July 31, 1917

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 17) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. HARDWICK. Mr. President, the pending proposal is that the Congress shall submit to the States for ratification or rejection an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the manufacture, importation, and sale of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes throughout the United States, and that final action shall be taken by the States on this proposal within six years from the date of its submission.

I am unable to support this proposition on principle, and I think it my duty to state briefly the reasons why I can not do so. In the first place, three years ago when I submitted my candidacy for the Senate to the people of Georgia I stated emphatically and positively that I could not and . would not support such an amendment. I was elected to the Senate with that declaration on my lips, probably not because of it, possibly in spite of it. I consider that I am bound, in honor, to vote in the Senate as I stated to the people I would vote if elected to the Senate. I can not subscribe to the monstrous doctrine that pledges in politics are not just as binding on honorable men as pledges in business or in any of the personal relations of life. I do not so regard it. Having taken a position in opposition to this amendment while seeking election, I am bound to stand by it after election, unless I bad honestly changed my mind on the merits of the question and could frankly avow it, giving the reasons for my change of opinion.

I have not done so. I am opposed to this amendment now for the same reasons precisely that I was opposed to it when I was a candidate for the Senate. If all the whisky in the world could be poured into the ocean and the process of making it forgotten, I believe mankind would be happier and the world better off. · At the same time, because I believe that, I can not ignore other considerations or stultify the principles and convictions of a lifetime to accomplish it or in the vain attempt to do so.

This amendment conforms , of course, to the constitutional requirements as to the manner and method in which the Constitution may be amended, and can not, therefore, be assailed as violative of the letter of the Constitution. It does, however, violate its spirit. It is in sharp conflict with one of the basic principles upon which the Constitution itself rests, with one of the fundamental and distinctive principles of our American system of government. It was the compact between the several States, formally and solemnly declared in the Constitution itself and by the convention that framed it, that each State retained its complete and exclusive control of all its domestic affairs and internal concerns, conferring upon the General Government powers over foreign relations and interstate commerce and other matters closely related to those two great subjects. But local . self-government, the right of each State to regulate and control, in its own way and according to its own will, its own domestic affairs and internal concerns, was preserved to the State, and every attempt was made to safeguard it. That right, local selfgovernment, is u part of the priceless heritage of liberty that came to us from our English forbears. To assert it and preserve it the War of the Revolution was fought; to defend it my fathers and my people shed their blood like water in the unfortunate Civil War, and though the grim verdict of that war may have determined the indestructibility of the Union and denied the right of secession to the States, it did not set aside or seek to set aside, it did not destroy or seek to destroy, the right of the States to local self-government. I can not for any sentimental reason, or because of any extreme case, prove faithless to the , great doctrine for which my people have fought and bled through two great wars. ' It is a part, and it should be an indestructible part, of that priceless heritage of liberty that it is my duty to preserve and transmit.

Georgia has a right to regulate in any way she pleases, or to prohibit absolutely, the sale of liquor among her own people and within her own borders. She has that right, without regard to the views or opinions of all the other 47 States. It is purely a local question-entirely a domestic concern. This is especially true since the Congress has within less than a year made it possible for her and for every State to enforce her laws and carry out her policy without having them nullified in whole or in part by the interstate-commerce laws of the Nation.

