August 1, 1917

Prohibition Portland has attracted more tourists than Portland with its saloons ever did in a normal year.

All the first-class hotels report better business this yea.r than in any normal year before the saloons were wiped out. Naturally those hotels that made a heavy profit from their bars are suffering just that much less. but their other departments continue to make money. Some of them are absorbing the losses due. to the elimination of the bar by the increased business in their rooms and restaurants. Hotel men say there is no reason why a hotel should depend on its .saloon t'O carry along the rest of the house any more than a good department store allows its shoe business, for instance, to carry the losses of its dressgoods department.

Employers assert that those of its employees formerly inclined to drink have gained folly 25 per cent in efficiency. This is particularly true of loggmg-camp operators. .

Mr. SHAFROTH. :Mr. President, the temperance movement . in the United States may be divided into three epochs. The movement was first started by the appeal to the individual. Temperance societies were formed. The people were asked to sign pledges to abstain from the use of intoxicating liquor, and a considerable advance was made thereby. However, we know that such promises are often broken under exposure to the allurements of the saloon, and many signers of the pledge fell victims to temptation. It . is still true as it was in Shakespeare's time that" If to do were as easy as to know what were good to do, chapels had been churches and poor men•s · cottages princes' palaces."

Because of failure to produce the · expected results the temperance people saw it was necessary to take a further step in the direction .of obtaining abstinence.

STATE PROHIBITION.

The second movement was an appeal for restrictive legislation by the States, namely, high license; an appeal to cities to pass ordinances prohibiting the use of intoxicating liquors in wards and cities ; and .appeals for local-option laws in counties; and at last State-wide prohibition.

It is needless to say, l\ir. President, that the use of intoXicating liquor has been demonstrated by the medical fraternity to be most deleterious to health. A little book came to me on yesterday entitled "Alcohol," by Eugene Lyman Fisk, in which I have found some very valuable information. I found that in England of the people who abstained from the use of intoxicating liquor 37 per cent less died than those of the ordinary . risks in the life insurance companies <>f Great Britain. In other words, th~ man who abstained lived longer, he was a better risk. Speaking ot the British Life Assurance Co., it is interesting to note this paragraph : _ ·

This institution was founded at a time when the total abstainer was looked upon as a " queer duek," probably mentally unbalanced and cer· taialy . physically weak. In fact, this parqcular company was founded by a man who had been asked to pay an extra premium because h-e iniisted on being a total abstainer.

It ts of interest to kn'Ow that, while in the course of the l!ompany'.s whole experience the excess mortality . among users was 37 per cent, tlle mortality among users between the ages of 35 and 40 was 83 per cent 1n · excess, showing 'the influence of some extremely unfavorable factor at that critical p.eriod.

-The American insurance statistics show practically the same f-acts.

l\ir. President, a powerful reason why the States should have enacted legislation establishing prohibition is found in statistics which show that the paupers in prohibition States are ~Y 46 to every 100,000 of population, that in the near prohibition States they are 54, that in the 13 partially licensed States they -are 123, and in ~ 9 license States the ratio is 127 paupers to every 100,000 of population.

Statistics taken .from the United States .census reports show that in prohibition. States only 118 are insane to every 100,000 of population; in near prohibition States the number is 150, in partially l~~ense States it is 242, and m license States it is 276 insane out of every 100,000 inhabitants':-

The increase of the products of manufacture in States during the 10 years preceding 1900 has likewise shown the advantages of prohibition. In dry States · the increase of products manu:fa.ctured has been ll-6.3 per .cent, in neft.l' prohibition States 85.6 per cent, in partially license States 82.2 per cent, and in license States 73.7 per <:ent. .

The United States census reports also show that the number of crimes committed in prohibition .States is far less than in the States where liquor is sold. It is the saloon · that attracts the criminal, and it is the saloon that lures so many of the young men of our country to their destruction.

In Fisk on Alcohol, at page 183, I find the following :

At the meeting of the American Medical AssoCiation held on June 6 1917, Dr. Charles H. Mayo the noted surgeon, in his presidential address stated that the only legitimate use for alcohol was in the arts and sciences, and that itS use in medicine had become greatly restricted because other less menacing drugs and remedial . measures could be used instead. ·

The association then pa sed the following resolution:

Whereas we believe that the use -of alcohol is detrimental to the human economy ; .and ·

Whereas its use in therapeutics as a tonic or stimulant or for food has no sCientific -value : Therefore be it

Resolved, That the American, Medical Association is opposed to the use of alcohol as a beverage.

The Pirogov Society, the leading medical associati-on of Russia, on l\iay 29, 1915, approved a.nd published a document containing the following: · - Scientific facts (drawn from physiology, pathology, and clinical experience~ compel us to place alcohol and substanees containing alcohol in the class of poisonous and injurious things. Alcohol is a typical narcotic poison, which taken in small doses from the beginning disturbs the highest functions .of the brain .cells and consequently causes !tc~i;s ~f pleasant but illusory feelings of warmth, energy, bravery, The use Of small doses of alcohol-always a narcotic poison--develops in some men whose constitutions ar.e weak _ severer forms of alcoholism, that · are obviously the -cause of much personal and social unhappiness. It has been proved that a regular consumption of small doses increases morbi1ll.ty, mortality, the number of accidents, mental sicknesses, suicides, crime o1 every type, a both qwilitative and quanti· tative minllS of -capacity in both mental and physical work. The concept " mo.deration " can not be used for habitual use of alcoholic drinks since the customary use of a poison is nonmoderation and misuse.

These are some of the reasons why the States took hold of the question and passed high license and prohibition statutes for cities and towns and finally for the States themselves.

Yet, l\ir. President, notwithstanding these laws, we have not been able to enforce absolute prohibition. And why? It is because surrounding the States that have established prohibition are States that declare it lawful to sell intoxicating liquors, and it is impossible to prevent the importation of liquor into prohibition States so situated. Consequently, notwithstanding prohibition has been extending until now it is the law in about 26 States, yet it is impossible to enforce absolute prohibition under that system.

