February 20, 1933 (2)

Mr. McLEOD. Mr. Speaker, to-day the House of Representatives, for the second time this session of Congress, is afforded the opportunity to vote on repealing the Eighteenth Amendment. On the first day of the present session we repealists in the House lacked only six votes of the twothirds necessary, while to-day, with the additional impetus afforded by the Senate's favorable action last week, together with the added section of protection for dry States, every conceivable objection, in my opinion, is now squarely met. In accordance with our party pledges, we must pass Senate Joint Resolution No. 211 to-day, and by so doing, keep faith with the American people.

During the past few months we have witnessed the most remarkable and overwhelming demonstration o! resolute determination ever staged by an awakened and thoroughly aroused population resolved and intent upon forcing abolishment of an unwise and deservedly unpopular law, one that has fostered and been the malevolent and prolific source of growing intemperance and crime, lost revenue and the consequent resort to other and unbearable forms of taxation, much of our distressing unemployment, and countless other economic and civic disorders.

I have direct reference to that unparalleled expression at the polls last November of popular sentiment against prohibition. The people of the Nation have given us a profound and impressive exhibition of their refusal to longer tolerate the imposition of this statute which has to date cost us $11,000,000,000 or more in lost revenue and is adding to this stupendous sum at the rate of nearly a million dollars a day. The sovereign will of the people on this vital problem has been manifested in clear, lucid, and unmistakable terms, impossible of misinterpretation. It is our sacred duty and obligation to heed and obey this outspoken mandate of the voters and, by voting to-day for passage of Senate Joint Resolution No. 211, do our part in ridding the country at once of the most vexatious and troublesome measure ever inflicted upon a people renowned for their inherent and strict sense of personal right and liberty.

The overwhelming deluge of wet votes in the November elections-insistent and imperative in expressing the urgent and determined demand of the great majority of our patriotic, law-abiding, and sincere thinking citizens for immediate and outright repeal of the obnoxious eighteenth amendment-is the natural and inevitable culmination of many years' dissatisfaction and disgust engendered by the pronounced and ignoble failure of this gigantic attempt to regulate by legislative decree . the personal habits and morals of our people.

Wide dissemination of statistics and facts relating to the enormous increase of criminal activity, the sinister racketeering of organized bootleggers and gangsters and the disgraceful corruption and bribery which have · been notoriously rampant even among the ranks of the forces ostensibly devoted to prohibition enforcement, have awakened the people to the realization that paradoxically, prohibition has proved the greatest force imaginable for the promotion of the very evils the enactment of the eighteenth amendment was supposerJ to prevent and make impossible of recurrence. Striking proof of the deep root this sentiment against prohibition has taken in the hearts and minds of the people is shown by the fact that seventeen States have either re­ _ pealed or never had State prohibition laws; twenty-six that have retained their State laws to date are refusing to spend a cent for enforcement, while the five remaining States are making but a negligible effort to assist Federal enforcement Confronted by this decisive indication of our country's attitude and facing the most serious industrial and unemployment crisis the world has ever known, it would be criminal folly as well as the basest betrayal of the people to disregard their eloquent plea at the polls last November for outright and immediate repeal of prohibition.

Repeal of the eighteenth amendment is not only a patriotic duty of the highest order, but a fundamental economic necessity of extreme urgency. The wheels of industry are moving imperceptibly, business is stagnant, millions are unemployed in this great national calamity and world-wide catastrophe, and are dependent upon the fast-diminishing resources of welfare agencies for barest necessities of life. Beginning with the producers of beverages, repeal will start a great chain of activity that will rejuvenate our entire business structure. Hundreds of thousands of unemployed will be permanently enlisted in the great fight being waged for business recovery. By no means, however, will employees of the various beverage concerns be the sole beneficiaries of this great progressive step. In the coal industry, thousands of miners will be put back to work immediately digging the approximately 3,000,000 tons of coal that was annually required for the brewing of beer alone. The automobile trucking industry and the stricken railroads will, of necessity, increase the number of their employees to haul the products that amounted to thirteen and one-half millions of tons yearly from just the brewers of beer, requiring constant operation of many hundreds of locomotives and the use of more than 200,000 freight cars annually.

These three major industries are splendidly representative of how hundreds of other commercial units of our economic system will be helped by the powerful stimulus repeal will bring to our harassed country. The farmers will find an immediate outlet for the vast quantities of surplus grain now flooding our markets and the demand will be instantly increased for various metals, machinery, bottles, bottle caps, corks, boxes, labels, printers' ink, barrels, lumber, miscellaneous hardware, and countless other articles too numerous to mention.

Repeal is an absolute and vital economic necessity, not only because of the work it will create for so many hundreds of thousands, and the tremendous impetus it will give to business in general throughout the entire country, but from the extremely important standpoint of a most prolific source of urgently needed revenue.

The tax on alcoholic beverages proved the only definite and dependable source of revenue of our Government for 50 years prior to the World War. From 1868 it did not vary more than 9 to 10 per cent from year to year, even in periods of business depression and financial panics. It steadily increased from $39,000,000 in 1867 to $284,000,000 in 1917. Before the World War and the enactment of the income tax our Government's income was made up almost entirely of customs revenue and taxes on liquor and tobacco. Depending as it does on foreign trade, the customs revenue varies widely and invariably declines in years of economic disturbance.

The customs receipts for the fiscal year ended last June were $240.000.000 less than in 1928. The income tax is yielding less than half the 1928 total. The only source that is holding up with any degree of steadiness is the miscellaneous internal revenue, which is comprised chiefly of the tobacco tax. Even these receipts have dropped somewhat from their normal yield.

By their whole-hearted indorsement of repeal the American people have shown their emphatic disapproval of a revenue-losing statute that is largely responsible for the tax condition that has caused the loss of thousands of homes and farms because of inability of their owners. to pay taxes power. that have steadily mounted as incomes and national revenue have diminished. The taxation of beer alone will yield our impoverished Treasury a hundred and twenty-five millions of dollars or more yearly in a form of revenue that will inflict no burden whatsoever on the taxpayers and will make possible a great reduction in the present heavy burden of other taxes.

The vote last November 8 was virtually an ultimatum from the American people to release this golden stream of revenue which would help fill our empty Treasury and assist in bringing immediate relief to the Nation. To fail in this emergency to pass the repeal resolution to-day would be an un-American departure from the very principles of selfg.overnment upon which our great Nation was founded. The clear-cut issue confronting us to-day must be unflinchingly met in a true spirit of cooperation and nonpartisan unity of action. Jobs for hundreds of thousands, business for hund-reds of industries, will spring into being upon the abolishme.nt of prohibition, while every day we delay costs the Government a vast sum in indispensable and vitally needed revenue.

Let us show that in a great national crisis our American Government of Washington and Lincoln is still equal to any emergency. Let us show, by submitting this great question to the people for their final decision and judgment in State conventions, that ours is still the truly representative form of self-government that our forefathers bequeathed us. Let us triumph again, as we have many times in the past, over the relentless forces of the depression that are to-day besieging our country from within, and by removing this great obstacle to progress and ultimate recovery, show that we are still able and capable of directing our destiny as the greatest Nation on earth.

Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Speaker, Senate Joint Resolution 211, which is now before us for a vote, reads as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of 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 in 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, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress."

Section 1 repeals the eighteenth amendment.

Section 2 attempts to protect dry States.

Section 3 provides State ratification by the convention method within seven years. It does not say a word against the return of the saloon!

:Before the enactment of the prohibitory amendment, the saloon was a political center, in some respects a social center, and a very great power. The influence and political power of the American saloon were tremendous. Do you want it in action again? The saloon was the resort and center of almost everything that was undesirable and harmful. Experience shows the inability of the States acting alone to control the saloon.

This resolution is for the return of the saloon in America with no restriction guarding against its admitted evils.

I believe in the right of our people to decide under what laws they shall live and I desire to give to them every opportunity for an honest expression of such desire, but I can not vote to submit a resolution of this character which gives them no opportunity to vote against the saloon. which I believe the people of my district do not wish to see returned. The resolution as introduced in the Senate gave Congress the power to prevent the return of the saloon. It was amended in the Senate by a vote of 33 to 32, with 31 not voting, striking out the section which gave Congress this Four years ago Herbert Hoover, Republican candidate for President, vigorously opposed the return of the saloon, and Alfred E. Smith, Democratic candidate for President, in his acceptance speech said:

When I stated that the saloon is and ought to be a defunct institution in this country I meant it. I mean it to-day. I will never advocate or approve any law which directly or i.ndi.rectly permits the return of the saloon.

President Hoover, in his letter of acceptance in 1932, said: It is my belief that in order to remedy present evils a change is necessary by which we resummon a proper share of initiative and responsibility which the very essence of our Government demands shall rest upon the States and local authorities. That change must avoid the return of the saloon.

It is my conviction that the nature of this change, and one upon which all reasonable people can find common ground, is that each State shall be given the right to deal with the problem as it may determine , but subject to absolute guaranties ln the Constitution of the United States to protect each State from interference and invas i on by its neighbors, and that in no part of the United States shall there be a return of the saloon system, with its inevitable political and social corruption and its organized interference with other States.

