February 20, 1933

Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and take from the Speaker's table the Senate joint resolution (S. J. Res. 211) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States and agree to the same.

The Clerk read the Senate joint resolution, as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives ~! the United States of America in Congress assembLed (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is hereby proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United states, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by conventions m threefourths of the several States: · ·

"ARTICLE-

"SECTION 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

"SEc . . 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

"SEc. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, w1thm seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress."

The SPEAKER. Is a second demanded?

Mr. DYER. I demand a second.

Mr. BLANTON. A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. BLANTON. It is impossible for Democrats over on this side to get any time to oppose this repeal resolution from the majority leader, who has moved to pass it under suspension of rules, and it is necessary to ha ~e some one .demand a second who is against it, and who Will Yield his tune to the opposition, and we will have only 20 minutes' debate to the side.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will have some one against it when the Member qualifies.

Mr. DYER. I demand a second.

The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman from Missouri opposed to the resolution?

Mr. DYER. I am not.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman does not qualify.

Mr. MOORE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.

The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?

Mr. MOORE of Ohio. I am opposed to the resolution.

Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second be considered as ordered.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from Illinois if it is his purpose to divide the time between those in favor and those opposed, or will he yield to those only who are in favor of the resolution?

Mr. RAINEY. I am going to yield only to those who are for the resolution, but I intend to yield to gentlemen on that side.

Mr. SNELL. And the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. MooRE, will yield time to those opposed to the resolution?

Mr. RAINEY. Yes.

Mr. DYER. Reserving. the right to object--

Mr. BLANTON. There is no question of objection. I make a point of order. I ask for the regular order.

The SPEAKER. The regular order is, a second has been demanded and it takes unanimous consent to agree that the second shall be considered as ordered. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. MooRE] for 20 minutes.

Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to discuss this resolution except to quote from a speech made by the proponent of prohibition, Senator SHEPPARD, of Texas, · in the Senate, July 30, 1917, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, pages 5553 and 5554, in wbir.h he states among other statements--

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the gentleman from Illinois has no right to attack a Senator on the floor of the House.

Mr. RAINEY. I am not attacking any Senator, I am approving of what he said.

Mr. RANKIN. It is an indirect attack, and be can not read from the Senate proceedings.

The SPEAKER. The point of order made by the gentleman from Mississippi is well taken. Speaker Longworth held in an elaborate ruling that a Member of the House could not refer to a Senator and quote what he said. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.

Mr. SABATH. A parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. SABATH. Has not a Member a right to quote anything that a Senator said?

The SPEAKER. The Chair has just ruled on that.

Mr. RAINEY. Then, Mr. Speaker, I say this on my own responsibility. I would vote to submit any amendment to the States in order to preserve the right of petition, and for that reason I am voting for this. I voted for the submission of the five amendments which have been added to the Constitution since I have been a Member of this House.

During my period of service here I have voted to submit to the States every amendment which seemed to have the support of any considerable bloc of people. I have already voted to submit five amendments, the income-tax amendment, the amendment providing for the direct election of Senators, the prohibition amendment-the eighteenth-the woman's suffrage amendment, and the lame-duck amendment, and I expect to vote now to submit this amendment.

I refuse to stand in the gateway in an attempt to prevent the people of the United States from amending their own Constitution in the way provided by the Constitution itself. I am not arrogant enough to do that.

A Member of this House is not voting wet or dry when he votes to submit this amendment. He is simply conceding to the States the right of petition and enormous petitions have been filed here for the resubmission of this amendment. There seem to be a great many people in the United States who would like to see the Federal Government obtain as revenue the profits now made by bootleggers, and I must confess that personally I sympathize with them in the position they take, and this Government certainly needs revenue. At the present time we are borrowing just half the amount it costs to run this Government. This can not go on forever. We are going to reach the end of our borrowing power sooner than some people think. Every time we borrow five hundred million or a billion dollars we are in effect mortgaging all the homes and all the farms in every State in this Union for that amount of money, and we are placing a mortgage on them which must be paid in advance of the mortgages these owners have been compelled to place on their property, and unwillingly compelled to place there. Every dollar of profit in this country is pledged to the payment of the immense sums we are adding now to the national debt.