From the Statistical Abstract for 1916 I take the following, showing the consumption in gallons per capita of intoxicating liquors: • Distilled. Wines. Malt. 'J?ota!. Average* 1881 to 1890 ................. -- • 1.34 0.48 11.38 13.2D 1916 - ···~ •• •••••••••·· 1.35 .46 17.59 19.40 J\.Ir. PreSident, what necessity, then, arises from that condition? The necessity of having a . Nation-wide prohibition constitutional amendment. That is the necessity. That seems the only remedy to prevent the shipment of liquor from one State to another.

I heard the colloquy between the Senator from Missouri [Mr. REED] and the Senator from Kansas [Mr. THOMPSON] as to whether the prohibition law in Kansas had been a success: One declared that it had ' been and the other insisted that it hftd not, · but every ._ co . contention of · the · Senator who declared the law a failure demonstrated the necessity for a national constitutional amendment. The very thing that prevented the , State of Kansas from enforcing absolute prohibition was the '. fact that liquors from other States adjoining had · been surreptitiously taken into that State.

NATIONAL PROHIBITION.

Mr. President, it does seem to me that when the temperance people have tried in two different ways to get absolute prohibi" tion and have not been completely successful, the last resort and the third appeal should be made to the Nation. The Nation is deeply interested in this question. It has been said that . the War College division of the United States Army made an estimate of the number of killed and wounded in the wars of all history from 500 years before Christ to the Russian-Japanese War of a few years ago, and it was found that in all those wars the total killed and wounded was 2,800,000 men, and of that number it was estimated that 700,000 were killed and 2,100,000 · wounded. · l\1r. President, it is also stated that Mr. Hobson in a lecture ,l that the number of deaths from alcohol among the people of the white race in the world is 3,500,000 every year. If that is true you can readily see that · war losses are but an inconsiderable fraction compared to the losses chargeable to the account of intoxicating liquors. It is said, therefore, that every year there die from the use of intoxicating liquors five times as many persons as the total of all the victims in the wars of the world for 2,300 years. -

The National Government can more certainly enforce its liquor legislation. · -The Federal courts are feared, and hence laws will be observed. As a State can not under our dual form of government establish complete prohibition, any State is justified in · urging a national constitutional amendment for prohibition for its own protection. . on. Otherwise 36 States could not protect themselves against 12 Commonwealths. What a great interest, then, has the Nation to see that her citizens are preserved, ready to defend her in all times of stress and need.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator from Colorado has expired. .

Mr. JONES of Washington. Mr. President, when the amendment of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. HARDING] to me I said I would not support it under any circumstances. I said I would not vote for any limitation upon the submission of the constitutional amendment. Furthermore, I expressed _ the opinion then that has been expressed here by the Senator from Idaho [Mr. BoRAH] and by other Senators-that Congress has no power to put in a limitation of that kind. _

But, Mr. President, after more consideration and reflection and ascertaining the situation in the Senate. , . I have changed my mind with reference to my vote upon the amendment. I have determined that I will · vote for that amendment largely from Ohio. for the reason stated by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. CURTIS]. Everybody recognizes that it is very difficult to get a two-thirds vote in the Senate upon a proposition about which there is serious controversy. A very careful investigation has convinced some of us that a two.-thirds vote is very uncertain unless this limitation is put on. Some Senators feel that without the limitation they can not vote for the resolution. They feel that with the limitation they can vote for it.

It seemed to me, as a friend of the resolution, that I could afford to vote for a provision that would very likely insure the submission of this amendment to the people of the · country and give an opportunity for the adoption of that which so many of us are very earnestly in favor of.

I will say frankly that this phase of the matter also influenced me. If the amendment is submitted ·with this limitation, and it is not ratified in six years, there is nothing to prevent Congress from a resubmission. In my judgment it will be ratified in six years; but suppose it is not and lacks simply one or two States. If two-thirds of the States of the .country have voted to ratify the amendment, there is no power on earth .that can pre-vent Congress from resubmitting it immediately, and Congress w111 do it. The liquor interests-! do not refer to anybody in the Senate-but the liquor interests that would like to see a limitation of this kind would like to see the resolu on defeated. They should recognize now, and this is not uttered as a threat, but it is simply based upon the sentiments and . conditions throughout the country, that their business is doomed, and . tha,t if this limitation is put on and the amendment is not ratified in six years it will be resubmitted, if necessary, · and the contest will go on until it is settled in the right sort of a way. . Now, looking at it in that way, I can not see anything that the friends of temperance will lose by the adoption of the resolution with the amendment of the Senator from Ohio upon it. J do not think it ought to be put on. I think that this amendment ought to be treated just as every other constitution ' al amendment has been treated in the past. We never have submitted a constitutional amendment with a limitation of this kind before, but it simply illustrates what the temperance forces are up against in their contest with the liquor traffic. Whatever they get they must get by main strength, to use a common expression, by main strength and pure awkwardness. \Ve have to take whatever we can get and then go forward for something else. It is just like the condition of the allies on the western battle fronts of Europe . . They have to go forward inch and trench at a time. That seems to be the condition which confronts us on this proposition. ‘

I recognize, as has been suggested by the Senator from Iowa, that lt may give rise to litigation ; m and matters of that kind, but that will not delay matters any · more than we will be delayed if we fail to pass the resolution . at _ this time. I . am willing · to take the resolution with this limitation upon it in order to have the _ amendment submitted and give the people . of the country an opportunity to pass upon it, because I believe they will act favorably within th~ six years. If they do not act favorably within the six years there is nothing to prevent us from resubmitting it to the States at the end of six years, and we will resubmit it if necessary. · I am inclined to · think ' also that if this limitation is put on the contention of Senators is correct, and . it is the view that I really hold with reference to the matter, that if Congress has not the power to put that limitation on it will not · affect the amendment; it is not any part of the a,mendment. The v . very language of the resolution determines and specifies what the amendment is, and that is the proposition which is submitted to the States. If the Supreme Court -should hold that we went beyond our power in putting on this limitation-and I believe it would hold that it would not affect the amendment itself; I may be mistaken, but even if it should we have · not lost anything, in my judgment.