Gov. Franklin D. Roosevelt-now the President elect-on August 28, 1932, at Seagirt, said:

Thus the Democratic platform expressly and unequivocally opposes the return of the saloon and with equal emphasis it demands that there be Federal control of the liquor traffic to protect dry States.

The Republican national platform, 1932, says:

We do not favor a submission limited to the issue of retention or repeal, for the American Nation never in its history has gone backward and in this case the progress which has been thus far made must be preserved while the evils must be eliminated.

We therefore believe that the people should have an opportunity to pass upon a proposed amendment the provision of which, while retaining 1n the Federal Government power to preserve the gains already made in dealing with the evils inherent in the liquor traffic, shall allow States to deal with the problem as their citizens may determine, but subject always to the power of the Federal Government to protect those States where prohibition may exist and safeguard our citizens everywhere from the return of the saloon and attendant abuses.

The 1932 Democratic platform has a plank as follows:

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 ln the States called to act solely on that proposal. We urge the enactment of such measures by the several States as will actually promote temperance, effectively prevent the return of the saloon, and bring the liquor traffic into the open under complete supervision and control by the States.

Notice the clause therein-" effectively prevent the return of the saloon."

President Hoover, President-elect Roosevelt, and ex-Gov. Alfred E. Smith, as shown by these statements, all agree that the saloon should not be allowed to return. The National Government is the only power that can make certain this outcome. Many of those who have been fighting for repeal have declared their opposition to the return of the saloon. " The saloon, never " has been one of their frequent public utterances. This resolution is not m accordance with the Republican national platform. Notwithstanding all this, the section in the resolution as it was introduced, giving to the Federal Government the right to prevent the return of the saloon, has been taken out, and under om· present parliamentary procedure we in the House are not permitted to attempt to restore it. I believe we should make the return of the saloon impossible. This resolution does not so do, but, rather, it provides:

Out goes the eighteenth amendment; in comes the saloon. I can not agree with or support this program.

Mr. GARBER. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, Senate Joint Resolution 211 was submitted tQ the House to-day under suspension of the rules which limits time for debate to.20 minutes on each side, prohibiting all amendments. It is to be regretted - that a question of national interest, of such grave importance to the Nation, should be submitted under such a drastic rule as to prohibit amendments and discussion.

But the liquor interests of the country do not want discussion or publicity. Ever since this session convened they have been demanding immediate action. With great eclat and spectacular announcement a resubmission resolution was submitted to the House on the first day of this session. It was given priority over all other imperative measures awaiting action, and now, when the matter is again considered, the same arbitrary rule is invoked. I therefore am compelled to extend my remarks in the RECORD, that it may show my position upon this question.

The resolution reads:

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 in three-fourths of "the several States:

"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 1n the several States, as provided 1n the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress."

Under Article V of the Constitution, Congress is authorized to propose amendments to the Constitution by two-thirds vote of both Houses and when proposed and ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or t.he other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress, then such amendment becomes a part of the Constitution. The same power of proposing amendments is reserved by the several States upon application of the State legislatures of two- thirds of the several States.

Under Article V cited, Congress may propose a resolution either to the legislatures of the several States or to State conventions. Its power is limited to that of proposing the resolution and to the designation of the agency as the State legislature or the convention, whichever it may select. The power of Congress thus ends with such proposals. It remains for the States, through their legislatures to determine, first, whether action shall be taken upon such proposal; · and second, whether such action shall be one of approval or disapproval.

The resolution, having been passed by two-thirds majority of Congress, will now be submitted to the several States for their disposition.

The first section of the resolution provides for the naked repeal of the amendment. If the resolution is approved by three-fourths of the States, it will be the first instance of a repeal of an amendment to the Constitution in the history of our country.

Any thirteen States may defeat the proposal: First, by refusing to call a convention; and second, by refusing to approve the resolution should a convention be called.

Section 2 prohibits the transportation or importation of intoxicating liquors for delivery or use into any of the several States where the laws of the States prohibit such. This section, it is claimed, will protect the dry States. If the resolution is adopted and intoxicating liquors are again legalized, section 2 will prove unavailing In protecting the dry States. Bootlegging from the wet States into the dry States will be increased tenfold. In this modern period of transportation by automobiles, trucks, and planes, an ample supply will always be available, and the States will be helpless to enforce their dry laws and ultimately will be compelled to repeal them.

Section 3 requires ratification by conventions in the several states. This is the first requirement for submission to State conventions that has been enacted in our history. There is a general impression that the conventions referred to will be similar to the old-time State political conventions and subject to all the political manipulations in the way of packing caucuses, trading votes, and so forth. But the conventions required will be an altogether di . different type of State agency. It will be a convention created by law, enacted by the State legislature, clothed with the same degree of solemnity and sanctity of law as State constitutional conventions. The State legislatures will fix the time and place of holding the conventions, the number of delegates, the apportionment of delegates, the qualifications of delegates, and the voters. It perhaps would utilize the election laws of the State as far as applicable in the selection of delegates and the adoption of the procedure in their selection.

At the present time there are 43 State legislatures in session. A desperate drive will be made to secure favorable action by at least 36 States calling State conventions before their legislatures adjourn. The wets are already organized to make this drive. They are amply supplied with money to pay the necessary expenses, and in doubtful States organization and money will determine the result of the conventions and may ultimately determine the issue of repeal.

It remains to be seen whether or not the people of the dry States will awaken in time to face the impending crisis now confronting them. Will they permit economic conditions to control their action? The strategy of the wets is to politicalize the depression to repeal the amendment. They claim the Government is in desperate straits financially, which is true; that unless additional revenues are provided for, its credit will be impaired and such impairment will affect financial conditions throughout the country; that the repeal of the amendment and the legalization of the manufacture and sale of beer and intoxicating liquors will give the Government $150,000,000 additional revenue annually, and, second, such manufacture will furnish a market for farm grains and relieve the present distressed condition of the farmers. In this respect, it is hoped to make economic conditions control the moral conditions and determine the issue involved.

It is to be regretted that the House majority, through its leadership, should entertain even for a moment the submission of such a grave constitutional question affecting the morals of our people at such a time, and should lend a willing ear to the importunities, pleadings, and seductive influences of the bloated brewers and distillers of the country and give them prior and preferential consideration over the interests of the impoverished farmers and the millions of unemployed! . It is to be regretted that such a proposal should even be entertained for a moment, let alone be considered and pushed through by caucus regulations to enactment, at a time when industries are closed; laboring men out of employment for want of work; when they are in bread lines for want of sufficient means to purchase food; at a time when the great industry of agriculture has collapsed; when the prices of farm products will not pay 50 per cent of the cost of their production; when farmers can not pay their taxes, interest, and mortgages, or purchase the bare necessities of life; when they are being sold out by the sheriff or compelled to resist such sales by physical force at the courthouses in order to save their homes; when business men are forced to the wall, into bankruptcy; when the banks are closed and are being closed every day and deposits tied up; at a time when there is no purchasing power in the hands of the producers and workers and the charitable institutions have exhausted their resources in feeding the hungry; that in the very midst of this cataclysm of economic conditions, without precedent, the demands of the brewing and liquor interests should be given right of way, prior, preferential, and favorable consideration at a time when the producers and the workers, out of employment through no fault of their own, are in need of every penny to buy milk and food for their children!

Why should the brewing and liquor interests be given such consideration? Have they been filling the lobbies in the committee rooms for charitable purposes, to relieve the hungry and unemployed and the homeless farmers ejected from their premises? They are interested in this legislation solely for the profits they can make out of the business. At a time when the law-abiding people are not even thinking of profits, the liquor interests will not only continuously demand their profits but their tolls as well, in all directions, to control legislation. They will debauch the politics of the country and insist upon exercising the political influences to elect the sheriffs, the prosecuting attorneys, the members of the State legislatures, and of Congress. And yet we are told that a repeal of the law is necessary in order to secure law and order. If these criminal selfish interests will violate the law in one instance, what is to prevent them from doing so in the other?

This has been a sad day for the people of this country. Our standards have been lowered. The Christian citizenship of the country has been humiliated and the roll call just taken should have been accomplished by cathedral-bell solemnity in the presence of such a great tragedy.

We voted against the resolution because it affords no ade­ 100 against. quate protection to the dry States; it affords no adequate safeguards against the return of the open saloon; because bread-and-butter legislation for the millions of the unemployed now in the bread lines and the impoverished farmers now being evicted from their homes is of far greater importance than beer and liquor legislation for the profit of the brewers and distillers. The money to be spent in the consumption of beer and liquor is needed for bread and butter for the hungry and for homes for the homeless.

To thrust the consideration of this controversial question into the public mind already distracted with the grave questions of sustenance will contribute nothing to the stabilization of public opinion and the abiding peace and security of our country. Conditions already are menacing, are revolutionary, calling for the exercise of the highest degree of selfrestraint, calm, considerate judgment, and the economic utilization of every penny to secure the necessaries of life. The adoption of this resolution, without the enactment of necessary legislation by the States, will but encourage increased flagrant violations of law.