The regulation or prohibition of the sale of whisky within a State is entirely and exclusively a local matter, a part of the I · wiser, far safer, far better that it should do so. police power of the State. It ought to remain such. It is far Let us for just a moment reverse conditions and see what the situation would be if we are to substitute national control for local police regulation of this question. Suppose Georgia were the only prohibition State in the Union, all the other 47 States being wet. Suppose that an amendment were proposed in Congress here, in the terms of this amendment, but providing that upon its ratification by the requisite number of States it should no longer be lawful to prohibit the sale of liquor in any State, but that the sale of liquor should be legalized in every State, under conditions and regulations to be prescribed by Cougress. It might well happen that the Senators and Representatives in Congress from . m the wet States could and would force such a proposal through over the ineffective protest of IJUe or n few dry States, but it would be everlRstingly wrong for them to uo so, and I for one would never support it. Indeed, the most vigorous opposition to it would cc . me, I dare say, from the very influences and from the very gentlemen who favor the pending resolution. If so, is not the demonstration complete? Shall this question remain the football of politicians, theorists, and sentimentalists? Shall we do on one side of this question, with smug and complacent ' self-righteousness, what we would unquestionably denounce as a tyrannical interference with our rights and liberties if it were done on the other side? I submit that we ought not to d(\ it. The principle of local self-government is basic and fundamental. I must stick to it. Exceptions to it are both insidious and dangerous. Once we embark on that course, who can predict where it will end or how it will stop? Will it embrace our election laws, and our elections themselves, substituting Federal regulation and control for State regulation and control! Who can predict? For one. I 11m not willing to risk it. For one, I can not desert my principles, however much I might like to put a ban on the liquor traffic.

For these reasons, Mr. President, I must cast my vote against the pending resolution.

Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I shall vote against the proposed constitutional amendment, and before doing so I wish briefly to state my reasons for my vote.

I am reminded by something which fell from the . Senator from Georgia [Mr. HARDWICK] to say that I was reelected to the Senate last November by popular vote. My attitude on this constitutional amendment was extremely well known, becnn s e I had written a great many letters in regard to it, and some of them had been published and republished. Nobody voted for me under any misapprehension. The people of the State knew that lf this amendment came up I should vote against it. Whether, as the Senator from Georgia said, it was on account of that or in spite of it that they voted, I shall not undertake to say, but there is no doubt of the fact.

Personally, I firmly believe that every human being would bH far better morally, mentally, and physically if he never touched alcohol. For the benefit of mankind I wish to see that result brought about, and I hope that it can be done. But because I hold these beliefs I am not blind to the facts which surround the problem, and I can not vote for legislation which, in my opinion, would create a situation worse than that which now exists and probably long delay the coming of complete abstinence from alcohol among men.

From the earliest times of recorded history, so far as we know, mankind has devised for itself and consumed some sort of beverage containing alcohol. There is not, so far as I am aware, a tribe of savages, even of savages in the lowest stage, which has not in some manner invented liquor containing alcohol and which has not greedily accepted alcoholic liquors when it had t11e opportunity. We are, therefore, dealing with what is perhaps the most deeply planted habit of · human nature. Except the natural instincts, there is nothing which has such roots in the life of man on earth as this habit of taking alcoholic stimulants. These facts should warn every reflecting man, no matter how much he desires to put an cnu absolutely to the consumption of alcohol in !:leverages, of the necessity of proceeding with some caution in dealing with an indulgence to which the human race has been so long habituated. My own belief is that practically complete abstinence may be brought about when a large majority of the people are convinced that it is wise and that it is for their benefit mentally, morally, and physically. I am aware that this will take time, but the steady growth of public sentiment in favor of complete temperance and of the abolition of the use of alcohol in any form proves, I think, that it is a well founded and entirely reasonable expectation. On the other hand, where people are not prepared and a major portion of them are not convinced of the harmful results of the use of alcohol, sudden and violent legislation to compel total abstinence before the people are ready to accept it can only serve to retard the advance of temperance principles and bring about a situation worse than that which now confronts us. I do not think the people of this or any other country are as yet prepared in opinion or by education to accept in good faith and with hearty sympathy the extreme legislation carried by this constitutional amendment. Without a prepared public sentiment among at least a majority of the people, such legislation as this is certain to fail. You will entirely destroy the control of the e · llquor traffic now exercised by regulations and licenses. You I will attempt the impossible task of compelling large numbers of unwilling people to. abandon a habit which, as practiced by them, they, however mistakenly, believe to be harmless and innocent. Multitudes of people will resent it as a gross- and tyrannical interference with personal liberty. The result of sumptuary laws which are far in advance o.f public opinion is familiar to all who know anything of history. The excellent cause which it is sought to promote by such laws is not advanced. Resistance and even hatred against them are encouraged. The old habits are maintained, but to the undesirable character of the habits themselves there is now added that still more undesirable habit of lawbreaking. You ·will have a law incapable of complete enforcement, the disregard of which is considered by a large part of the population as wholly venial. This combination of circumstances always tends to weaken the respect for law and to create a distrust of the powers of government in the minds of those who are called upon to obey and support it. ·