So, 1\Ir. President, for these reasons I am going to vote for the amendment of the Senator from Ohio.

111r. V ARDAUAN obtained the floor.

1\Ir. CUMMINS. 1tlr. President--

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. · Does the Senator from was suggested Mississippi yield to the Senator from Iowa?

Mr. VARDAMAN. With pleasure.

Mr. CUl\Il\llNS. Not to be taken out of the time of the Senator from Mississippi, I wish to make a suggestion, which I have a perfect right to make in my own time. I am very earnestly for the proposed amen . amendment of the Constitution. I do not want to divide the friends of the resolution. I feel impelled to oppose the amendment proposed by the Senator from Ohio, but under the circumstances I withdraw the amendment which I offered to the amendment proposed by the Senator · Mr. V ARDA.l\IAN. Mr. President, for me to express my views upon this question would be but to repeat a thrice-told tale vexing the dull ears of a hot and weary Senate. My first political service was rendered in opposition to the open saloon. In those days in Mississippi rt> fight the liquor traffic was not a pleasant pastime. In some communities the men interested in the saloon business and their patrons regarded the temperance advocate as a usurper-{)ne who was trying to take from them the blood-bought privilege~ of citizenship.

Notwithstanding that trying ordeal, I have advocated prohibition in th~ towns, cities, counties of my State, and finally the State and the Nation all these years even before I became . a voter.

I have looked forward to this day with longing and with high hopes of what it may , bring to the people of America. I wish that Congress had the power to enact a law this afternoon prohibiting the manufacture and sale of .intoxicating liquors. I would have action immediately. •

As has been so clearly and conclusively stated on the floor of the Senate this afternoon, - the liquor traffic is probably' the most insidious economic enemy to the human race and liquor itself the most destructive poison that ever polluted the blood of men or fired the heart to dastardly things.

I shall not vote for the amendment offered by the honorable Senator from Ohio [Mr. HARDING], because I believe the purpose of that amendment is . not to promote the cause of prohibition or further the cause of temperance. Whatever may be the protestations, I can not believe that any Senator opposed to the , resolution providing for nation-wide prohibition will be induced to vote for that resolution because of the adoption of the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio. Senators · opposed to the so-called Sheppard _ resolution will not support it if th~ Harding amendment shall be adopted unless the so-called Harding amendment gives the whisky interests some decided advantage. Now, regardless of the constitutional objection urged by the Senator from Idaho [Mr. BoRAH], if this resolution shall be agreed to by the States, there is no doubt in my mind but that it will stand the test in the courts and prohibition will exist throughout the Republic. But if the six years shall elapse before the adoption by the States of this resolution, it is my judgment that it will require another six years before we can hope to carry the constitutional amendment through all the State legislatures. I think the adoption of the . amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio will be surrendering a great deal to the advocates of the liquor cause. It means delay in the consummation of the great scheme for national prohibition for which we have worked and the good women have prayed for all these years. · •

I repeat, Mr. President, that I do not . believe the joint resolution offered by . the Senator from Texas will receive a single additional vote on its final passage because of the adoption of the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio. I think the issue ought to be made squarely. I am opposed to muddying the waters or throwing dust in anybody's eyes. I think it Will be eminently unfortunate for Congress to write something into the joint resolution not authorized by the Constitution, the effect of which will be to hinder, delay, and . create doubt as to what the resolution really means and finally defeat its purposes. The cause of temperance is a holy cause. This campaign for prohibition is inspired by the loftiest - motiVe and highest altruism, and I do not think the cause would be promoted by accepting this amendment or anything akin to it. I believe the righteousness of the cause for which we contend demands that our fight be made along straight lines; Let this joint resolution be passed unamended, so that the American people can know exactly what they get when it is passed.

1\fr. STONE. Mr. President, may I interrupt the Senator from Mississippi?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Mississippi yield to the Senator from Missouri?

Mr. VARDAMAN. With pleasure. _

Mr. STONE. The Senator says that he does not believe that a • "' single vote would be added to the final vote for the joint resolution offered by the Senator from Texas by adding to it the amendment pro " proposed by the Senator from Ohio. The Senator ought not to say that, I submit to him, when Senators on the floor an'd otherwise have given assurance that they would vote for the joint resolution if it were so amended. ·

1\fr. VARDAMAN. Well, I will say to the Senator from Missouri that I have not heard a Senator make that statement. I heard the Senator from Washington [Mr. JONEs] state a moment ago that he had been assured that Senators would · so vote, but I can not understand why a Senator would vote for the joint resolution if he is opposed to prohibition. What advantage is to be gained by his side of the question by the adoption of the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio, unless it is that it shall give the whisky interests some advantage in . the ratification of the amendment by the States? If that be true, certainly no friend of prohibition should consent to the amendment. To do so would be an unfortunate surrender by the friends of prohibition to the advocates of the liquor traffic. That is all I have to say, Mr. President. I am going to vote for · the joint resolution providing for nation-wide prohibition, and, as I have so often said heretofore upon the floor of the Senate, I hope from the depths of my heart that the joint resolution may .receive the constitutional two-thirds. majority, and as a result America may become a Nation of sober and temperate people, holding the pres . preservation of the body and the salvation of the soul of more value than sordid gold.

Mr. PHELAN. Mr. President, I ask leave at this time to submit an amendment, so that it may be considered as pending.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment will be received and considered as pending.

Mr. PHELAN. May I ask to have it read, Mr. President? _

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will read the amendment, if there be no objection.