The submission of repeal, with adequate safeguards, under normal conditions might have been justified. The question could then have been determined upon its merits, uniD.­ fiuenced by the prevailing economic conditions. The adoption of this amendment will be the beginning of the end and it will only be a question of time when the prohibitory laws of the dry States will be nullified and repealed.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, debate on the resolution repealing the eighteenth amendment being limited to one or two minute speeches, obviously too short a time to discuss the subject, I want to briefly present my views in the general leave given for extension of remarks.

Nearly simultaneously with the passage of the eighteenth amendment the people of the State of Maryland, whom I am happy to represent as one of their Congressmen, rose up in revolt and advocated the immediate repeal and restoration to the States of that power which had been taken from them by the eighteenth amendment. At that time I had just returned from overseas service during the World War and, not having been given an opportunity to participate in the vote which Maryland cast on the eighteenth amendment, I immediately aligned myself with those in opposition to that theory of governmental encroachment and activity, and from that date to this I have been active in my campaign promises and in my previous votes to bring about the enactment of legislation similar to that which passed the House to-day.

It is therefore my happy privilege to be able to not only vote my individual sentiment and views on the subject but to express what I have long since interpreted to be the will and desire of the people of Maryland, that this cancer in the Constitution of our country be removed without any trace of its malignancy remaining, and to restore as nearly as possible the Constitution to those fundamentals of government to which I believe our forefathers intended it to be limited.

It will interest the House to know briefly the history of the prohibition amendment and the change in attitude of Congress since 1917 to the present time toward that law.

On August 1, 1917, the Senate voted to submit the eighteenth amendment, and the vote was 65 for and 20 against, with 11 not voting.

On December 17 of the same year the House voted to submit the prohibition amendment with a vote of 287 for and 100 against, with 40 not voting. It will be noted that this vote numerically closely approaches the vote of the House to-day for repeal.

On January 16, 1919, Nebraska became the thirty-sixth State to ratify the amendment, and a few days later the adoption of the said amendment was proclaimed, and it became operative on January 16, 1920.

On July 22, 1919, the House passed the national prohibition act-the Volstead Act-with a vote of 287 for and On September 4, 1919, the Senate passed the same legislation without a record vote. On October 27, 1919, President Wilson vetoed the Volstead Act, and on the same day the House overrode President Wilson's veto by a vote of 175 to 55, with 198 Members Iiot voting; and on the following day the Senate also overrode the veto.

The legality of the Volstead Act was immediately challenged, and ori June 7, 1920, its validity was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.

In 1921 antibeer legislation was passed by Congress, but not until 1928 was there · any record vote reflecting the attitude of Congress for the prohibition amendment. On February 15 of that year the House voted on the Linthicum amendment to prohibit enforcement appropriation and forbidding the poisoning of industrial alcohol. I was one of the 61 voting . for that amendment, but there were 283 votes against it, and the House therefore refused even this sensible interference with the existing law, and seemingly were unwilling to submit to any change whatsoever.

In 1929 a semblance of a test appeared in the vote of the House on the $24,000,000 enforcement appropriation with a record vote of 244 for and 141 against. The following month, February, 1929, the Senate and the House voted for the Jones five and ten law, the Senate vote being 64 for and 18 against, while the House vote was 284 for and 90 against. In each of the foregoing instances it was my privilege to vote in the negative. ·

It can be seen from the foregoing period of 12 years, aside from additional and more drastic dry laws, no vote of the House or Senate looking to repeal or modification had become a matter of record. I returned to Congress in 1921, succeeding as I did my dry predecessor, who represented the Second Congressional District of Maryland, or, I might say, misrepresented it, so far as the attitude of his people upon this important question was concerned, and not until March 1, 1932, were we able to bring a wet-and-dry issue to the floor of the House. One hundred and forty-five signatures were obtained on that day to discharge the Judiciary Committee from further consideration of the Beck-Linthicum resolution for repeal. On March 14 the House voted, 169 for and 228 against this discharge rule, but from that day on those of us who made up the 169 realized that the end of the eighteenth amendment was not far distant. We forced another vote at a later date on the beer bill, which was also defeated 169 to 228.

All of the agitation throughout the country and the change of sentiment as reflected · in the votes of Congress brought for the first time an expression in the platforms of the Republican and Democratic Conventions, advocating in general terms what the resolution of to-day puts into legal form and effect. When the present short session of Congress convened in December I was in sympathy with the decision of Speaker Garner to force a vote upon the repeal resolution and while that vote of 272 for and 141 against was short of six votes only to gain it the required twothirds, and, therefore, pass it, I believe this overwhelming sentiment furnished the necessary encouragement to the Senate for the action of that body which followed on February 16, 1933, when the resolution received the necessary two-thirds, the vote being 63 for and 23 against, and also furnished the necessary encouragement for the caucus action of the two major parties in the House and the culmination of all that effort in the success of it's being passed when 289 Members voted for and 121 Members against the resolution. I have cited the foregoing brief recapitulation of record votes to show first how determined Congress was 13 years ago to do an unwise thing and yet how responsive the same lawmaking body of our Government has been to the popular demand of our people.

Almost immediately after the passage of the eighteenth amendment the lawless element of our country took advantage of the disrespect and disregard for this sumptuary law and steadily and to an alarming extent bootleggers, racketeers, demagogues, and criminals of every conceivable character flooded our courts, debased the sanctity of our laws. invaded territories in our country theretofore protected by local option and in general presented a most disgusting and humiliating condition for a country enjoying the traditions that ours does to tolerate. It was perfectly inevitable that the best thinking people of the country would demand a change and it is not surprising to find the great Democratic Party being the first political organization in its national platform taking a definite, open, easily understandable position in favor of the repeal of the eighteenth amendment and the submission of that great question to the people of the States of the Union.

The Democratic platform of 1932, under which Presidentelect Roosevelt ran for the Presidency, said:

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. We urge the enactment of such measures by the several States as will actually promote temperance, effectively prevent the return of the saloon. and bring the liquor traffic into the open under complete supervision and control by the States.

Twenty -one million · of our people rallied to the support of the Democratic candidate, and I am quite sure this unprecedented vote was due very largely to the desire and the feeling of certainty they had that if the Democratic Pa · Party was given control of the Government, one of the first actions of the administration would be the redemption of this pledge.

It is a source of real satisfaction, therefore, to find the present Congress, controlled absolutely by the Democratic Party in the House and almost having a majority in the Senate, not waiting for the Seventy-third Congress to convene but as loyal Democrats, sensing the sentiment of the people of this country and the platform upon which many of them had been reelected, to vote immediately in the present Congress this important change in our organic law. In these troublesome times it will go far to restore confidence in Congress and in our people.

The foregoing has not alone presented the reasons for this change in sentiment. The overburdened tax-paying people of our country know that prohibition has not been, and can not be, enforced, and yet we have contributed to date approximately $6,000,000,000, or about one-third of the total national debt, in attempting to enforce this law. Our United States courts, which should be devoting their time to serious and important litigation, are clogged with cases of picayune character because of this law.

Taxes collected on liquor in 1919 would have paid onehalf of the huge deficit of this country in 1931.

Without reflecting in any way upon the ability of the legislators of my own State and the other States, the set-up of convention machinery, as the resolution calls for, and I am sure this thought will be of use and value to those serving in the legislatures of our States at the present time. Take Maryland, for instance; in the election of November 8, 1932, Governor Roosevelt received an overwhelming majority, as well as Senator TYDINGS and the six Democratic Members of the House. Maryland has a total population of 1,600,000, of which number 470,000 reside in my congressional district. Of the majority received by President-elect Roosevelt in Maryland, approximately one-third was given by the congressional district I represent, and yet the Eastern Shore of Maryland is said to be dry, if we look at the vote of my able and distinguished colleague who represents that district. If that be true, then any convention assembled in Maryland should reflect the popular will of , the State as a whole, and not on the basis of representation therein, such as our legislature is made up of at the present time. I mean by this that while the existing representation of the counties and cities might be advisable for certain purposes, the problem we are now dealing with-that is, to change the Constitution of our Government-is a broad, state-wide question, and one in which popular sentiment should prevail and control. I hope, therefore, that not only my own great State, a pioneer in advocating this victory which has come to the country to-day, so far as Congress is concerned, will set up at a very early date, through enactment by the present legislature now in session, a model bill for the calling of a convention to pass on this resolution, and one that wiD appeal to other States of the Union because of the assurance it will give to the great masses of our people where the popular sentiment and feeling of the people will prevail against any idiotic and asinine schedule of representation where county lines or city lines might, as a result of existing law, otherwise dictate.

I feel that the vote I have cast on this resolution to-day interprets the desire of the people of the great district I represent, and I am happy to report in this way it has been my privilege to voice their sentiments and their feelings against the eighteenth amendment in the vote I have cast for its repeal. I believe I am promoting temperance in changing present conditions, because I have confidence in my own State when the eighteenth amendment is repealed to see to it in the expression it gives to the prerogative of the State in permitting the sale, manufacture, and use of intoxicating liquors to protect those parts of Maryland which want to be dry, and to control those parts which want to be wet in a way that will restore the respect and confidence of our people in the existing law.

