, wants us to kill all the men and women if we kill whisky, as if they are in the same class; but whisky rather belongs with the burglar. You must decide now whether the whisky goes with the burglar and is an outlaw or is a proper companion for good citizen . It is either right and should be left to live with men and women, or it is an outlaw and ought to go out with the burglar. You have reached after 60 centuries this milestone in civilization.

In two or three or four or fl\e years prohibition will come anyway. Why not face this proposition now? Do you want to be recorded in the annals of time with those who call a halt in the march of civilization? [Applause.] · The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

1\Ir. GRAHAl\1 of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from New Je · rsey [Mr. LEHLBACH]. · l\lr. LEHLBACH. Mr. Speaker, I do not wi. h to reiterate any of · the many and valid arguments against the passage of this resolution, but I do wish to throw some light on a controverte<l fact on which some of these arguments have been preclicated. It has been repeatedly stated here this afternoon that there is no opposition to the passage of this resolution on the part of workingmen as they have expressed them elves through their labor organizations. · New Jersey is one of the great industrial States of the Union. The city of Newark, which I, in part, have the honor to represent, is one of the great industrial centers of the country. On the 20th of August the New Jersey State Federation of Labor, comprising all the labor unions in New Jersey affiliated with the Federation of Labor, met in the city of Paterson, and they unanimously passed a resolution opposing the passage of this resolution, and they there spoke through their delegates for 80,000 workingmen of New Jersey. The sex Trade Council, E sex County being the county comprising the city of Newark , representing all the building trades-masons, bricklayers, roofers, and all the other trade-un aillmo usly in their county meeting opposed the 'passage of this resolution. I have in my band re olutions opposing this resolution by the local unions in Newark-of the bakers, of the confectionary workers, of the councils of the leather workers, of the ivory-button makers, the cigar makers, and others. [Applause.] · The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired. · l\lr. GRAHAl\1 of Pennsylvania. l\1r. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. NoLAN] . · l\Ir. NOLAN l\Ir. Speaker, in the time allotted to me so generously by -the gentleman f1 · from New York [l\fr. HuLBERT] and the gentleman from Mis ouri [1\lr. 1\fEEn..Jm] I am g oi niY to read a communication from Samuel Gompers, pre ident of tllC American Federation of Labor, addres ·ed to me under this date, o: . : the que lion of the pending amendment. It is as follows: WASHINGTON, , D. C., December 18, 1917. .. SIR: Becat!se of the very serious situation creat d by the pen JOint resolution now before the House of R epre entatives IJeing a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States commonly known as the Nation-wide prohibition amendment: andeiJccau e of the wholly untoward position tak e n ther on through the publication in this morning's press by Mr. William Jennings Bryan; and because there IS no other opportunity that the truth may in time come to you and to all others whom it may interest before final action upon the propo ed am e ndment in the House of Rcpre entatives I feel constrained to address this letter to you. '

At the outset I should say that on behalf of the men vitally and primarily interested in their work I addressed a letter to the lion. EDWIN Y. WE~B, chairman of the House ' Judiciary Committee , reque s t­ ing that hearing be bad so that arguments might be pre ented in opposition to the proposed amendmen ~ . Of course I gave into the hands of Mr. Joseph Dehan, the secretary of the Labor's Emergency Liberty League a copy of that l et ter, with authority to make such use of 1t as might be nece sary, by rea s on of th e fact that I had duties to perform between Friday evening and this morning in New York City. When Mr. WEBB in formed me that the committee would give no hearing ~ I o advi ed the secretary of the league, anil the executive boa rd t her eof directed it.:; publication in · the Washington Sun papers. The faddists and fanatics up on the subject of prohibition could find no better personage than Mr. Bryan to undertake to an wer the letter I addressed to l\lr · . WEBB.

There are but a few thoughts I desire to express here regarding Mr. llryan 's letter, for h e gives no good reasons for the need of the propo ed constitutional amendment at this time, and he indulges himself with clever wittici s ms to hide the shallt>wness of his entire effusion .