The Secretary read as follows :

Resol ve d by the Senate and House of Representatives of the · United Stat e s ~1 Am e r1c~ tn Congress assembl_ed (two-thirds of each · House . concurring ther e m), That the following two amendments to the Constitution be, and hereby are, proposed to the . States, to become valid as a part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of the several States as provided by the Constitution :

ARTICLE -. /

. SECTION. 1. The manufacture, salE!, or transportation · of intoxicating hquors within, the importation thereof into, and the exportation !hereo_f from, the Umteq States and all territories subject to the JUrisdtchon thereof for beverage purposes · is hereby prohibited· Provided .. That this article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified a."l an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, on or before the ist day of .July, A. D. 1927. · •

SEC. 2. The Congress shall have • power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. • .

Mr. PHELAN. Jl.fr. President, I do not think the Secretary read the alternative amendment which I submitted. I beg to call attention to the fact that I proposed two amendments. One is the Sheppard amendment with the addition of the time limitation, and the second amendment proposes to strike out the word " intoxicating •• and to substitute the words " distilled spirituous," so that the people of the States will have the alternative of either abolishing the manufacture of whisky wine, and beer, or of whisky only. I ask that my second amendment be read.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection, the Secretary will read as requested.

The Secretary read as follows :

ARl:ICLE -,

SECTION 1. The manufacture, sale, or transportation of distilled spirituous liquors , within. the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from, the United States and all territories subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited : Provided, That this article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been · ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided fn the Constitution, on or before the Ist day of July, A. D. 1927.

SEc. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate le . legislation. · · .

Mr. SHEPPARD. ?lfr. President, I do not entertain the fears which have been expressed by the Senator from Idaho [Ur. BoRXH],. the Senator from Iowa [Mr. CuMMINS] or the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. V ARDA:M:AN] and other distinguished Senators in this Chamber regarding the amendment proposed by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. HARDING]. No one appreciates the high capacity, the unquestioned integrity, or the · devotion to prohibition of these Senators more than I. I am unable, however, to sympathize with the misgivings · which they entertain. I do not believe that any limitation exists upon the power of Congress to submit a question to the States or as to . the terms in which that question · may be expressed. This amendment by its own terms provides that it shall be inopet~a­ tive unless ratified by a three-fourths vote of the States within six years. Suppose that three-fourths of the States should not ratify the amendment by that time. There is nothing to prevent them from continuing to VOte, OUt SUCh a COUrSe WOUld be so useless that it would not be pursued. Suppose three-fourths of the States should ultimately vote to adopt the amendment after six years had passed. They would have adopted · an amendment that by its very terms had already become inoperative. , ·

· Besides, as the Senator from Washington [Mr. JoNEs] has said-and I desire to confirm everything he has said-if three fourths of the States should not have voted at the end of six years, resubmission could be had immediately. In my judgment the cause of prohibition will have received such an impetus by the submission of this amendment that if not adopted within six years, adoption will be inevitable within only a year or two after resubmission. It is my belief that the amendment will be adopted by three-fourths of the States within six years.

Mr. STONE. Mr. President, before the Senator from Texas--

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Texas yield to the Senator from Missouri?

Mr. STONE. I beg pardon. I thought the Senator was about to sit down, and I wanted to say a word or two.

Mr. SHEPPARD. I yield.

Mr. STONE. Mr. President, this one amendment has been pending before the Senate for three hours. There are other amendments of very great importance; and we have to begin voting at 4 o'clock. After that all debate will be at an end. In good faith, under the rule we have agreed to, I submit to the Senator from Texas and to the Senate that we ought to vote upon the pending amendment and give an opportunity to present other amendments and to say a few words about them.

Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. · President, I am in entire sympathy with what the Senator from Missouri ' says, and if I had not felt it incumbent upon me to say what I have said I should not have taken the floor. ·

I merely wish to say that every amendment in the Constitution to-day was adopted within six years after it had been presented for ratification, and that the majority of these amendments have been adopted within less than two years. · If there is any trick . in the presentation of this amendment, that trick will be turned against its proposers.

Let me say that on looking carefully into the situation I found that this amendment could be voted on and could in all probability be passed · if such an amendment as this could be added. I hope, therefore, that it will be agreed to.

. :Mr. GRONNA. 1\ir. President, I have not occupied a moment of the Senate's time on this question, and in view of what the Senator from Missouri [1\ir. STONE] has just said, I shall not even take the 10 minutes which I am allowed under the unanimous-consent agreement. I would not, if I . had the time, go into the merits of this question; it is not necessary for me to do that. I repre ent a State which has never had a licensed saloon since it became a State. 'Ve know the value of prohibition; we know what it has done for the people of that State morally and financially.

But, Mr. President, I rose merely to express my disapproval of the amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from Ohio [1\Ir. liABDING]. To me, being a layman, it is really remarkable that there should be any disagreement among lawyers as to the constitutionality of the amendment offered by the Senator. To a layman it is perfectly plain that -that amendment would not be a part of the Constitution unless adopted as a separate provision; it could not be. But if the proposed amendment is submitted to the people of this country illegally the courts will have to hold that Congress exceeded its authority and that it had been illegally submitted to the people.

l desire to say to those Senators who are anxious to have this amendment adopted, do not forget that you are allowing six years' time for this amendment to be either approved or rejected. I ' believe it would be better for the people of this country and for thos.e who are in favor of national prohibition to have the amendment defeated to-day than to present a sham anti a fraud to the American people. The very arguments used by distinguished Senators on the floor will he used by the liquor interests; the very statements which have been made by eminent Senators and constitutional lawyers will be the very weapons seized upon by the liquor interests of this country; and they will say, "It makes no difference to us whether you approve or reject the amendment, because it is clearly unconstitutional."

If this proposed constitutional amendment were defeated today, it could again be acted upon by Congress and submitted to the people in the way that all constitutional amendments have been submitted. When a moral and economic question like this is to be submitted to the American people, I ask .why is it necessary to proceed in such an unusual way and place a limitation upon 1t? Such a thing has never been done in the history of this country. I would not object to a proposal general in char- . acter which would place a time limit upon the ratification of any proposed constitutional amendment presented to . the American people; but, 1\.fr. President, I do not believe it is fair to those who are honestly in favor of prohibition to hamstring this propoS'ed amendment by placing a limitation upon it when Senators, who are eminent lawyers, have expressed the opinion that it is very likely to be held to be unconstitutional. It has been stated by the Senator from Idaho [Mr. BoRAH], the Senator from Connecticut [1\fr. BRANDEGEE], and by other Senators that, in their judgment, the adoption of the . amendment of the Senator from Ohio would be likely to result in having the whole amendment declared unconstitutional. For that reason, Mr. President, I can not vote for the amendment submitted by the Senator from Ohio. I had hoped that I would be allowed to vote for a plain, simple amendment to the Constitution giving the people of this country the right to determine whether or not they desire constitutional prohibition. · .