This proposed amendment in its local application seems to me even more objectionable than in its general features. The States will, of course, cease to enforce prohibitory laws if they have them; they will be only too glad to get rid of the burden of the expense; and License laws will be impossible. The whole burden of enforcement will fall upon the General Government, assuming that the necessary legislation will ·be passed in order to execute the purpose of the constitutional amendment. To enforce throughout this country the prohibition of the sale or manufacture or importation of any form of distilled or fermented liquors will require at a moderate estimate 500,000 men. Distilled liquors are easily made. You will have to search hundreds of houses to make sure that liquors are not distilled in the kitchen, or fruit brandies made by some domestic appliance. Men who now drink quite harmlessly some beer or light wine will in a certain proportion turn to the consumption of distilled liquor, in most cases of the vilest and most poisonous kind. You can not hope to prevent the smuggling of liquor across our long fronties and along our immense coasts. In the eighteenth century, when England had high duties on foreign liquor and manufactures, running cargoes of French brandy and laces was • a large and profitable industry, and yet England had a very small coast to protect. I might add that down to the time of our Civil War, with all the nations of the earth combined against them, the slavers, nevertheless, managed to run cargoes of slaves onto our coast. Where large masses of the people would consider it even meritorious-at least quite venial-to evade and break the law the law would inevitably be broken constantly and in a large and effective way. I doubt if you could have an army large enough absolutely to enforce it. ..

It seems to me, therefore. that such sudden and violent action for the promotion of a purpose in which we are all agreed is a mistake in method, which will injure gravely the very cau e we desire to advance. I think it will have a very bad effect on the public morals by . creating a widespread indifference to law. the land. As a measure of prohibition, the practical difficulties, in my opinion, will cau e it to fail, and my own belief is that in a very short time we shall settle down to a condition like that presented by the amendments which attempted to confer full political rights upon the negroes of the United States, where the constitutional provision is entirely disregarded. They remain a dead letter in the Constitution, and this practical but most undesirable compromise is accepted by the great mass of the people of the United States as the only possible solution; and that, in my opinion, will be the ultimate result of this prohibitory amendment. .

Where the majority of the people are thoroughly convinced of the need of prohibition there it will succeed and be practically enforced. But there are wide differences among the communities which make up the population of this great country, and for that reason I believe that the sound foundation for the prohibition of alcohol should be set up in the local community and thence be extended to the counties, if necessary, and thence to the State. This question is better dealt with by the States-than by the National Government. The responsibility is more concentrated and there is greater harmony among the population of the smaller area inclosed within the State boundaries. The States as they gradually come to .a majority belief in prohibition can and will enforce it well, although even State-wide prohibition should not be embarked upon too soon. The prohibition of liquor is essentially a police power. and wholly apart from the practical question of enforcement is the · still greater question of general merit. I think we are taking a long step on a dangerous path when we take this police power from the States, The tendency now is to strip the States of one power after another that are conferred upon the National Government, forgetful of the fact that the strength and stability of our Government have depended upon the principle · of local self-government embodied in tl1e States. This attempt to hand over to the National Government the police power which properly belongs to the States will in its operation in other directions lead many people in the future to rue the day when they gave their support to · a proposition so injurious to State independence and to State power.

I hold very strong and conscientious convictions on this Rubject. I believe the legislation attempted by this constitutional · amendment will be in the highest degree damaging to the cause of real temperance; not to that temperance which contents itself with clamor for statutes and is satisfied with an unenforced law, but to the real cause of temperance, which seeks to put an end finally and conclusively when that end is reached to the- consumption of alcohol by human beings.