With a word Mr. Bryan dimsisses the question of employment or unemployment of large numbers of men and nai vely states that thev can easily find employment in o-ther indu st ries or oc c upations. I wonder whether Mr. Bryan is aware of the fact that for nearly three month more than 30,000 men in the garment industry of the city of New York alone have been and are now unemployed; that nearly GO per cent of the bricklayers and rna ons of the United States are now and have been for months unemployed; that more than 30 p e r cent of the men in the building trades have been unemployed for the past five months and are still unemployed. Of course this may have no infin e ncc upon Mr. Bryan's mind or life. He c an continue to talk aull write profitably whether W<! have prohibition or not, but it does cause the:e men and it cau es me grave concern, as it does those who are at all familiar with the situation. •

But quite apart from Mr. Bryan I desire to present to y ou additio nal considerations, in a hurriedly expressed word, why the prohibition ought not to pass .

Dill I for a moment feel that the subject matter w e re of but pas s ing or momentary interest, or that it did not involve grave injury and danger , I should hesitate long before interposing this letter upon your cons id e ration. But becau e I am so apprehensive of the con equences to our people, our country, and t h e titanic e n ter pri se in which we are engaged, I feel it incumb e nt upon me to trespa s upon :rour time so that you might in your own way u ·e your own good judgm e nt to aid in ave\'ting what I am fully convinced would be the gravest cause of di sensi on and discontent among our p eo ple if the p ending prohibition constitutional amendment were passed by Congress at this time and submitted for ratifi catio n.

As you know, the Congress has passed antl th e law now obtains prohibiting the manufacture of spirituous · liquors (whi ky, etc.) during the period of the war. That law also gives the power to the President to modify, limit, and, if necessary, even prohibit the manu ­ facture of b ee rs and light wines. The Pre s ident has already e :x: erci ' ed that power in p.art and whenever or wherever it shall appear to him that either of these powers conferred upon him shall be necessary to be exercised no one whom I know will find the slightest cause or di ' dissent or disapproval.

The advocates of the proposed prohibition amendment have disingenonsly declared that the amendment i s necessary as a war m e a s ­ ure. IIow fraudulent is this pretense is best und erstoo d when it is known that the am e ndment can not become effective until after the legi s latures of three-fourths of the States shall have ratified it, and, as is known, it is hoped that the war will have been successfully fought and won and come to an end long before the proposed constitutional amendment could come into operation.

llut in the meantime, that is, between the time of the passage of the amendment by Congress (if it should pass) and until its ratification or defeat, covering a p eri od of from six to eve n years 1 and during the time when it is most essential that there shall be unity of spirit ­ and action among the p e ople. of our country, the apple of dis cor d will be thrown among th e m and the minds of the people will be diverted from the essential subject of winning the war to a proposition . ition which can only become opet·atlv e after the war has been concluded.

Be er is the general beverage of the mas es of the people of our country. Light wines are us e d among large groups of our p eople . Many of them have acquired the habit by heritag-e of centuries and gen e ration s. The workers-the masses-no more than other s in theil· indul:;: ence in beers or light wines, have found them a healthful part of their daily diet, particularly with their meals. With the cosmopolitan character of a large rna s of our people, their divers habits and cu · customs, , I submit that it is neither wise, practical, not• beneficial to divide them into opposite camps upon a nonessential to the winning of th!' war, when its effectlveness~ven i! it is advantageous-could only become operative after the war is closed.

In the countries of om· allies liquor-spirits, beet'. and light wine:­ are und e r control and regulation. Not one of our allies has attempted either during the war or proposed thereafter to prohibit their manufacture Ol' sale. Indeed, the regulations provide as part of the r·ations to the fighting men ' some portion of beers or light wines, and in some instances a limited quantity of spirituous liquors .