Mr. LA FOLLETTE and 1\ir. STERLING addressed . the Chair. "

The PRESIDENT . pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Mr. President, I have never believed in the principle of prohibition · and therefore have never supported it. I do not believe that. it offers the best method of dealing with the problem involved.

No statute can vindicate itself. Except the citizenship of a county, a State, a · community can in truth say, . " This law is bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh " ; it can not be a living, vital, enforcible statute.

The laws of our country rest not upon the bayonets of an army but upon the convictions of the people. All laws must be enforced locally. Wherever the matured, settled purpose of a majority of a community supports a law, that law will be enforced. Wherever a law is imposed upon one community against its will by those outside of that community, it is very . certain to fail of enforcement to such an. extent as . to bring reproach upon all law and order within the community . .

I think never in my political experience have I had the support of the prohibitionist, and it is very certain that I have uniformly had the opposition of the brewing interests of Wisconsin. So I can fairly say that my course upon legislation involving ToWNSEND] prohibition has been one altogether uninfluenced by questions of political expediency.

But, sir, for 30 years I have been at all times devoted to the · principles of democracy. I believe that the voters of the country should have a larger and ever a larger voice in their Government.

If it were within my power to do so, •I should give to the citizenship of the country the power under the initiative and the referendum and the recall to-

First. Initiate legislation and the submission of constitutional amendments for a vote of the people whenever their legislative rE-presentatives neglect or refuse to respond to the public will iu the enactment of any law or the submission of any constitutional amendment demanded by a majority of the voters concerned ;

Second. To veto and annul any bad law enacted by their representatives; and Third. To recall all representatives who dishonor their commission by betraying the public interest.

If the people of this country possessed the power which the referendum would invest them with, the draft law would be promptly referred to the voters of the country to determine whether it should remain the law or be repealed or a .. mulled. . . If the right to initiate legislation had been conferred upon the people of this country, they would not have been obliged to wait 40 years from the time when they began to demand of Congress the enactment of a law for postal savings banks, before Congress finally passed such a law, nor would the people have been denied by Congress the enactment of the parcels-post law for 25 years, nor compelled to wait 17 years for the passage of a pure-food law to prevent the sale of adulterated and poisonous foods · and drugs.

If the people had been in possession of the power to initiate and submit a constitutional amendment for the voters of the country to pass upon through their legislatures or through conventions to be held as provided in the Constitution, then they would not have been obliged to wait for . 80 years from the time they first petitioned Congress for an opportunity to so amE-nd their Constitution as to enable them to elect United States Senators by direct vote.

Mr. President, if the people had been in possession of the power to initiate and submit conStitutional amendments, they • would not have been compelled to wait 14 years ,for Congress to give them the chance to so amend their Constitution so as t6 tax the incomes of the rich, which were in the main escaping taxation altogether. And, sir, the people would within the last three years have initiated the submission of an amendment so changing the Constitution that the Congress, excepting in case of actual - invasion of our soil. could pass no declaration of war without a final vote of approval thereon by the people, who are compelled to fight the battles and foot · the bills.

Without the right to initiate such a constitutional amendment, as the result of the experiences that have come upon us within · the last six months, I venture the prediction that this body will be compelled to give the people a voice in declaring Mr. President, while I believe that the people have in large measure lost control of their Government and while I believe the proof is overwhelming that Congress does not respond in the enactment of legislation to the will of the people, still, sir. I do not believe that government of the people, for the people. by the people has perished from the earth. If it had, there might be some occasion for jubilation behind some of the desk.<:; on this floor. I believe that I shall live to see real representative government, n government by and for the people, brought back to the people again. I have faith.

And, sir, I shall, so long as I remain in public life, do all within my power to make the will of the people the law of the land.

I should be untrue to my convictions in support of democracy, if I did not vote to give the people a right to pass upon the pending amendment to the Constitution. ,

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator from Wisconsin has expired. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Ohio. [Putting the question.]

1\Ir. CUMMINS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

The . yeas and nays were ordered, and the Secretary proceeded to call the ~ roll.

Mr. MYERS (when his name was called). I have a pair with the junior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. McLEAN J, who is absent. I transfer that pair to the Senator from South Da.kota [Mr . .JoHNsoN] and vote "yea."

Mr. SMITH of Michigan ' (When :Mr TOWNSEND'S name was called). I desire the RECORD to show that my colleague [Mr. is detained from the Chamber on account of sickness in his family. He is paired with the Senator from Arkansas [Ml'. RoBJNSON].

The roll call was • concluded.

1\fr. SUTHERLAND. 1 desire to announce the absence of the senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. GoFF] on account . . of illness. I will let this announcement stand for the day.

Mr. ROBINSON (after having voted ip the affirmative). I have been advised that the Senator from Michigan [l\Ir. TowNSEND] would vote ori the submission of this amendment as I myself intend to vote, and I therefore -voted. I lHIYe . in my hand a telegram to his colleague , which, with the consent of his colleague, I . "·ill ask to have · inserted in the HECORD. know how my pair would vote on the amendment . of the Senator from Ohio, and I therefore withdraw my vote on that amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The request of the Senator, without objection, will be granted and · the telegram inserted in the HicCOR[). • ·

The telegram is as follows:

JACKSON, 1\IICH., July SO, 1911. IJoo. WILLIAl\1 ALDEN SMITH, •

United Stat e s Senate, Washington, D. 0.:

Regret that sickness in my family compels my remaining in . Jackson. I believe that the States should settle the prohibition question through a constitutional amendment. If I were present, I should vote to submit amendment. Am paired with Senator ROBINSON. ·

CHAS. E. TOWNSEND.

l\1r. 1\L~.HTIN. I desire to state that the senior Senator from Maryland [1\lr. SMITH] · is detained from the Chamber by illness . lie i~ paired with the senior Senator from Vermont [1\Ir. DILLINGHA:Df].