I know what the rules of this House are. I can not quote here what has been said on the floor of another body, but, of course what has been said there can not be changed and the Ca'NGRESSIONAL RECORDS disclose it all. I, however, desire now to appropriate the language of a very prominent prohibition leader as my own, and I simply make this statement in order to show that the quotation I am now making is not my own language so that I can relieve myself of the charge of plagiarism. I now read the following statement into the RECORD: del!'y to them one of the most sacred of all popular rights-the right of petition. Were I opposed on principle to nation-wide prohibition I would vote to submit the amendment to the States in order that they might exercise one of their fundamental rights. An issue is thus presented by the nation-wide amendment entirely independent of prohibition, and that issue is expressed in two questions:

(1) Shall Senators and Representatives in Congress, either wholly or partly, substitute themselves for the States as the amending power of the Constitution, thereby centralizing sovereignty at Washington to a degree threatening the extinction of the State?

(2) Shall they refuse the people the right of petition?

Senator GEORGE, of Mississippi, a vigorous and outspoken antiprohibitionist, was a member of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, to which was referred a national prohibition amendment some 40 years ago. He joined in a favorable report for its submission on the ground that to do otherwise would be to deny to millions of people the right of petition. • • •

• • • At the close of this debate we will have an opportunity to enable the States to exercise their highest function-the right to shape, alter, and develop the Federal Constitution. They are the proper tribunal to decide the fate of this amendment. They compose the mightiest array of free Commonwealths united in a federated whole the world has ever seen. There are chapters in the history of each that add honor to American citizenship. If there is anything in the amendment subversive of their liberties and their welfare, they can be trusted to condemn it. Let not Congress assume to judge for them. Let Congress discharge its preliminary task of submission and stand aside. Let it put in motion the referendum provided by the Nation's organic law-the method of amendment the States themselves established when they created the Constitution. Let the States perform the duty which remains the sole instance of their sovereignty over the Federal Government itself. If the State and Nation may each retain the attributes contemplated in the Constitution, if each shall be kept within its sphere and permitted to perform its appointed agency, the most beneficent system of government yet devised will be strengthened and glorified for all time.

As I view the matter, the Member of either branch of the American Congress who denies the power of amendment to the States, especially an amendment which vast numbers of the people desire the States to consider, violates the basic principles both of the Constitution and of popular government, repudiates the fundamental rights of the States, and overturns the two most sacred privileges the people possess, the privileges of referendum and of petition.

In conclusion, I desire to say that I hope this amendment will pass. It will take three-fourths of the States to ratify it. Opposition to its passage now by prohibition leaders shows a decided weakness on their part. Framers of the Constitution have provided that it is not easily changed and can only be changed by three-fourths of the States, and if three-fourths of the States want to amend the Constitution they have the right to do so. If this amendment is adopted the question will be remitted to the States in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, and the States will have the right to amend, to reject, or to adopt it in the manner provided by the Constitution itself.

Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, is it in order now that each Member may have five legislative days in which to extend his own remarks?

The SPEAKER. It is not.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?

Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. BRITTEN. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. MOORE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Maine [Mr. NELSON].

Mr. NELSON of Maine. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, the success or failure of national prohibition is of peculiar interest to the people of my State. It was in Maine some 87 years ago that the first prohibitory law ever enacted was placed upon our statute books. In 1884 it was written into our State constitution. Since I came to manhood and cast my first vote I have seen going on in Maine the same struggle as regards prohibition, resubmission, and repeal that is to-day being enacted on a larger scale in the Nation. For 27 years before coming to this Congress I voted dry, voted against the money and efforts of out-of-State liquor organizations to nullify our State laws, voted for what I believed and still believe to be for the best interests of the homes of Maine and the women and children of my State. For 11 years as a Member of this House I have voted to support and enforce the eighteenth amendment. My convictions remain unchanged.

I realize, of course, that I am one of a very definite minority, and that the result of the coming vote is a foregone conclusion. The Republican leaders of this House are supporting this resolution, which to my mind does violence to a solemn promise made to the people of this country in our party platform, while the Democratic leaders have had recourse to arbitrary caucus methods seeking to override the very consciences of their members. Nevertheless, I make this prediction: That the experience of Maine will be the experience of the Nation, and that unless some definite assurance against the return of the saloon is given to the American people no Member of this House will live to see national prohibition wiped from the pages of the Federal Constitution. [Applause.]