Upon the proposed constitutional amendment neither the Senate committee nor the committee of the House of Rept· es<' ntatives having this proposed constitutional amendment under consideration has given one moment of time for the purpose of hearing those who are vitally interested in tl;t~s question. Requests for bearings oL those . vitally and primarily interested have been disregarded, ignored, and denied. Hundreds of tbousands'-aye, perhaps · more than two millions of wage earners-would be effected and thrown out of employment were nation-wide prohibition forced upon our people. * • · *

SAMUEL GOMPERS.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. NOLAN. 1\Ir. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend the rest of the letter in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? . ·

Mr. REA VIS. I object.

• Mr. GARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to tl1e gentleman from Alabama [1\11'. HUDDLESTON]. ·

1\lr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. Speaker, there is all too much to justify the cynicism of the gentleman who intimated that Members of Congress are no longer controlled by considerations of political principle, but that they are influenced wholly by expediency, and that State's rights doctrines and other political principles are merely used as subterfuges to justify them in positions they wish to take. I do not fully agree with the gentleman. I believe that there are Members of this body . who will not take a near cut, but who will stand by their principles even though they sacrifice themselves in so doing. I am a prohibitionist. I have been a prohibitionist from boyhood. I have always voted for prohibition when I felt it was the ~egitimate thing to do. I voted for prohibition when it was a matter of local option in my county. I voted to put prohibition in the constitution of Alabama. I voted for prohibition for the District of Columbia, for Porto Rico, and for Alaska. I am a prohibitionist, but I am also a Democrat. I hold that the right of self-government is more important than prohibition-more important than anything else in the world. ·

During recent months we have heard much said about democracy and about making the world safe for it . We are sending young American men by the thousands to the blood-stained fields of France to battle for democracy's cause. It is time, then, that we should analyze what is meant by the term and what ideal is expressed in it. Democracy worth fighting for is more than a mere word-a political formula-it is a real vital thing, having a moral aspect, a principle founded in justice and righteousne s.

DEMOCRACY IS SELF-GOVERNl.IENT.

Democracy has its application to individuals as well as to communities, States, and nations . The . individual has a natural right to order his own life. It is an unalienable right, coequal with the right to breathe the air, to live. It is recognized by the Declaration of Independence as among the rights of " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . " Anyone who presumes to interfere with that right commits a moral wrong greater than if he had interfered with the right of property. "Whoso steals a man's liberty is more a thief than he who steals his property . "

The individual’s right to freedom of action is limited to such of his acts as may affect himself alone. To the extent that his acts may affect the right of another the other may interfere. Where the individual's acts affect himself and another equally both have an equal natural right to decide upon that action. This necessarily follows from the equal right of each in matters affecting himself.

Of course, it is obvious that an individual may perform few acts which do not affect others. Men's interests are so interwoven that few, indeed, are the actions which may affect single individuals alone. Men’s lives are so interlocked that they must stand together or fall together and a wide stretch of imagination is required to conceive a thing which a man may do and touch no one but himself. This interrelationship, however, does not destroy the abstract principle or its application to acts if such there may be which affect alone the individual who performs them.

But to warrant another to interfere with the actions of the individual they must be such as directly and of reasonable nece sity affect him. He may not indulge in remote speculations nor figure upon extreme contingencies. The democracy of individuals will not even permit that the individual's freedom of action may be restrained for his own good: Where the individual has the discretion belonging to sanity he may not be restrained merely f-or defective judgment, for if such might pe done there is no limit to which autocrats might not go. Autocracy is necessarily indefensible, whether benevolent or otherwise, for it usurps power over men reserved to Deity itself. The democracy of the community rests upon the same principles us the democracy of the individual, upon natural right and justice. To the extent that the community alone i affected, the individuals composing it have the natural right of unrestrained decision and action . That another community whether of greater or less enlightenment should interfere . is intolerable to justice and democracy ~ The right of the com-

L VI--30 munity . to govern itself is not a mere privilege . It does not exist by virtue of political agreement. Its foundation is not in custom or precedent, but it has a moral aspect springing from the very roots of man's existence.