The result was announced-yeas 56, nays 23, as follows:

YEAS-56.

Ashurst Harding Martin · Simmons Bankhead Hitchcock Myers Smith, Ariz. Beckham Hollis New Smith, Ga. nroussard James New lands · Smith, S. C. Calder .Johnson, Cal. Overman Stone Chamberlain 'Jones, N. I\! ex. Owen Swanson Colt .Jones, Wash. Penrose Thompson Curtis Kendrick Phelan Underwood Femn.lu King Pittman Wadsworth Fletcher Knox Pomerene Walsh France La Follette Ransd e ll Watson Frel inghuysen Lewis Saulsbury Weeks Gerry Lodge Sheppard Williams II ale McKellar Shit> Ids Wolcott

NAYS-23.

J\o1·ah Kellogg Page Sterling Brady Kenyon Poindexter Sutherland Brandegee Kirby Shafroth Trammell Culberson McNary Sherman Vardaman Cummins Nelson Smith, Mich. Warren Gronna Norris Smoot

NOT VOTING-17. •

Dillingham Hardwick McLean Tillman JtalJ Hughes Reed Townsend Gallinger Husting Robinson Goff Johnson, S.Dak. Smith, 1\Id. Gore 1\lcCumbet· Thomas ·

So Mr. HARDING ' s amendment was agreed to.

l\1r. STONE. Mr. President, I offer the amendment which I send to the desk. It is to be inserted as a separate section. I have not inserted the number of . the section, leaving that to be · arranged later.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be stated.

The SECRETARY. It i~ proposed to insert in the joint resolution a new section, to precede the last section of the joint resolution, as follows:

SEc. -. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation ; but this article shall not be enforced until the Congress shal l have made provision for the ascertainment and payment of damages to , the property employed in the manufacture of said liquors resulting from the enforcement of this article.

l\lr. STONE. l\1r. President, on yesterday I discussed at some length this question of compensation. I regret that the attendance upon the Senate at that time was very much less than it is Mr. President, the amendment I offer proposes that the Congress shall, by legislation-such legislation as the Congress at that time shall consider advisable-provide · compensation for damages _ dope-~o w:hat? ~one to property used or employed in the manufacture of the liquors the manufacture of which would be prohibited by the pending amendment, · and that is all there is to it.

· I can not at this time, for lack of time, discuss the wisdom or the justice of this amendment. I did that yesterday to the best of my ability. It is a . question the justice of which must . appeal to the judgment of every Senator. The merits of the proposal rest on the eternal, fundamental principle of right that the Qongress-aye, even that the people of the United States · themselves-can not take the private property of private citizens without just compensation. · An act of that kind would be fundamentally wrong and violative of public morality.

That iS' all I have to add to what I said on yesterday.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. STONE]. I see no reason why it should be adopted. The people who are engage <. l in the brewery and distillery business are engaged in a business that has been declared by the · supreme Court of the United States to be of such a character that if the legislature of n State, I do not and therefore 'f the Congress of the United States, should legislate them out of business, they have no right to claim pay for their breweries and for their distilleries. ~

I do not intend to take up the time of the Senate longer than to read a paragraph from a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of l\1ugler against Kansas, a case which went up on account of . the Ia ws enacted in the State · of Kansas, where no pay was provided for the breweries and distilleries. It will be found in the One hundred and twenty-third United States Supreme Court Reports, and I will read from page 669 :

It is true that when the defendants in these cases purchased or erected their breweries the laws of the State did not forbid the manufacture of intoxicating liquors. But the State did not thereby give any f assurance or come under an obligation that its legislation upon that subject would remain unchanged. Indeed, as was said in ~tone against . · ~ Mississippi, above cited, the supervision . of the public health anrt the public morals js a governmental power continuing in its nature," and "to be dealt with as the special exigencies of the moment may require," and that "for this purpose the largest legislative discretion is allowed and the discretion can not he parted with any more than the power itself." So in Beer Co. against Massachusetts (97 U. ~ .• 32) : "If the public safety or the public morals require the discontinuance of any manufacture or traffic the band of the legislature can not be stayed from providing for its discontinuance by any incidental inconvenience whic.h individuals or corporations may suffer. ·

I should also like, as I shall not have time to read them, to have printed in the RECORD two paragraphs from the syllnlms in this case.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. 'Vitlwut objection, it will II be so • ordered.

The matter . referred to is a.s follows:

Lawful State legislation in the exercise of the police powers of the State to prohibit the manufacture and sale within the State of spirituous, malt, vinous, fermented, or other intoxicating liquors to be used as a beverage may be enforced against persons who at the time happen to own property whose chief value consists in its fitness for such manufacturing purposes without compensating them for the diminution in its value resulting from such prohibitory enactments.

A prohibition upon the use of property for purposes that are declared by valid legislation to be injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community is not an appropriation of property for the public benefit in the sense in which a taking of property by the exercise of the State's power of eminent domain is such a taking or appropriation.

l\Ir. CURTIS. And, 1\Ir. President, at the request of the Senator from Washington [Mr. JONES], I ask that the letter I ' send to the desk be printed in the RECORD.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it will be so ordered.

The letter is as follows:

THE ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE OF AMERICA,

LEGAL DEPARTl\IEXT,

Washington, D. 0., August 1, 1911. Senator . WESLEY Jo::-.Es,

· United States Senate, Washington, D. 0.

DEAR SENATOR JOKES: There are many reasons why an amendment such as the one proposed by the Senators from Missouri should be defeated. Among them are the following:

First. The courts have repeatedly held that when a p e rson engages in a traffic which 1s a menace to the morals and health of the people he has no right to complain when t.t:e people use their inherent right to destroy such a traffic.