The great danger, however, as all must realize, lies in the breakdown of enforcement and the nullification of law that is already foreshadowed and bound to exist during the years of the interregnum between the passage of this resolution and its final disposition. The recent election was an economic revolution, a demand on the part of the people, not for rum, but for better economic and social conditions. That demand has not yet been met, nor will this resolution meet it. It is a poor time to encourage lawlessness or to let loose a :flood of intoxicating liquor on a mechanized world seething with social unrest.

Futile as it may be, little as I may add to this discussion in the few moments allowed me, it does not seem fitting that Members from the original prohibition State should be altogether silent at this time, representing as we do a State that in the past has furnished the world leaders in several great humanitarian movements: William Ladd, in the cause of world peace and a high court of nations; Elijah Parish Lovejoy, a leader and martyr in the cause of freedom of the press; and Neal Dow, the father of prohibition. Standing here in this dark hour, when the friends of prohibition and all that pertains to it seem but few, let me say that I am proud of Gen. Neal Dow as a great Maine citizen, humanitarian, and soldier, and that I take pride in the pioneer prohibition record of my people. Maine came into the Union as a compromise between right and wrong, but the men and women of Maine, as a group, have never yet so compromised. As a humble Member of this House I have sought, in a small way, to maintain the traditions of my State; and while it will never be given to me to lead the forward march of a great cause, yet, God helping me, I do . not propose to lead a retreat in this great moral and humanitarian movement. [Applause.] _

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

Mr. MOORE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. TARVER].

Mr. TARVER. Mr. Speaker, there are only two sides to this war. A man ought to be on one side or the other. He ought to be dry or he ought to be wet. I respect the views of any man who thinks the eighteenth amendment ought to be repealed and stands by his convictions. For the man who deep down in his heart does not think it ought to be repealed, and believes that its repeal would endanger every fireside in America, but nevertheless votes for repeal and assigns as his reason the declarations of some delegates to some convention or the action of some party caucus, I have only profound sympathy. No job in the world is worth a sacrifice like that. I pity the man who says that he is going to vote for repeal here and then go home and vote against repeal. He is neither a soldier nor a sailor. He might be a marine, fighting first on water and then on land, except for the fact that the marines are good fighters and are always loyal to one :flag. The Bible speaks about him when it says:

Thou art neither hot nor cold; I will spew thee out of my mouth.

But my profoundest commiseration goes out to men who have voted on both sides of this question, and especially to those who, as lately as last December, voted against repeal and now vote for repeal. There has been no party convention since then. The same platform declarations existed then that exist now. A party caucus may have intervened, but whoever heard of a party caucus being more powerful than a party platform? Will gentlemen who voted" no" in December, despite their party platform, -vote" aye" now and attempt to excuse themselves by pointing to a party caucus? The suggestion is absurd.

There are few, if any, men who have won honor by fighting on both sides in any war. The man who says that he is going to vote wet here and then go home and vote dry exhibits a versatility which might have enabled him, if he had been in the World War, to have piloted the Germans through Belgium and then have joined with the Allies in the defense of Paris. .

I will not bring the enemy to my people's doorsteps and then undertake to repel him. I will fight him all the way. And neither as a citizen, a Democrat who expects always to be a Democrat, nor as a public servant shall I offer any apology for so doing to any individual on earth, believing, as I do, that I am keeping faith with those who sent me here and whose agent I am.

I shall not " hold with the hare and run with the hound." I shall not sacrifice my convictions upon any altar of alleged party loyalty. The Democratic Party of my fathers is a party of good morals and good government, and I shall do my utmost as an humble member to keep it so. The principles of that party have never required any man to sacrifice his conscientious convictions upon a moral question. If I am true to my people and true to myself, I shall not be un­ acter. true to the Democratic Party.

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

Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. LICHTENWALNER].

Mr. LICHTENWALNER. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House. I am very proud to have the opportunity of doing my part here to-day to bring about the repeal of the eighteenth amendment and prohibition. I have no doubt this result will follow within a year if we pass this resolution to-day.