Mr. PETTENGilL. Mr. Speaker, I vote" “aye,” because I believe the American people have the right to decide this question for themselves.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Speaker, in the brief one and two minute speeches permitted under the exceedingly limited time allowed for debate, the outstanding arguments of the opponents of this resolution were predicated upon four grounds:

First. That the eighteenth amendment is a good thing. Second. That its repeal would bring back the saloon.

Third. That Members believing in prohibition would stultify themselves if they voted to permit the people of the sovereign States to express their views on the subject.

Fourth. That the passage of this resolution would pave the way for Federal legislation dictating to the sovereign States the times, places, and procedures of holding the State conventions.

It would be vain to rehash the arguments of the last 13 years. Suffice it to say that the people have spoken. The verdict of the last election, in which both the great parties stood for submission of the subject to conventions to be held in the separate States, indicates quite clearly that the voters of the country now realize that the eighteenth amendment has not been the success that was anticipated.

" A COSTLY AND UNPROFITABLE EXPERIMENT "

Mingled, no doubt, with that conclusion it is evident that the people of this country have come to realize that prohibi- · tion by force is now about proven to have been a very costly and unprofitable experiment.

It has deprived the United States Treasury of excise revenues of over half a billion dollars a year for 13 yearsaggregating six and one-half billion dollars-besides entailing interminable expenditures for enforcement-increased courts, penitentiaries, judges, clerks, and enforcement officers. Added to that, and this is no negligible factor, has come the expense of making arrests for prohibition enforcement of from fifty to one hundred thousand volition. persons a year, with all of the charges for maintenance and costs incidental thereto.

SOCIAL AND MORAL DEGRADATION

· With this picture of the mere material costs of prohibition, in addition to the social and moral degradation ensuing in its wake, it is not surprising that the American people have begun to suspect that the abortive attempt at prohibition enforcement is largely responsible for the present deficit in the Treasury and the mountainous taxes which are now piled up on the backs of our suffering taxpayers.

THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON IT

Be that as it may, the proposition that confronts us to-day in voting on this resolution is whether or not the American people should have the opportunity to express their convictions with finality on the subject by the lawful constitutional method provided by the fifth article of the Constitution, instead of being compelled to resort to newspaper and magazine straw votes, to find out what ought to be done about it.

That is all there is to this resolution. A vote for it is neither a vote for the eighteenth amendment nor a vote against it.

The text of the resolution does not touch on the merits of the question, nor bind any Member as to his ultimate individual action. If he votes for this resolution, he may go back to his constituency and fight as hard as he likes against repeal. No one can challenge him. No honest dry at home can blame him for his action here; no honest wet here can blame him for his action there.

But, on the other hand, a vote against this resolution is a virtual annulment of the fifth article of the Constitution itself, which grants the right of submission of any proposal when there is an obvious popular demand for it. · A vote against this resolution is an arbitrary denial of justice evincing a desire, at any cost, to keep the people bound forever in the shackles of a law against which there has rolled up an almost universal wave of condemnation.

Those who take this stand of refusing to put their convictions to the test of popular approval confess their own weakness and their fear of defeat.

THE RETURN OF THE SALOON

Fears about the return of the saloon are utterly unfounded. No State can have saloons · within its confines unless it wants them. If it does want them, that is the business and sole concern of the people of that State. Even at that, impartial opinion is now unanimous that the worst saloon is better than the best speakeasy, with its attendant . train of bootleggers, thieves, cutthroats, and racketeers.

Take the case of Maine, which to-day was referred to as a model State in paving the way for total abstinence by force. Does anyone believe that there is such a thing as real total abstinence in Maine? If he does, his innocence is amusing. Prohibition has only been maintained-or the semblance of it maintained-in Maine by the most degrading connivance between the prohibition forces and the police and the owners of the thousands of speakeasies. The officials simply ignore the existence of the speakeasy for 364 days in the year. Then, as collection day comes round, the places are raided and the owners fined $1,000 or thereabouts, which is the equivalent of what would be an annual license law. fee in a self-respecting and decent state of affairs. Having paid his fine, the owner goes back to his blind _ nd tiger and resumes business as usual. No, my friends, do not talk · about Maine as an example-except as one that ought not to be emulated or perpetuated.

AS TO THE CONVENTIONS

The sole remaining alibi for voting against the pending resolution. resolution is that its passage will open the way for congressional interference with the times, places, and procedures of - holding the conventions. There is no merit in that excuse. The resolution is carefully worded to avoid that very pitfall. Its very brevity is its safeguard and recommendation . . It leaves the initiative to the States to act upon it of their own The Constitution itself was ratified by conventions in the individual States, without either molestation or dictation by the Continental Congress and without the suggestion of financial aid or pressure of any kind. The States to-day can be safely relied upon to follow this precedent.

The language of the resolution is perfect in its simplicity and gives the largest measure of latitude to the States . in holding the conventions as to times, places, and procedures. There will be no justification for Congress to meddle with their sovereign freedom. There is no need to. The wet States will be only too anxious, if anything, to start the conventions moving in order to win. In like manner, the dry States will not be less diligent in striving hard not to lose. It is a fair issue which should be left to the people of the country to decide, as is their sole right and province.

Mr. CLANCY. Mr. Speaker, nothing will do more at this time to restore prosperity and to renew confidence in the American Congress than the passage of the repeal of the eighteenth amendment resolution to-day.

Congress has never suffered a more violent barrage of abuse and criticism in its history than during recent months. Representative government has been under attack and suspicion as never before. Nothing Congress could do in counterattack could be more effective than to pass promptly this repeal resolution.

Whether rightfully or not, the majority of the American people have a firm and ever-growing conviction that the repeal of the eighteenth amendment will speed the return of prosperity more quickly than anything else.

First. The people look forward to increased employment in the brewery business and all its accessories and ramifications of business. They anticipate · the employment of hundreds of thousands of additional workingmen.

Second. They anticipate the release of millions of dollars of capital in the tremendous purchasing power of raw materials and equipment and tremendous investment in transportation.

Third. They anticipate the lessening of crime and the destruction of gangs of gunmen and racketeers. This means less public expense in maintaining law-enforcing agencies, such as patrolmen, detectives, courts, jails, and so forth.

Fourth. Tremendous deficits have grown up in every branch of Government and additional revenue is absolutely necessary. The people are clamoring for the hundreds of millions of dollars revenue to be gained from the taxation of beer, wine, liquor, and so forth.

These are only a few of the reasons why the people are convinced that the eighteenth amendment is an overwhelming failure. They gave their mandate for its repeal by an overwhelming vote in last November's elections. Our Government is a failure if it does not register the people's wishes in this matter.

I have every confidence that the States will speed ratification after to-day's vote. When the Senate passed the repeal resolution, I promptly telegraphed wet leaders in Michigan, and Michigan is now exerting itself to win the honor of being the first State in the Union to ratify the repeal.

This is one of the happiest days of my life, for I have devoted many years to prevent the adoption of the eighteenth amendment, and I have also fought aggressively and persistently for many years to secure the repeal of this dreadful Mr. McSWAIN. Mr. Speaker, under general leave to extend remarks upon the motion made in the . : House Mon ­ day, February 20, to suspend the rules and to _ pass Senate Joint Resolution 211, proposing an amendment . to the Constitution of the United States, I submit some of the considerations which have induced me to vote for this This proposed amendment to the Constitution is, in fact, a proposal to repeal the eighteenth amendment, but also to give a constitutional guarantee that the transportation or importation into any State of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws of such State, shall be prohibited forever. If 36 states should act in favor of ratifying this proposed amendment, then, undoubtedly, each and every State in the Union could be just as dry as its own laws make it and as its own courts and juries make it . .

The Democratic platform adopted at Chicago in 1932, on which Roosevelt was elected President and on which I was elected to Congress on November 8, 1932, binds the Democratic Party to submit to the States a proposal for the re· peal of the eighteenth amendment. I am a Democrat by tradition, by inheritance, by association, and by conviction. I have always been a Democrat, and I expect to remain one as long as I live. Of course, the Democratic Party in the · past has made mistakes and probably will make mistakes in the futw·e. But however numerous and serious its mis· takes may be, they have been, and are, and will be, less numerous and less serious than the mistakes of the Republi • can Party. There is no other major party before the American public, and the warnings of history do not en· courage us to contemplate the organization of a new party. Hence, my resolution to remain a Democrat is well grounded in reason and conviction, and I expect to remain a Demo· crat as long as there is breath in my body.