The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Muggier v. Kansas (123 U.S., 625). in referring to this power of the State to prohibit the liquor traffic, said it "can not be burdened with the condition that the State must compensate such individual owners for · the pecuniary lo~ s es they sustain by reason of their not being permitted by a noxious use or their property to inflict injury upon the community." ·

second. If the liquor interests thought they had a good case under the Constitution to ask for compensation. they would go into the courts and establish their claim. If a legislative body should prohibit a traffic ' which has inherent rights to exist, the owners of that traffic would have no difficulty in establishing their claim and receive compensation.

The liquor traffic has been characterized by the Supreme Court of the United States as "A source of crime and misery to society" (1.37 U. S., 86). A source of crime and misery may Le permitted by the people, but it has no inherent right. to exist. W.hen the people exer·cise their rights such a traffic can not JUstly complain. Liquor dealers took a gambler's chance when they entered the business, knowing that · the temporary permit which _ was given them might be revoked by the people at any time, and any money investment in this traffic carried this ri s k .

Third. Twenty-six States have abolished the liquor traffic and provided no compensation for liquor dealers. A large part of tbP wet States have voted •· dry" and liquor dealers have not been compensated for their loss. Why should the 85 per cent of the territory that is now dry be asked to help bear the burden of compensating the liquor traffic i.n t11e few remaining States that are wet? The effect of such an amendment would make it much more difficult to secure the ratification of the amendment in these States. It a time limit should also be added it would preclude the possibility of ratification of the amendment in the form submitte(l. - •

Fourth. A provision for compensation, ev-en if it were just and practicallle, should not be written into the Constitution. There are so many details which would enter into a provision of this kind that it would be impossible to draft it in the form which would be appropriate for the organic law.

No State or nation has ever written into its constitution a provision that its legislative body could not prohibit the liquor traffic or any other evil without first paying the trafficker in evil a compensation before such provision would take effect. _ We • can not believe that the Members of the Senate will support an amendment of this kind, which has no precedent and which, in the judgment of the majority of the States, has rio merit.

Yours, very cordially W. B. WJI"EELER,

Attorney a11d General Oom1sel.

l\ir. 'SHA.FROTH. Mr, President, the opinion which the Senator from Kansas has referred to is directly in point. I want to read a condensed syllabus of that opinion. It seems to me to state this matter very clearly and very conclusively. It is in the One hundred and twenty-third · d United States, at page 623. It says: ·

Lawful State legislation in t e exercise of the police powers of the State to prohibit the manufacture and sale within the State of spirituous, malt, vinous, fermented, or other intoxicating liquors, to -be used as a beverage, may be enforced against persons who at the time happen to own property whose chief value consists in its fitness for such manufacturing purposes without compensating them for the diminution in its value resulting from such prohibitory enactments.

It is based upon the general police power of the State to prohibit nuisances; and whenever a business is engaged in which, in the judgment of the State, is detrimental to the public health it has a right to prohibit it without any payment of compensation. In this instance there were three cases merged. An injunction was sought to restrain the enforcement of a statute giving the power to suppress the nuisance in the manufacture by a brewery of malt liquors.

The syllabus of the case further says:

. \. prohibition upon the use of property for purposes that are declared by valid legislation to be injurious to · the health, morals, or safety of the community is not an appropriation of property for the public benefit in the sense in which a taking of property by the exercise ttf the State's power of eminent domain is such a taking or appropriation. The destruction in the exercise of the police power of · the State of property used in violation of law in maintaining a public nuisance is not a taking of property for public use, and does not deprive the owner of it without due process of law.

Everybody who engages in the liquor business knows full well when he enters it that the State or city has the power to impose such high license as will put him out of business ami the power to prohibit ·the sale of liquor without any compensation to him. He therefore takes that into consideration when he establishes his business and relies upon large profits to enable him to take the risk.

It seems to me, Mr. President, that that decision is clearly against the position taken by the Senator from Missouri.

l\Ir. PHELAN. l\Ir. President, I submitted a moment ago an am e ndment to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Texas [l\lr. SHEPPARD] whereby two constitutional amendments would be submitted to the people, one in the terms of the amendment proposed by the Senator from Texas, and the . other in terms by which the people would have the alternative right, through their legislatures, of voting for the prohibition of distilled liquors only, so. that vinous and malt liquors might still be manufactured and used. - \Ve have heard much here about the duty of Congress to submit to the legislatures any or all constitutional amendments on the theory that the legislatures should make the decision. I am disposed to dissent from that view, because I can well understand that when the Constitution makers determined a method of amendment of the Constitution they certainly must have held· that any measure which would receive th~ approval and concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House was well on its way to passage ; that the indorsement which it received from the fountain head of the Government at Washington might well be expected to carry it through the States. and then, if the States also concurred, doubtless it would be a wise enactment. But Senators are abrogating their privileges. They are surrendering their discretion and turning over the determination of important matters to the legi latures where special interests, actuated by good and bad motives, have, we are well aware as a matter of political experience, easy facilities for winning majorities.

Therefore I think the Senate ought to exercise its own judgment. 1\fy amendments, then, give the people in whose interest we are concerned, through their legislatures, the option of determining whether they wish to have a prohibition of vinous, malt, and spirituous liquors, or only of spirituous . liquors.

I submit that the trend of an recent legislation in Washington, supported by the opinion of the President of the United States, leans to a consideration of the wisdom not of absolute prohibition but - Of prohibition only relating ~ to distilled and spirituous liquors. That is recognized in the food bill. That is recognized by the Finance Committee in providing for the making · of sweet wines, by reduCing the rates upon the brandy used in fortification. There seems to be a general understanding that beers and light wines- shall not be barred as a war measure, either for the preservation of the people against the abuse of alcohol or for the conservation of food. • That being the spirit 6f the times, why should not we submit to the legislatures -of the States the alternative proposition? Why not give them the privilege, which they so dearly cherish, of deciding the e things for themselves? Why pass up to them a hard and fast proposition that •i You shall have the prohibition of all liquors, vinous, malt, and _ distilled, • . or you sh~ b , have a free charter to indulge in vinous, malt, and distilled liquors "­ that there shall be no middle ground?