In season and out of season I have fought against the principle involved in the eighteenth amendment, when Congress and the State legislatures amended the Constitution to try to regulate the personal habits of the people and • when it invaded their private rights and liberties it wrote into the Constitution what might · better have been passed as town ordinances in those communities which desired to be bone dry.

I did not believe at the time that prohibition was passed that it represented the majority will of the people at all, and I think that the results of 13 years of attempted enforcement justify that belief, because no law can be enforced that is against the will of the people.

The Government has been most liberal in appropriating money for enforcement and those of us who are willing to face the facts know the results. Prohibition has not brought about temperance. We know now that it has had the opposite effect. We know that for every saloon that has been eliminated that there have been three speakeasies to replace it. Where local authorities were formerly able to enforce the laws preventing liquor being sold to minors and to intoxicated persons and on Sundays, it is now an undercover business and therefore passed out of control. So that prohibition must now be pronounced a national failure.

But more important and most serious of all is the fact that billions of dollars which would have flowed into the United States Treasury in revenue, and which might have gone to the reduction of taxes and of the public debt, have reverted instead to racketeers and gangsters in most of our cities and have created lawlessness much more serious than the breaking of liquor laws.

So that while I was and am against prohibition in principle, my opinion has been further confirmed by its results; but irrespective of my views, now that the Government youth? under the present economic conditions needs the revenue so badly, this alone would be sufficient for me to form my opinion regarding it. I therefore hope that this resolution will pass. [Applause.]

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. GRANFIELD l.

Mr. GRANFIELD. Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago, as a member of the State Legislature in Massachusetts, I voted against the ratification of the eighteenth amendment. My attitude on this great problem has not changed. I rejoice in the opportunity that is offered to vote for this resolution. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. NELSON] a few moments ago in his remarks to the House made some reference to the saloon. I have heard a great deal about the saloon. Every time a dry discusses prohibition he speaks about the return of the saloon. None of them say anything about the speakeasy, with all of its evils, which has taken the place of the saloon. [Applause.]

This talk of the return of the saloon is nothing but subterfuge. A cursory investigation of the conditions as they exist should convince the most ardent drys in this country that their concern should be with the abolition of the present day speakeasy, and not with the possibilities of the return of the saloon. As bad as they claim the saloon was, the speakeasy of to-day, with its attendant evils, is a far more serious problem. Instead of being concerned about the return of the saloon, let these gentlemen suggest ways and means by which we can eliminate the speakeasy from our national life; I am for immediate action of this charI regret there is insufficient time for me to discuss this issue further; however, under the right of extension of my remarks, at a later date I shall speak on this problem at length. [Applause.]

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

Mr. MOORE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker. I yield one minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. SUMMERS].

Mr. SUMMERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the resolution now before us would decide the policy of a Nation. Within the hour and without opportunity for debate or amendment we must vote for or against the return of the saloon. I am against it. The resolution does not comport with the Republican nor the Democratic platforms. It gives no guarantee against the old-time saloon. This resolution opens wide the door. It will pass to-day because a great political party has bound and gagged its members and prevented the exercise of their individual rights and judgment. Feeding the hungry and solving economic problems are pushed aside.

The home-farm mortgage and high taxes are the twin giants that now grind our people to the quick. This resolution destroys neither of these giants of despair. It feeds both. The free flow of liquor will not lift the mortgage nor reduce taxes for the masses.

Sagging farm-commodity prices and unemployment are of the very essence of our Nation's distress. What is the Congress of the United States doing to-day?

Are we lifting the mortgage?

Are we sheltering the homeless?

Are we employing the millions?

Are we feeding the hungry?

Do we hush the infant's cry for food?

Can you spend a dollar for drink and at the same time spend it for food?

Seriously, can you put dollars into the till of the grocer, the butcher, the department store, the garage, the filling station. and the movies by cashing the pay check in the saloon?

Will the saloon inject lifeblood into languishing agriculture and commerce and industry?

Will the free flow of liquor help men to secure jobs?

Will its unlimited supply help men to house and clothe and feed their wives and helpless children and educate our

This is the machine age. Will liquor make safer our highways and railways and factories?

With what liquors shall our pilots be served before taking the air?