Before the campaign for the nomination by the Democratic primary in South Carolina was closed, the National Democratic Convention had met in Chicago, and had adopted the platform to which I refer, and had nominated Roosevelt for President, and he had appeared before the convention and had expressed his personal resolution to stand upon that platform, and to seek to carry out its policies, if he should be elected . . In like manner, during my campaign for renomination by the Democrats of the fourth congressional district, I declared that I stood upon that platform from beginning to end. Being a Democrat, I do not consider myself at liberty to pick and choose those · parts of the platform that I approve and will support. If I can reject one plank in the platform, and still be a Democrat, I could reject two such planks, and finally could reject 9g per cent of the principles and policies declared for in that platform, and still be a Democrat. Such a conclusion is logically · preposterous. A man is not obliged to be a Democrat, and if he is a Democrat, he is not obliged to be a candidate for office upon a Democratic platform, but if he chooses to be a Democratic candidate, then I submit that good faith compelS him to accept the platform as a solemn · obligation to the people. If, after the platform was formu· lated, I could not conscientiously support its principles, then it would have been my duty to myself and to my political friends to have declined to be a candidate.

I · have been surprised, therefore, that some of my per· sonal friends have urged that I am not bound by the Demo· cratic platform to support the resolution to submit to the States a proposal to repeal the eighteenth amendment. If I am not bound by that specific pledge of the Democratic platform, then I am not bound by any other pledge in that platform. Those who advocate repudiation of a part of a platform should remember that such a principle would lead to the repudiation of the entire platform. Furthermore, unless there be such a thing as political honor and political integrity, evidenced by the support of a party platform, then party government and popular government are doomed to failure. Unless the people have some assmance that their representatives will keep their pledges made during a campaign, then they will lose confidence in representative government; and when confidence fails, the government itself Will fail.

Furthermore, those who advocate the repudiation of a part of the platform, by the same token advocate party perfidy and political treason. If a candidate is not bound by the party platform, written with deliberation and adopted by the representatives of the party in convention assembled, then a candidate would not be bound and should not be bound by his public speeches and private conversations during a campaign. If a candidate for office should during a campaign by his speeches promise the people that he would vote for the revision of the tariff, and if., after election, he

LnV'I-288 should refuse to vote as he told the people he would, then the people would have a right to denounce him as a traitor and to spurn him from their confidence and party councils. Even more so should the people repudiate a Representative who refuses to abide by the solemn platform " pledges upon which he was elected to office.

MY SPECIFIC PLEDGE AS DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE

But as for myself, I signed a pledge, required by the party rules of South Carolina, binding me specifically, if elected to Congress, to support the policies and principles of the Democratic Party, and to act in cooperation with my colleagues in Congress in furtherance of same. The history of . this pledge and its fair and reasonable interpretation show that reference is made to the principles and policies of the National Democratic Party, and those principles and policies are to be found expressed in the latest National Democratic platform. It would be idle and absurd to seek to bind the Representatives from South Carolina to cooperate with their Democratic colleagues from other States in promoting the principles set out in the Democratic platform of the State of South Carolina, or of the State of Georgia, or of the State of Tennessee, or of the State of Texas. Undoubtedly, the purpose and intention of that pledge is to bind the Democratic Members of Congress from South Carolina to support the principles and policies of the National Democratic Party as expressed in the National Democratic platform.

TO AMEND IS TRUE AMERICANISM

Feeling that I am honor bound by the foregoing considerations to submit to the States the question of repealing the eighteenth amendment, I have voted so to do. This proposal is not radical, nor un-American. In fact, it is the very essence of Americanism. It is the taproot of democratic institutions. It is the heart and soul of the republican form of government. The people are the masters in America. The people have adopted the Constitution of the United States in conventions assembled, and the people have already ratified 20 amendments to that Constitution. If the Constitution should never be changed then the eighteenth amendment could never have been adopted. Members of Congress at that time voted to submit to the States a proposal which became known as the eighteenth amendment. If I had been in Congress at the time I would have voted to give the people of the States the chance to say whether or not they desired to confer on Congress this police power of regulating the manufacture, sale, and distribution of alcoholic beverages.

The people of the States have been living under the law passed in pursuance of the eighteenth amendment, and dissatisfaction therewith has been widespread enough to cause both major political parties to declare in favor of a change. These two political parties represent, as shown by the vote, over 95 per cent of the people of America. The popular vote cast in favor of the prohibition candidate and his platform was almost negligible. The difference between the Democratic and the Republican platforms on this question is · well-nigh infinitesimal. The proposal which has now been submitted to the States by the action of the House of Representatives to-day, contains the essence of the platforms of both parties on that subject. It is true that the Democratic platform declared that there should be out and out repeal, and the Republican platform declared that there should be repeal, but reserved to the Federal Government the power to prevent the return of the saloons in any part of the Nation.

The proposal voted on to-day gives to every State absolute power to control the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoho-lic and intoxicating beverages. It will be up to the people of every State to say whether or not they will permit any intoxicating beverages to be sold or transported or stored in each such State, and if they, by their State laws, prohibit such manufacture, sale, and transportation within the State, then, such State laws will be supreme on that question, and whiskies can not be shipped into, or transported into such State; and, if laws prohibiting such importation and transportation of intoxicating beverages are violated by common carriers, or by private individuals, then State courts, and State juries must try, and convict, and punish all such violations.

EACH STATE'S WILL SUPREME IN MAKING AND ENFORCING LAWS

In other words, if 36 States should ratify this proposed amendment, then the fight will be transferred from Congress to the legislatures in each State to say what the law of that State shall be. If the law of South Carolina remains as it now is, then there is no danger whatsoever that liquor will be sold or transported into, or manufactured in, South Carolina. If South Carolina will look after her own problems along this line, and I know she did it well before the adoption of the eighteenth amendment, and if Georgia will do the same, and if North Carolina will do the same, and if the other States of the Union do the same, then there will be much less intoxicating beverages made and sold and transported than is the case now. A law of this kind can be best supported by the people of the State enacting that law. So long as it was possible to throw the expense and responsibility upon the shoulders of the Federal Government, then the State governments let their own laws remain in a state of quasi abeyance.

FEDERAL CALL AND CONTROL OF CONVENTIONS REVOLUTIONARY . AND DANGEROUS

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to record, as I did in December, my solemn conviction that any attempt by the Congress of the United States to enact a law for the calling of conventions in all the States, to meet at the same time, and to be subject to the same Federal regulations concerning membership, and all the other qualifications for voting for delegates, would be unconstitutional, un-American, undemocratic, and unwise. My conviction is perfectly clear that the Congress has no power, either express or implied, to call a single convention of the sovereign people of a single State, to pass upon any question, whether it be the ratification of a proposed amendment to the Constitution or anything else. To grant such a power would be the most dangerous step in the destruction of our dual system of government that the human mind could conceive. To grant the power proposed by the Hon. A. Mitchell Palmer, and some others, would make it possible for a party in power and in control of the Federal Government, to work its own will in the uprooting of, and destruction of, those things that are most fundamental to American life and American institutions.

There has been no more radical and revolutionary and dangerous proposal made since the days of reconstruction following the War between the States. If such a proposal ever finds expression in the form of a bill introduced in Congress, then I pledge myself to exert every ounce of my strength, both physical and mental, to defeating that proposal in the most summary and decisive manner. The very suggestion itself is repugnant to the principles of any person grounded in the doctrine of states' rights. The justification for any such proposal is rested upon a few fugitive and unimportant dicta of the Supreme Court. Being familiar with · the history of that court and having studied its doctrines and decisions for 40 ye.ars, I feel that if a majority of both Houses of Congress could ever be induced to vote for any such proposal, and if any American citizen, sitting in the chair of President, could ever be prevailed upon to sign his approval to any such bill, then an appeal to the courts to test the constitutionality of such a proposed law would meet with the prompt and unanimous declaration of all the courts of the land that the same is unconstitutional, null and void.

If ever the power and right of the courts to declare an act of Congress to be unconstitutional, and therefore null and void, is justified, then the case now under consideration would be the most thoroughly justified of all cases that have ever been considered. The reason is that it is the solemn duty of the Supreme Court to preserve not only our Constitution but to preserve our constitutional system. It is the duty of the Supreme Court not only to declare and protect the rights of the Federal Government but to declare and protect the rights of the States. If the rights of the States are invaded, and if by reason of such invasion the rights of the States are ultimately destroyed, by the same act the Federal Government would be destroyed. It would cease to be a confederation, and would become a consolidated and single sovereign government.

The very argument advanced by the Hon. A. Mitchell .Palmer in support of his plan whereby he suggests that if State legislatures are hostile to the contemplated amendment to the Constitution, then even if they call a State convention they may so fix the qualifications of those who are to vote and of those who are to be elected delegates, and the number of delegates, and the districts from which delegates may be selected, and the time and place of meeting, and all the other details of such a convention, as to completely defeat and overthrow the effort to amend the Constitution.