I was just approached by a Senator strongly in favor of prohibition who believes that distilled liquors-and distilled liquors only-are a distinct injury not only to the country iri. time of war but to the country in time of peace, and that their manufacture consumes valuable foodstuffs. He will favor, however, my amendment. We are in favor of . putting a prohibition upon the manufacture of whisky; but the wine of the people, the beer of the people, which has done so much for the Latin countries, which has given perhaps much of the fortitude and valor not only to t11e French but to the Germans, showing that it can not undermine their ability as fighting men nor undermine their ability in the field of art and letters, in science, and invention, nor diminish, in the least degree their very great and considerable ability, should not be considered in the same category as distilled liquors. · ·

I trust that the Senate will adopt my amendment, which has the support of many, for the reasons stated, and because we conserve the precious rights of the States by giving them the alternative proposition on which to vote .

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I find-as far as I can see, at any rate--that the opposition to the Stone amendment is merely technical, based upon the idea that certain courts have decided that saloons are public nuisances. The States in which those courts acted did not decide that saloons were public nuisances. On the contrary, they had licensed the saloons. It can not be taken for granted that a State would license a public nuisance.

Mr. President. as well as I can size this up, it must come down to the real truth, the real question of honesty . between man and man. No man and no number of men, if they were 99.000,000 out of a population of 100,000,000, have a right to take from any other one individual man a piece of property without paying due compensation · for it. 1\len ought to be honest with one another and in their public legislation toward one another.

Everybody knows that as a matter of fact, if "·e pass this legislation, we are going to take away from a whole lot of people a lot of very valuable property rights. Whether you or I or somebody else agree that they ought ever to have been property rights is another proposition; but they have IJeen property rights, they have been recognized as such, anll you have no right-no moral right, · no ethical right-to go up and place your hands upon that property and take it without compensation. ·

I heard an argument this morning from the Senator from Montana [l\Ir. MYERS] defending the very general propo ition of taking slave property from the people of Kentucky and Maryl11nd and Delaware, who bad never even seceded, without paying for it. History condemns it, and history always will condemn · it. Slave property might have been wrong in principle, but the Constitution bad granted it, the laws had granted it; and except where a State had seceded and declared war against the United States Government, and therefore subjected itself to the rights of war rather than the rights of peace, you committed robbery and brigandage and stealing when you took their property without due compensation. It rests as a stain upon your escut· cheon until yet.

So far as I am concerned, I never expect to be a can<lida te for office again. and I do not care what anybody thinks about \Vhat I am saying. I am trying to do what I think is right. I rep e at, no number of men-! do not care how big the number is-have a right to take from me, as the only one individual in the United States, if I should be the only one, a property right without due compensation.

The Senator from Colorado [1\!r. SH3.TROTH] quotes some authority whlclt justifies. or attempts to · justif-y, this robbery upon the ground that the saloon is a public nuisance. It may have been, as a matter of fact, but it was not as a. matter of law, because the law had granted the license.

1917. ~ CONGR . ESSION AL RECORD- _- SEN ATE.

I propose to vote for this constitutional amendment whether the Stone amendment to the amendment goes with it or not. I propose to vote for it for three reasons.

The first is that in doing so I ' shall represent the State of Mississippi, and I intend to represent her as long as I stand here as one of her Senators. She has uttered her voice in no uncertain tones. . I am a State-rights Democrat, and I am going to-stand by the State. My primary allegiance is due to the State, and not even to the Federal Government. - That perhaps is uttering treason in this body, but at any rate that is the fact so far as I am concerned.

The next thing · that this amendment, if adopted, can do no harm, and it may do a great deal of good. Stamping the liquor tra,ffic out of existence can do nobody any harm. It may · lead now and then to the sudden death of a man who has been deprived of his liquor too quickly, but what does that amount to in comparison with the entire American people? It may do immense good. . .

The third proposition, Mr. President, is that whatever the good may cost, it is worth the money, and not only worth the THOMAS] money in the shape of stamping out the evil, . but it is still better worth the money in the way of reserving and maintaining the honor of th~ United States. if you are going to stamp property out of existence, you ought to pay for it. You have no more right, as a legislator, to vote for a proposition that does that without indemnity than you have a right to take a dollar bill of mine, accidentally left upon this desk, and put it in your pocket.

The PRE - PRESIDENT pro tempore. The hour of 4 o'clock has arrived, when, under the unanimous-consent rule, · voting must begin on the pending amendment and any amendments that may be offered to the joint resolution. The question before the Sennte is the amendment offered by the · Senator from Missouri Brandegee [Mr. STONE].

Mr. SHERMAN. I offer the following amendment to . the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will report Gerry the proposed amendment to the amendment. · The SECRETARY. After the last word change the period to a comma and add the following words :

Under such rules of evidence as C ngrcss may provide.

Mr. STONE. Mr. President, I have no right to debate and I Beckham .. . do not mean to do it, but I do not think the amendment proposed by the _ Senator from Illinois would change the situation materially as a legislative proposition, and-- l\Ir. S:rt:O.OT. A parliamentary inquiry, 1\Ir. President.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore . . The Senator from Utah will state his parliamentary inquiry. .! • . Mr. SMOOT. Under the unanimous:consent agreement no · · speeches can be made. - · "

Mr. STONE. It was not a speech but a state ment.

Mr. SMOOT. If we allow it to one we must allow it to Fall another.

Mr. STONE. 1\Ir. President, I am therefore willing to modify my amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri accepts the proposed amendment to the amendment. The question is op. the amendment as modified. [Pu tting the question.] The noes seem to have it.

1\fr. STONE. I a k for the yeas and nays. . Mr. HARDWICK. Let the Secretary read the amendment.