You talk of revenues. Taxes come directly or indirectly from the pockets of the people. I know and you know this is not the sound, unselfish judgment of the American people but the hue and cry of paid propagandists. This is · the culmination of a deep-laid plan of heartless millionaires to shift the tax burden from their pockets to the cravings of the helpless.

This is an economic crime you would perpetrate to-day. The free flow of liquor never did and never can solve the problems of this or any other country. Wet Britain and Germany are suffering worse to-day than we.

This hour calls for hope and faith and courage.

This Congress is playing at tweedledum and tweedledee. The farmer and laborer starve while you enrich the brewer and shift the tax burden from the millionaire to the honest toiler.

It should not be. I do not believe the American people will so decree.

Gladstone said:

It is the duty of government to make it easier to do right and harder to do wrong.

We are writing history to-day. To ignore the present and the future is a travesty on statesmanship.

I respect the honest convictions of all men. But let us at this hour recall the words of the immortal Lincoln:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, but with firmness for the right, as God gives us to see the right.

So let us cast our votes this day.

Mr. MOORE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON].

Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. Mr. Speaker, the pending resolution provides for an absolute and unqualified repeal of the eighteenth amendment. This may be in accordance with the platform declaration of the Democratic Party, but it is my belief that a majority of the people will not approve, when they come to realize that passage and ratification of this resolution will restore the old order to the liquor traffic. It was repeatedly stated at the Chicago conventions and seems to be a prevailing sentiment that we do not want a return of the saloon. The majority of those who favor change and modification of our national prohibition laws protest against the open saloon. But, notwithstanding this well-known opposition, we are about to approve a resolution which, if ratified, will return the open saloon, with all its attendant evils, to a large area of our land. When this becomes evident there will be a wave of resentment against this backward step; and I wish to say to you, my friends on the Democratic side of this House who are dry, that it will then be no alibi for you to say that your party platform called for a repeal or your party caucus bound you to vote for a repeal. This involves a moral question which each one should settle according to his or her convictions and is outside of party dictation.

We should reject this resolution to-day and then write one embodying such changes and modifications as the experience of the past 12 years suggests, profiting by that experience and avoiding the evils of the liquor traffic of former days. I venture the prediction now that this repeal resolution will not be ratified by the required number of States. [Applause.]

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON] has expired.

Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. BoYLAN].

Mr. BOYLAN. Mr. Speaker, the eminent lexicographer, Noah Webster, defines the word platform as follows: "A declaration of principles on which a group of persons or a party stand, and on which they appeal for support. A declaration of principles and policies of government adopted by a political party."

The Republican Party in its platform adopted in Chicago, June, 1932, favored the submission of this question to the States to be acted upon by State conventions called for that purpose.

The Democratic platform adopted in Chicago, July, 1932, contained the two following paragraphs:

First:

We believe that a party platform is a covenant with the people to be faithfully kept by the party when intrusted with power, and that the people art entitled to know in plain words the terms of the contract to which they are asked to subscribe. We hereby declare this should be the platform of the Democratic Party.

Second:

We advocate the repeal of the eighteenth amendment. To effect such repeal we demand that the Congress immediately propose a constitutional amendment to truly representative conventions in the States called to act solely on that proposal.

In the light of the planks in the platforms of the two parties which I have just read, it appears to my mind to be a distinct breach of faith with the people of our country if we fail to vote to-day for the submission of this question. [Applause.]

Mr. MOORE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. GUYER].

Mr. GUYER. Mr. Speaker, if the House passes this resolution to-day, every . Republican and every Democrat who votes for it votes not only to repudiate the most solemn and binding pledge of his party platform but also for the return of the saloon, the most sinister influence that ever cursed American life and politics. The final ratification of this proposed amendment insures the return of the saloon. It will be here the moment the thirty-sixth State gives it final approval to this proposed amendment to the Constitution. Never in the political history of the United States was there such a betrayal of a party-platform pledge. Both the Republican and Democratic platforms contained the most solemn and unequivocal pledge that there should be no return of the saloon. The Republican platform pledged to safeguard our citizens everywhere from the return of the saloon." The Democratic platform likewise promised "such measures by the several States as will actually promote temperance, effectively prevent the saloon."