For these reasons, believing as I do that this is the worst thing that could he done to advance temperance and total J - · abstinence among the people. I can not vote for the amendment. Mr. JONES of Washington. 1\Jr. President, of course. if I looked at this matter as d<> the Senator from Massachusetts [lllr. LoDGE] and the Senator from Georgia ~1\Ir. HARDWICK 1. I should take the same position which they take with reference to it. This is no sudden move, however. It is not the impulse of a moment. This is a question that has been agitated for many, many years. The matter of the passage of a joint resolution o-f this character has been pressed on Congress for many years, and it is only because of the continued and great growth of the sentiment in · favor of action of this kind that this joint resolution now bids fair to be passerl.

"Shn11 the people rule?" That was the political slogan ot a great party a few years ago. Although I did not belong to that party, I believed in the truth interrogatively declared by that slogan. ';['here could be no difference of opinion about it, and yet there are many who ml'ule- that their shibboleth who do not now seem to believe in it. It is often so. th-at what serves a good purpose on the stump is disregarded in the legislature and those most vehement before the people are most back· ward in acting.

I may be wro-ng, but, as I see it. the real issue before the Se.nate now is whether we as representatives of the people will give them a chance to express themselves upon a great que:,;ti"n in which they are vitally interested and upon which they alone can act. In other words, 1\Ir. President, the real question presented to the Senate upon this joint resolution is, " Shull the people rule?"

It is conce.ded that Congress can not prohibit the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors within the States of the Union. The majority of the . States and the majority of . the peopl~ want the National Government to have that power. We as their representatives can not do their win. but we do have it in our power to give or refuse them the opportunity to say whether: the.y want that power made a part of the fundamental law of I can vote to give them that right, no matter what my views upon the merits of the prohibition question may bP ; nor clo I think that I am shirking any responsibilities in doing so. [ will do my duty as I see it upon every legislative matter within my power to act. I do not believe a Senator should shirk lliq legislative responsibilities. He should not try to place them upon some one else or upon any other branch of the Govf'rnment. I will vote according to my judgment and my convietions of duty regardless of public sentiment or of its effect upon my political future, relying upon the justice of the American people to vindicate my course. · ,

The Constitution provides the way for its amendment. Congress can not do it, but it can propose amendments to the people, who alone can adopt them through their State legislatures. [ believe it to be my duty as a Senator to vote to submit an amend ment to the State legislatures when there is a strong, matured. widespread sentiment ai1d demand from the people for such an amendment. To refuse to <l.o so is to act as the master rathe,r than as the representative of the people.

There is such a sentiment for tlw submis. ion of this amend ment. Gre.at organizations of the best people M the Nation have been urging it for yelli's and millions of our best :md wisest citizens have petitioned us to submit it. Twenty-six of th~ States of this Union-1\Iaine, Kansas, North Dakota. Georgia, Oklahoma, Mississippi. North Carolina, Tennessee. West Vir~ ginia, Virginia, Colorado Oregon, Washington, Arizona. Arkansas. Iowa, Idaho. South Carolina, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Indiana, New Hampshire. and Utah have enacte.d prohibition within thE-ir borders. More than 60 per cent, almost two-thirds, of our people now Uve under prohibition. Eighty per • cent . of tlie territory of the. United States is under prohibition, and a large majority of the Senate of the United States is for prohibition and a large majority of the House of Representatives is for prohibition. If this does not warrant the submission of the amendment, the whim of Congress and not the will of the people will control in the submission of amendments.