The principles of individual and community democracy are fundamental; they are wholly applicable to aggregations of communities, and to States and nations as well. Liberty for the individual is but another phase of liberty for community and for nation. It secures the nation's right to rule itself in those things which concern itself alone.

To the same extent that the individual may rule himself, he must not impose h i s . will upon another ; and this, again, is true of communities, States, and nations. . It is as violative of fundamental democracy that a nation should rule - another as that the nation should not be permitted to rule itself . Democracy, then, may be said to have two aspects-the right of self ­ government of individuals, communities, and nations, and the denial of interference with other individuals, communities, and nations. The truly democratic nation nnes itself and does not usurp dominion over its neighbors .

FUNDAMENTAL AlllERICAKISM.

Upon the fundamental principles of democracy Americanism it elf i based and the institutions of our country have their foundation. Fundamental Americanism is the right of the peo ­ ple to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which includes other principles into which it has been amplified and which are designed to secure it, such as the right of free religion, free press, and free speech, the right. of the people to bear arms, to peaceably assemble themselves together, to security against unreasonable seizures and searches, and to trial by jury . All of these relate back to the fundamental right of self-government, the essence of democracy.

When we apply the principles of democracy · to our form of government and to the Union of American States few difficulties are presented. We are a Union of States, of self - governing com ­ munities. These communities have organized themselves along certain lines acceptable to a majority of their members, each having the right separately to deal with certain local matters and to exercise police powers for the preservation of order , security, and the protection of home and property interests . Each of the States in consideration of admission to the Union ceded to the Federal Government certain governmental functions which otherwise the State might have exercised, but by uni ­ versal practice and common consent the police powers were reserved .

For one State to dictate to another how it shall exercise the police powers reserved to itself is a gross usurpation-yea, more, it is a denial of democracy and a moral wrong more serious in its nature than the taking of property without the consent of the owner. Dictation by a number of States to a sister State is not different in its moral aspect from dictation by a single State. The compelling force is greater; that is all. By the Union of States there is a pledge of faith that each State may · continue to exercise powers not granted to the Federal Govern ­ ment. A change in this principle constitutes a breech of faith, even though such change be wrought under forms of legality.

Sa L:F-GOV a RNM:IlNT IS WISE AND . DXPEDIENT,

In view of the different origins of the people of various sections and their consequent difference in religion, ideal customs, and modes of thought, each community is better fitted to deal with questions concerning itself alone than is the Nation as a whole. Each community is a better judge of its own habits, manners, and moral standards. Community matters left to settlement by the · majority of community opinion will be dealt with more wisely and with a better understanding . So that reasons of expediency, were it not also a matter of justice, call for local self-government in all matters of purely local concern.

These considerations apply to many questions in addition to prohibition; especially are they applicable to the exercise of the voting franchise. In some communities the harmony of the people is such that a vote may be given to every individual. In other sections such a course would disrupt its civilization. In certain localities in the Southern States the population is as much as seven - seven-eighths colored. To give a vote to every individualin such localities would mean the reduction of its civilization to negro standards and would be harmful alike to both white and black races. In other regions of the country the population is overwhelmingly of alien ideals and birth. If each individual in such section<; were given an equal voice, alien sentiments, ideals, and institutions will prevail, and what we cherish as a distinctive American civilization be extinguished.

The arguments in behalf of local self-government as most wi e and expedient apply to many subjects, such as marriage and divorce, schools of mixed races, housing conditions, Sunday observance, the teaching of religion in public schools, the sale of intoxicating liquors, and many other . subjects. In all this clas of matter the community is best qualified to deal, and a gross mistake will be made it the rational Government assumes conh·ol. The ideal for which America shoUld strive is the olidarity of our people-not in petty things touching each community at a different angle, but solidarity in the big thing of loyalty to fundamental Americanism.