I admit that it is true. To grant the existence of a power is to grant the possibility of abusing that power. The power to do right in a sovereign way involves the power to do wrong. The power in a legislature to enact good laws of necessity involves the power to enact bad laws. By the same argument, but with multiplied danger to our dual system of government, to admit the power of the Federal Government to call conventions in States and to fix the qualifications for those who vote and to fix the qualifications of delegates and to prescribe the territory to be represented and to fix the time and the places of election and the time and places for the meeting of the convention would be to admit the existence of a power in the Federal Government which might be exercised at any time, whereby amendments might be railroaded through and adopted that would destroy our whole plan of government in America. To concentrate such a power into the hands of the single Federal Government would give to that Government the power of destroying America herself. But to distribute that power among the people of 48 States is in the interest of safety and wisdom. While a few States might abuse their power, it is not likely that 36 States would at the same time abuse their power to the extent of ratifying an amendment to the Constitution which would pervert and destroy the beauty and symmetry of the system.

For these considerations I hope that no effort will be made to enact any such law, but if such an effort is made, I pledge all that I can do to its swift and overwhelming defeat.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Speaker, the Congress, when it provided that the proposed twenty-first amendment to the Constitution of the United States should be ratified by conventions to be held in the several States, thereby expressed its desire that all of our citizens should have an equal opportunity to be heard individually on this all-absorbing question.

Since the passage of the resolution there has been much comment on the manner in which this might be accomplished. Many contend that the Congress of the United States has authority to and should set up the machinery for calling these conventions. The -consensus of op.inion, however, seems to be that the framers of our Constitution, in recognition of the sovereignity of the States, intended that the calling of the convention should be purely a Sta.te Junction. I am of this belief, for the reason that to hold otherwise would be contrary to the spirit of our Federal Constitution and might result in a usurpation by the Congress of certain vested rights retained by the States at the time the Constitution was originally adopted.

There has been much discussion of the manner in which these conventions might be called by the several States. Having in mind the intent of Congress that all of our citizens should have an equal opportunity to voice their desires, and having in mind also the numerous suggestions which have been made in each of the States as to the form the legislation should take, I have evolved a plan embodying a method of procedure which I believe will carry out the intent of Congress, .and which is .also expeditious and easily comprehended. It is suggestive only, and may be so modified as to coincide with the election machinery of the . several States. The plan in substance contemplates the nomination and election of a small body of delegates and carries out the principle of the so-called electoral college. Legislation may be enacted by the several State legislatures providing for the following:

First. The purpose of the convention.

Second. The time and place of holding the convention; the time and manner of holding primary and general elections, which may be in conformity with existing law.

Third. That the convention shall consist of a number of delegates equal to the number of congressional districts within the State. Where there are too few congressional districts to make this advisable, a stated number of delegates may be elected at large, or a delegate may be elected from each State senatorial or representative district, or more than one from each such congressional, senatorial, or representative district if it is thought advisable to increase the number of delegates.

Fourth. That one delegate be nominated on each side of the question from each congressional district, but who shall be elected at large, as hereinafter provided.

Fifth. That each person desiring to be nominated in each district shall file with the secretary of state, previous to circulating nominating petitions, an affidavit substantially as follows:

I,---, being duly sworn, depose and say that I reside at --; that I am a citizen of the United States, of the age of 21 years and upwards, and am a qualified elector of the county of --- in said State. That I am a candidate for nomination to the office of delegate to a convention to convene on , in the city of ---, State of ---, for the purpose of considering the ratification of the proposed twenty-first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; that if elected to said office I will vote in said convention for (against) the ratification of said amendment.

Sixth. That each person so desiring to be nominated shall file with the secretary of state, after the filing of such affidavit and before a specified date, a nominating petition signed by a number · of electors to be designated, in substantially the following form:

We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the township (city) of--, county of---, State of--, hereby nominate --- of --, county of --, State of --, as a candidate for the office of delegate to a convention to be held at the city of --, in said State, on --, for the purpose of considering the ratification of the proposed twenty-first article of the Constitution of the United States; that it has been represented to us that --has heretofore filed with the secretary of state an affidavit declaring that if nominated and elected to said office he will vote for (against) the ratification of said amendment.

These nominating petitions may be filed with the secretary of state before a specified date preliminary to the printing of the name of such candidate on the pr _ primary ballot. In lieu of a number of signatures of electors, provision may be made for the filing of a fee. It may be also provided that where only one person files on either side of the question from such district, he shall be certified by the secretary of state as the nominee, and in this event no primary election will be necessary.

Seventh. That the primary ballot be arranged in columns; one column to be headed " For ratification," and the other column to be headed "Against ratification." In their respective columns should be listed the names of those who have qualified by filing the affidavit and petition; the names of those having declared that they will vote for ratification will be listed in the column under such heading; likewise, the names of those who have by their affidavit and petitions declared their intention to vote against ratification will be listed in that column. Squares should appear opposite the names of such candidates in which the elector may declare his preference. In casting his ballot the elector may vote for one candidate in each column, and the person receiving the highest number of votes on each side of the question shall be certified as the nominee on that side of the question by the secretary of state.

Eighth. The election ballot may be prepared in like form, except that these persons nominated in the manner provided shall become one of a group of as many delegates as there are congressional districts. The elector when casting his ballot in the general election will vote for all of those persons designated as nominees in the column wherein his desires are expressed. For example: In States having 17 congressional districts, 17 individuals will be nominated on each side of the question as delegates to the convention, and their names will all appear on the ballot under respective headings, the same as the names of presidential electors now appear on ballots cast for the election of the President and Vice President. A person desiring to vote for ratification will vote for all of those who have been nominated under the column headed " For Ratification." Likewise, a person desiring to vote against ratification will vote for the 17 names under the heading "Against Ratification." That group of delegates so elected will receive certificates of election by the secretary of state and will organize and conduct the convention.

To avoid any question of personalities, the legislature may also provide that the form of the ballot to be submitted to the voter at the general election shall be in substantially the following form:

Shall the proposed twenty-first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which is as follows, be ratified:

The proposed amendment may be set forth in full on the ballot, with a provision for the elector to vote either " yes " or " no."

In this event the legislation must provide that an affirmative vote shall for all intents and purposes be deemed and construed as a vote for that group of nominees who have been nominated to vote for ratification; a negative vote will for all intents and purposes be deemed and construed as a vote for that group of nominees who have been nominated to vote against ratification. This plan is thought advisable because under it the voter will be casting his vote directly on the question, with all personalities eliminated.

The question will be raised as to whether this is constitutional. Let me observe that in the election of presidential electors in the election last November, many States had previously provided by law that the names of the candidates for President and Vice President be written on the ballot in lieu of the names of presidential electors, and that a vote for these candidates would, for all intents and purposes, be deemed and construed as a vote for the group of presidential electors named by the respective parties in their conventions or primaries.

Ninth. The legislation may also provide the manner of conducting the convention; the election of temporary and permanent officers; the manner of casting and recording the votes in the convention; and the manner in which the proceedings shall be recorded and certified to the secretary of state. The secretary of state then certifies the result of the convention in the manner now provided by law.

This plan, it will be seen, does not contemplate the election of delegates by districts. It provides that every qualified elector of any State shall be given an equal opportunity with every other elector to express himself on the question of ratification. It prevents gerrymandering and the possibility that minorities might control the conventions. It is to be hoped that these suggestions will be found helpful. The principle involved will at least meet with response from those who are conscientious in their belief that the people should be given an opportunity to directly solve the problem of prohibition, without interference by groups or minorities.

Mr. TREADWAY. Mr. Speaker, in voting for Senate Joint Resolution 211, submitting to the States the question of the repeal of the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution, I adhered strictly to the position which I consistently have taken on this important subject over a period of years.

During the · campaign last fan a representative of the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform asked me to state my views on the question of repeal. I quote the following self-explanatory extracts from my reply to her:

During our interview this afternoon I also read you verbatim a report of remarks I made in Springfield under date of May 23, ~931, and which were printed in the Springfield Republican and Union the following day. I quote from these remarks as follows: "As before stated. I voted to submit the question of adoption of the eighteenth amendment to the legislatures of the States because of the then preponderant sentiment of the people for such submission.

" In order to be consistent, 1f a similar preponderant sentiment 1s shown to exist for resubmission, I should deem it my duty to vote in Congress for such resubmission."

If reelected to Congress and the question comes before the House in the usual method of procedure, I shall vote for resubmission, preferably to State conventions called in accordance with constitutional provision.

As further evidence of my adherence to the position which I have publicly announced on various occasions, I call attention to the fact that in the first session of the Seventysecond Congress I voted " yea , on the following measures: H. J. Res. 208. Proposed amendment to the Constitution to amend the eighteenth amendment. On motion to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. R. 10017. To permit the manufacture and sale of beer, etc., of not more than 2.71) per cent of alcohol by weight, and placing a tax thereon. On motion to discharge the Committee on Ways and Means.

During the second session of the Seventy-second Congress I voted" yea, on the following measures:

H. J. Res. 480. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to repeal the eighteenth amendment.

H. R. 13742. To provide revenue by the taxation of certain nonintoxicating liquors, and for other purposes.

Mr. GillSON. Mr. Speaker, the Congress can only propose amendments to the Constitution. It is for the people to ratify or reject. The resolution just adopted submits the question of the retention or rejection of the eighteenth amendment to the people. It provides protection for dry territory. It provides for ratification by conventions. The Federal ban on saloons was dropped out by the Senate after full argument because it was found difficult of application. Prevention of the return of the saloon and its attendant evils is left to the States. . · My platform for nomination and election has the ap- proval, before announcement, of both friends and enemies of the eighteenth amendment as a fair and just proposition. . It called for a submission of the question as follows: The issue in respect to prohibition 1s: Shall the people have an opportunity to determine it by their votes?