Never did parties state in more unequivocal language a more positive position, and never in the political history of this country did congressional party leadership more brazenly violate the pledge of their parties. Does a platform declaration mean nothing to the party leadership in this House? If such a party pledge is thus so violently repudiated, what confidence do we justify in the judgment of the people? Can we complain if they lose confidence in the parliamentary machinery of our country?

What kind of unholy alliance is this between the Republican and Democratic leadership of the House, whose inevitable end is the return of the saloon if this program of repeal is ever carried out? I understand it is based upon the action of the so-called Republican wet bloc. It, no doubt, is inspired by the same type of political wisdom that induced President Hoover to reverse his position from that of 1928. I am sure he yielded with reluctance to the advice of those who urged compromise upon this great moral problem.

He suffered an overwhelming defeat. He probably could not have been elected in such a financial crisis even if he would have stood firm as in 1928, but he would have had . the satisfaction of knowing that he was on the right side of a great moral problem. And what a fight the good people of this country would have put up against the boast of Franklin D. Roosevelt, that " from this day the eighteenth amendment is doomed," if they had had the opportunity to express themselves on that question. And what a towering figure these same people would have had to rally around as this wild, wet craze is sweeping the country, a craze that is sure to wane with the reign of booze that is to begin on March 4.

I want here to pay tribute to those Democrats who have refused to be bound by the Democratic caucus, that last relic of parliamentary slavery in the Congress of the United States. They had the moral courage to stand by their party platform against the return of the saloon. They are right when they declare that their party platform claims a higher fealty than the dictation of a secret caucus. May their tribe increase.

What a contrast is the attitude of the distinguished Speaker who having failed the first hour of this session to jam a naked repeal resolution through the House has now resorted to the secret caucus to force his party in the House to repudiate the platform upon which he was elected both to Congress and to the second highest office in the gift of the Nation. What a tragedy that such a great career in this House should have for its valedictory the betrayal of his party platform and the invitation contained in this resolution for the return of the old saloon with all its evils and abuses.

If one should judge from our actions in this House what was the most important matter for consideration since we met in December; he would be forced to conclude that nothing was important except that the people be given booze to drink. Yet people are hungry and children are crying for food. The farmer was never in such a desperate plight. His farm and property are on the auction block. He is facing bankruptcy. What have we done for him? All we have done thus far is to set before him the . mirage and vision of a schooner of ice-cold beer in the dead of winter and a bottle of booze and said" Drink and be damned."

Let no one be deceived concerning the ease with which the eighteenth amendment is going to be repealed. The framers of the Constitution made it difficult to amend and alter. Let no one imagine that submitting this to the States is going to settle it. It is only the opening gun in a battle that will rock your district from center to circumference. It will penetrate every precinct in your district in your campaign in 1934. Then we will answer for our votes to-day. vote against this resolution and thus vote against the return of the saloon. · Vote for it and condemnation will assail you from a million firesides where little children play. Vote for it and anathemas will thunder from 100,000 pulpits for this base and infamous treason to party platforms. Vote for it and it will kindle fires under you in every precinct in your district in 1934. Vote for it and it will call to the colors of decency and sobriety millions of women who hate the very name of the saloon and who will never consent to the repeal of the eighteenth amendment. Vote against it and unborn generations will call you blessed. [Applause.]

Mr. MOORE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield one and onehalf minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. EATON].

Mr. EATON of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, in the last election, in both political parties, there was absolutely no dispute or debate on two propositions. One was the prevention of the return of the saloon and the other was the protection of dry states against wet States. To-day, in the pending resolution, there is not presented for our consideration any prevention of the return of the saloon. I ask the gentleman from illinois [Mr. RAINEY] if he will not let Us, by unanimous consent, insert in this resolution, in line 3, on page 2, after the word " liquors," the words " and the return of the saloon " so that it will include with the new proposed prohibition of "transportation and importation of intoxicating liquors," the prevention of the return of the saloon in any State or Territory in violation of the laws thereof.

Mr. BRITTEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. BRITTEN] should be good enough sport not to interrupt the gentleman in a 1 %-minute speech.

Mr. EATON of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. RAINEY].

Mr. RAINEY. I will not make that request. This resolution has passed the Senate. It comes up now before the House on motion t9 suspend the rules. It can not be amended in the way the gentleman suggests.

Mr. EATON of Colorado. It can be by unanimous · consent.