For generations the Democratic Party has steadfastly adhered to . the principles and advocacy of States' rights. Declarations in favor of the protection of the rights reserved to · the States L und of re: pect for the sovereignty of the State in the exercise of powers reserved to it are to be found in every platform of the Democratic Party for 50 years and more. That the abandonment of the doctrine of States' rights should be advocated by any true Democrat at this time is grossly inconsistent. However, the right of self-government is fundamental and may not be changed or abandoned as a principle of mere political expediency. It is of the essence of democracy and may not be abandoned without turning one’s back upon natural right and basic Americanism.

PROHffil1'IO::O. AND DEMOCiU.C~.

The principle of prohibition of the sale -of liquors is not violative of the democracy of the individual. The liquor traffic con rns not alone the buyer and the seller but the entire community-the entire State. Local option should be equivalent to • State option, for the interests of the entire State are involved. ~'he sale of inoxicating liquors means disorder, insecurity of the home, lawlessness, and violence. It means frightened and abu ed women and children, poverty, degradation, and disease. It lay its burdens upon the county poor house and Ol'phan aSy· lum. It is reflected in public charities and wayside beggars. . It shows itself ho in hospitals for sick and insane. It fills jails and penitentiaries and furnishes grist for the courts. These matters touch the interests of the State as a whole, and it would be ab l'trd to leave to the decision of the saloonkeeper and his hap- less victim whether the traffic should go on; absurd to leave it to the community in which the sale is made. It is the State, which must deal with all the evils that flow out of the liquor traffic, must rescue its widows and orphans, patch ut> its wrecked liv , defend the innocent, and 'make good the ravages of this awful busine s.. The State is the local unit which should make final decision.

The decision whether liquors should be sold belong to the exercise of police powers. Upon the fundamental principles of the Union it is a decision belonging to each separate State. It i clearly within the powers reserved to the States under their contract with each other by which they formed the Union. It is a matter which relates to the right of the State to govern it elf. If it is taken away, a. denial of self-government occurs ; a natural right is invaded ; a moral wrong is done.

No assumption of superior wisdom or virtue upon the part of other States can justify such usurpation and denial of self-government, for in any event the smaller wrong is corrected only by committing a greater wrong, for after all human liberty is the most important thing in the world.

In some sections of the country it has been sought to leave the decision upon the sale of liquors to the option of the immediate locality. It has been argued that the citizens of the circumscribed locality where the actual sales are made should be allowed to decide upon the matter; that the few who might be in the immediate vicinity where the sales take place should alone be consulted to the exclusion of those -among whom the liquors are consumed after sale, and whose peace and security are jeopardized by those who consume the liquors, A deciSion of such n question by only a fraction of those directly affected necessarily is undemocratic and can not be defended on grounds either of justice or expediency. Such questions are not to be decided by the village, township, or county in which sales are made. If it were possible to confine the con umption arid evil effect of liquors to a restricted area, it alone should decide the i ue, but such is manifestly impossible. Therefore it would seem that the larger local governmental unit, to wit, the State, is the political unit to which should be left the decision. Necessarily some middle ground should be found between the extremes of selecting the individuals who are most · immediately affected by the sale of liquors for an electorate and leaving the decision to the people of the whole Nation, the vast and over­ ,\·helming majority of whom have no interest, direct or indirect, in the matter. Therefore logically it is by the people of the separate States that the deci ion should be made. In the nature of thing a juster and wiser decision may be made by each separate State for it elf than by a majority of the States for the remainder. \Ve are not yet a homogeneous people. Our country is peopled by · immigrants from various European countries and their de centlants, having widely divergent social ideals, custom , and habits, each people having its own peculiar strength and virtue. Customs and laws suited to one section of the country do not find favor in others, and there is no place nor propriety in iron-bound uniformity. Therefore it would seem desirable that it should be left to each State to decide for it elf matters which do not affect our whole people.