I favor a prompt submission by the Congress of the question of the repeal or retention of the eighteenth amendment in such a way as to provide, as nearly as possible, a direct vote on that issue. It should be decided openly and decisively at the polls by the American people themselves. I prefer a straight direct vote, but that way is not now open. A properly framed convention plan is the best substitute.

The bootlegger and racketeers must be driven out of the country. In the event the people repeal the eighteenth amendment they should prevent the return of the saloon and its attendant evils. · · The provisions of the resolution fairly meet the platform on which I was elected. I would not be entitled to the confidence of my constituents, whether wet or dry, if I went back on it.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am supported by an overwhelming majority of the electorate of Connecticut in voting to repeal the eighteenth amendment to our Constitution.

Connecticut in its longheadedness, its conservativeness, its allegiance to constitutional traditions-and Connecticut, as you know, created the first Constitution in America-was one of the very few States-two, I believe-to refuse to vote to enact the eighteenth amendment.

Ten years' prohibition experiment has brought disgrace to America, ruination of our youth, disregard for law and order, hard times, and a dangerous · us increase of crimi.na.l class and criminal wealth, so great and so dangerous as to menace the security and good name of our communities and our Government.

We welcome the chance to eliminate this eighteenth amendment conceived in misrepresentation as a supposed patriotic temporary war measure, by well-meaning but misguided citizens of our land.

Were I in doubt as to my personal convictions, and I am not, I would but turn to my party platform of the 1932 Chicago Democratic Convention which overwhelmingly elected President-elect Roosevelt and read:

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."

I answer that demand by not only voting for such plank, but state I would consider it a breach of party faith and good citizenship to vote otherwise.

I have little patience with the die-hard drys who talk of the peril of the saloon. The saloon under past state control, though perhaps undesirable, out of date, and likely not to be restored, was infinitely better than the presentday speak-easy. Prohibition technically abolished the saloon. It actually created the speak-easy. In my section of the United States, I feel safe in saying for every saloon existing before prohibition days there are one or two more speak-easies.

These establishments are unregulated in their thousands by any other form of government · than the rule of the beer baron and the bribe or blindness of Government officials. They live through the utter inability of our Government to regulate, stop, or control same.

We have found we can not regulate by law the morals or tastes of our citizens. That is for the home, the church, the uplift, social, and religious organizations of the country, not the statute law of this or any land.

Any law that flouts our inherent constitutional rights and traditions, our country's ideals of freedom-the homely, crude standards of the mass of our people--can not be enforced. Any unenforcible law, though an apparently good law for the few, is the kind of law which creates lawlessness, crime, , and anarchy; the sooner repealed the sooner order and peace are restored. I venture an opinion that this repeal, if carried through the House by a two-thirds vote, will be supported by nearly all the 48 States in conventions assembled; respect for law will be restored, business progress will be aided, and taxation reduced. It will be at least one step-- · and maybe one big steP-in turning back the depression and bringing a more satisfied America again to work.

I feel that one of the strongest elements in this measure is the feature which gives to each State the right to regulate its own liquor traffic free from wet States' . interference or so-called regulation by the present Government's discredited prohibition service. It will aid and protect the so-called dry States in permitting them to exclude, if their citizens so wish, all liquor traffic in their domains.

· My State of Connecticut has no more speak-easies or illegal liquor traffic than any other State. We are one of the most law-abiding States in the Union. We desire real regulated State liquor traffic, a regulation of such a character as will come exclusively from the excise laws of Connecticut, and give opportunity to return to a higher standard of law and order than prevails in this country to-day.

Mr. LANKFORD of Georgia. Mr. · Speaker, there are many reasons why I can not conscientiously vote to repeal the eighteenth amendment and bring back the legalized barroom. I shall not now, at all, attempt to discuss all of them; I shall only mention one or two and make just a few observations. Feeling as I do about this matter, I would be a traitor to my conscience and to those who believe as I do if I voted for the return of the saloon-! would be acting a deliberate falsehood and not entitled to the respect or confidence of either those who honestly believe in the open barroom or those who are just as conscientious in their opposition to it.

The mighty drive is on for the return of the open barroom in every State, in every county, at every cross road, in every city and town, in every block, on every corner, open every day in the week every hour of the day, without the payment of license or tax-if possible-without restriction, and with the determination of this mighty political and financial force to dominate all local, State, and Federal Governments and to crush out the life of every one that opposes it.

No one who remembers the activities of the liquor interest before the adoption of the eighteenth amendment can question this now being the ultimate objective of the big whisky interest; neither can anyone who closely studies the fight now being waged in the country by this interest at all honestly doubt this now being their main objective. Long before the adoption of the eighteenth amendment, the late Senator Thomas E. Watson of Georgia, in speaking of the liquor traffic said:

It is a warrior whom no victory can satisfy, no ruin satiate. It pauses at no rubicon to consider, pitches no tents at nightfall, goes into no quarters for winter. It conquers amid the burning plains of the South, where the phalanx of Alexander halted in mutiny. It conquers amid the snowdrifts of the North, where the gr a nd army of Napoleon found its winding sheet. Its monuments are in every burial ground. Its badges of triumph are the weeds which mourners wear. Its song of victory is the wail that was heard in Ram a h: "Rachel crying for her children and weeping bec a use they are not."

It never buries the hatchet; its temple of Janus never closes its doors. No dove of peace ever carries its message; in its hand is never the olive branch. It sends no flag of truce and receives none, its wounded are left where they fall, and its dead bury their dead. Every citadel that it storms it devastates, and tn every charge that it makes its cry is "No quarter."

Those who fall before its onset die deaths of shame, and they go down to dishonored graves to which love can bring no willing tribute of flowers and over which pride can rear no enduring monument. To its prisoners it grants no exchange, holds them to no ransom, but clutches them fast in a captivity that is worse than death and ends only at the grave.

Mr. Speaker, there is no middle ground; the fight is on, to the finish, for the return of the saloon. This resolution could have been drawn so as to have prevented the return of the saloon. It was deliberately drawn so as to permit the return of the saloon. It was taken up in the House, deliberately and purposely, in such a way as to prevent any amendment to prohibit the return of the saloon. The purpose to bring back the saloon is the motive back of this entire move. Let no one be decieved and let no one mislead others as to this matter. Those who are fighting for the return of the saloon are opposed to the Representatives of the people here in Congress having the chance · to vote on this matter. They are opposed to the people's representatives in the various States having the chance to vote on the various phases of this question and they are deliberately preventing the people of the Nation from having a referendum on this question to determine whether the people desire the retention of the eighteenth amendment, or the return of the barroom, or some form of sale of intoxicants under governmental control other than by the open saloon. No chance has or will be given to either Members of Congress or members of the State legislatures or the people of our country to say whether or not they want the eighteenth amendment repealed and either a Federal or State dispensary system in its stead. Nowhere at any time-either in Congress or ou~will those who are opposed to the eighteenth amendment but do not want the return of the saloon have a chance to vote their convictions. This great conservative, middle-ground, reasonable group of our very best citizens, to whom both the Democrats and Republicans sought to appeal last national campaign, are to be denied the right of a vote expressing their own views on this most vital issue. Only those are to be allowed a vote in this contest of life and death who are extreme and do not want the repeal at all or who are equally as extreme and want the return of the saloon with all its hideous consequences and nothing else.

We all have extreme views at some time on some matter and we are all wrong sometimes, and those who occupy the middle ground are right ninety-nine times out of a hundred and yet these-probably much the larger half of our votersare the citizens of our country who are to be deliberately deprived of the right to participate in this much-heralded and much-boasted referendum.

If the wet forces in Congress want all the people to have a referendum on this question, let them submit to the States another resolution providing for the repeal of the eighteenth amendment, but preventing the return of the saloon, and also one providing for State and/or Federal dispensaries and so on, in this way submitting to the people for their consideration the various proposals in connection with this important matter.

This will not be done. Those who favor the return of the saloon dare not give the people the right to pass on this question. But it is urged that the Democrats are bound by platform pledge to vote for the repeal resolution. Let us see about this. I do not find any plank specifically pledging repeal and the return of the saloon. Were not the people led to believe that there would be urged and sponsored repeal coupled with an absolute prohibition against the return of the saloon? Are not the wet forces of both parties now absolutely repudiating the campaign pledges and pronouncements of both parties when it is sought by them to put over this mighty drive to disfranchise all those with average views on this subject and to bring back the saloon without a fair referendum?

The extreme wet forces want just . whatever is necessary to help them secure the return of the saloon. They favor the kind of a referendum that helps them; they are opposed to any referendum that might get a result other than the saloon. They always have, and now oppose all party pledges, all law, and all parts of the Constitution interfering with their drive for the return of the saloon; they favor only that which helps them in this fight. The wets are not in position to criticize those of us who do not favor this resolution. They just as well admit that they are fighting for the return of the saloon and accord to those of us who are opposed to the saloon the same honesty of purpose which they claim for themselves.

Mr. FUlLER. Mr. Speaker, I shall vote for Senate Joint Resolution 211 to submit the repeal of the eighteenth amendment to the various States of the Union. On the first day of this session I voted against such a measure for the reason I thought it was not timely nor proper to put the liquor question against the remedies to overcome this depression; when the people were demanding bread they should not, at the first opportunity, be given liquor. Then, too, the proposed measure did not comply with the Democratic platform in that it did not provide for the protection of States which remained dry. During my service in Congress I have voted against all repeal and modification acts and , voted for all appropriations seeking the enforcement of the prohibition laws.

There is not a doubt but what the repeal of the eighteenth amendment will be submitted to the States of the Union, if not at this session, then by the next Congress, which will be most overwhelmingly for repeal. Under such circumstances the drys should fight for the most favorable measures with proper restrictions, such as this measure contains. If this measure were left to the next Congress it is possible that legislation might be passed which would give the Federal Government the right to hold the election. the supervision thereof, and also fail to contain a provision to protect the dry States. ·

I am considered the standard bearer and leader of democracy in my district, and whatever honor I have as a Congressman I owe to the Democratic Party. I feel it my duty to either go with my party or get out of it. The Democratic platform adopted at the 1932 Chicago convention provided: 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.

It also provided and demanded of Congress a modification of the Volstead Act. As a delegate to that convention I was opposed to and voted against this provision of the platform. It is a cardinal principle of democracy that the majority should rule, and should I place my personal opinion and views above this platform at a time when the question was made an issue, I would be attempting to be bigger than my party. I can not conclude that the overwhelming victory of last November was other than a mandate to support the party platform. It would be hypocrisy to use the platform only for the purpose of getting into office. Both the Democratic and Republican platforms demand the submission of this question by Congress to State conventions.

The laws of our Government are based upon party procedure; no party can successfully function and accomplish good for the people that is not organized and united. A caucus of the Democratic Congressmen has been called and voted to instruct its membership to vote for the submission. In my opinion, a Representative can not expect to legislate only for his district; no community can live unto itself. It is necessary that we should vote for the welfare of the entire Nation where it is not ruinous, harmful, or destructive to our own districts. I am convinced that the constituency of my district does not expect me to be out of step with my party nor to fail to function and carry out its demands.

The submission of the eighteenth amendment simply means the various States of the Union shall have the right to vote upon the question of repeal. This resolution means that elections will be held in every voting precinct; and if a majority are opposed to the repeal, then Arkansas will remain dry; unless three-fourths of the States of the Union approve this resolution, the eighteenth amendment will not be repealed. In a debate in Congress made by the leader of the prohibition forces asking for the adoption of the eighteenth amendment he said:

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 the popu1ar 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.

The liquor question always has been and will always continue to be of grave importance to the welfare of our people. Under present conditions a vote for submission is not a wet vote nor in any way compromising with the liquor interests. Regardless of the result of the vote on this repeal, I am thoroughly convinced that saloons are outlawed and will never again be permitted in this Nation.

In a recently published signed statement, Dr. A. C. Millar, minister, a leader of the Anti-Saloon League in Arkansas and the editor of the Arkansas Methodist, states:

Wbue I am for the eighteenth amendment, I have for several years contended that under present conditions it might be best to have a referendum on the question, and I even went so far 1n meetings of the executive committee of the National AntiSaloon League as to o:fier a resolution providing for an amendment to the Constitution under which the people might vote by States on the question.

Mr. LUDLOW. Mr. Speaker, the high esteem I have for multitudes of good friends who disagree with me on my prohibition votes, and which is not affected or diminished in the least by our honest differences of opinion, prompts me to make this statement explaining why I can not go along with the majority of the House and the majority of the body at the other end of the Capitol in support of this pending resolution for the repeal of the eighteenth amendment.

Goaded and harassed by appalling economic conditions our people have drifted far from the moorings of safety on the liquor question. Among all of our ills piled mountain high the pending resolution is, I fear, the culminating tragedy born out of the distress of the times.

The saddest part of it all is that when the storm subsides and economic peace again settles over the land and when, with the cessation of the turmoil we might reasonably expect brighter days, contentment, and happiness ahead, we shall awaken to find that we have provided no constructive program of liquor control to take the place of prohibition but have fastened upon ourselves the old saloon and all the old evils of the liquor traffic and that after a hundred years of noble effort to solve the liquor problem we are back just I where we started. If prohibition is to be repealed, . d, we should at least submit · something constructive to take its place and in the resolution of resubmission should protect the major gains it has brought about, chief among which is the elimination of the saloon.

A13 a newspaper writ.::r of 40 years' experience in various large cities in close contact with life's activities, I can give . first-hand evidence in regard to the damage that was done to society by the saloon. A13 a young police reporter, zealous in the pursuit of news, I spent a great deal of time in saloons, and in gambling places and brothels, dark and sinister establishments of which the saloon was a feeder, while I garnered human-interest stories about the saloon's tragic toll. And such opportunities to delve into the realm of human interest as we reporters of those times had, with sorrowful tragedies unfolding around us that would defy the descriptive powers of a Dickens or a Hugo!

I can see to-day, as if it were but yesterday, the saloon of the olden time, with the gambling gentry in checkered vests and reverberating haberdashery who lingered and plied their calling thereabout, and set their traps to catch their human toll, and the scarlet women with big hats and gorgeous plumes who flitted in and out and seemed always to be in the offing. I can see unsophisticated girls fresh from their mothers' apron strings caught in the net of the wine rooms and started on the downward path to perdition. It would be a hard-hearted person indeed who could see them drawn into the vortex without being touched with infinite compassion. As I look backward in the moving panorama I can see a great many men bearing the image of their Maker made into wrecks in the saloons and then delivered as human derelicts at the gates of hell.

No one need tell me that the saloon was not a social k t · t k f can er. I IS no guesswor as far as I am concerned. I know it was by the indubitable evidence of my own eyes and ears. I know by having seen men of good intentions converted by it into beasts who went home and beat their children. I know by the girls it started on the primrose path to ruin. I know by the scores and hundreds of fine, intellectual newspaper associates of mine whom it sent to premature graves. I know by the murders, suicides, divorces, and wrecked homes I can trace to it. I know by the gambiers who swarmed around it as moths attracted to a flame and whose intake from their victims was a part of the devil's grist. I have always been against the saloon and I am against it now.

I am sorry to see so many good men on both sides of this chamber and outside of the chamber supporting it-men for whose character and motives I have as high esteem as I have for my own but who, I believe, are misled by the t• hink emo Ions of the hour. I t · they are making a tragic mistake for which many of them will be truly sorry in the years to come.

I would forfeit their respect if I were to vote for something which I believe to be wrong. The only way I can justify the confidence of those who sent me here is always to vote according to my conception of right and as my conscience dictates, and that I always intend faithfully to do. I can recall at this moment hundreds of splendid friends on the opposite side of the liquor question for whom I have a real affection. To them I owe this explanation of the vote I shall cast to-day. I think they regard me as being like the Irishman at the drilling match who is out of step with all of the rest of the regiment. I am with them in bonds of friendship and their sharp letters and telegrams or criticism are poignantly painful to me, but the good Lord has given me only one head to think with and one heart to love with. I can not think that any roseate embellishment of the saloon will make it righteous or that it would ever be right for me to sanction it or support its reappearance in the life of America, and I love my fellow beings too much . ever to want to put this infliction upon them. There has never been any change in my attitude toward the saloon and there never will be. I want it always to remain an outlaw. A13 between the saloon on one hand and humanity on the other hand I take my stand for humanity. When I first ran for Congress in 1928, I so expressed myself and in each one of my two campaigns since then I have made my position plain and unequivocal. When the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment interrogated me in the recent campaign, I stated in writing my position to be:

In no event and under no circumstances by any vote or influence of mine will I be a party to the return of the saloon and the oldtime liquor evils in America.

America at present is a very sick Nation. The malady we suffer is both economic and spiritual in its nature. We are now feeling the full rebound of the awful toll of war. A power higher than mortal ken or vision is teaching us the costliness of war and the danger that comes from lowering our spiritual standards. I do not know how long, 0 God, we shall have to remain in this crucible, but of one thing I am certain and that is that the return of the saloon and the old liquor domination would not cure our malady but would aggravate the ills that now afflict us.

The resolution (S. J. Res. 211) before us to-day opens the way for the return of the saloon and the old liquor evils under the protection of our Government. I am against it. In the name of the millions of inarticulate men, women, and children in the homes and the ordinary walks of life who are seriously thinking this afternoon about what all of this means, though their voices can not be heard in this historic chamber, I oppose this resolution, which is wide open and without a single ban or check against the saloon. I am going to play square with them and with the boys and girls of to-morrow, and with the boys and girls of all the to-morrows that are to come, by voting against the return under legal sanction of what I believe to be a damnably wicked institution.