But,” they · say, "it is not right for some States to force · upon other States a policy they do not want." Such a principle . would lead to anarchy and chaos and would. defeat the whole purpose of u democratic government. Olll' fathers acted wisely in providing for changes in the Constitution and they acted w.isely in safeguarding that instrument against sudden and illconsidered changes and, · under the limitations which they hnYc imposed, w·e may be sure that no policy will be forced upon States that is not well considered and wise from the Nation's standpoint. The people of the entire State force upon particular communities Jaws which they do not approve. This is done. for the general good. For instance, Seattle said she would not have prohibition. The people of the State of Washington said she would, and she ciid. It was well, and Seattle likes it . now. Why should this principle stop at State lines? The Constitution recognizes it, and the people of the Nation for the Nation's good are demanding that the liquor traftic be prohibited by the fundamental law of the land in the way and in the manner provided by that law. They are demanding that the people of the Nation shall rule rather than the slums of om· great cities. Mark my words, they are going to do it-if not in one way, then in another. If they are not given an opportunity now, they will force Congress to act in the near future. ·

This question has not heretofore been made a party question, but the time is ripe to make it such if Congress does not give the people an opportunity to act upon it. I am glad that it has been kept out of politics thus far. I think this has been wL<>e. The sentiment Df the country is so strong now, however, and so well matured. that unless Congress submits it there is no power on earth t-hat can keep it out of politics. It will become a party question, but not a party issue.

I am a Republican upon party principles. I believe in the . intelligence and capacity of the membership of the Republican Party. I want it to succeed because I believe in its success is men. the greatest good to the Nation. It will succeed if it keeps nbreast of the matured, progressive thought and sentiment of the country and makes the welfare and happiness of the people its highest aim and purpose. I do not claim to be a leader in the party, but I think I know the sentiment of the great mass of the people of this country, and I believe that the best politics is to promote the people's welfare. I want to say to the leaders of both political parties with all earnestness, you would better submit this question now. If you do not, you will meet it in the next national conventions.

The Republican Party will have to declare for prohibition. Why? Because it will be necessary to party success. Northern States now having prohibition laws cast 121 electoral votes. Of these, 1QO-if not more-are from States normally and reliably Republican. Republican success without them is extremely doubtful. The party will not dare to declare against prohibition in the face of these votes. There is something else the party will have to consider. Another western idea is sweeping the country. It will become a power in politics. Why these great progressive ideas come out from the West I d · o not know, but I think it is because many of the best sons and daughters of the East have gone to that great open country. Their vision has expanded, their ideas have enlarged, their sympathies are broadened, and they are giving these new aspirations expression 1n seeking to uplift humanity. They are trying to make Gov­ · ernment a vital, living, helpful thing, and so it is that from fre great throbbing West come these great movements. In Northern States casting 163 votes women vote for such electors, and of these 142 are normally and reliably Republican. The party can not long hope to retain the women's votes if it refuses to stand for prohibition, anll if it does not retain these votes it can not hope to succeed.

I said that this question would become a party question but not a , party issue. Why? Because, when the Republican Party declares for prohibition the Democratic Party will do likewise. Senators and Representatives will then have to act under the party lash. This amendment should be submitted now. The people demand it, public sentiment justifies it, expediency requires it, and above all it is our duty to do it.

Our mothers, wives, sister::;, and sweethearts want this amendment submitted. They are for prohibition. They have the power to enforce their will, and they will do it. Business, industry, and. . genuine American labor will have prohibition. Humanity, decency, good government, and civilization demand prohibition. A world in arms needs prohibition to save democ· ra,cy and human liberty. The for\\ard-looking, high-minded, aspiring young men and. women upon whom will rest the safety · ~ of the Nation want prohibition. All that is best in man and woman and government long for prohibition. The liquor interests should take warning. They should prepare to transform their plants and interests into some other line of work and endeavor. The .conflict is on; the saloon must go; victory is inevitable; decency, sobriety, law, and justice must triumph. Abraham Lincoln said in 1842, referring to the War of the Revolution:

Turn now to the temperance revolution. In it we shall find a stronger bondage broken, a viler slavery manumitted, a greater tyrant deposed. In it more of want supplied, more disease healed, more sor· row assuaged. By it no orphans starving, no widows weeping. By it none wounded in fe . feeling, none injured in interest. Even the dram worker and the dram - seller will have glided into other occupa tlons so gradually as never to have felt the shock of change, and will stand ready to join all others in the universal song of gladness.

These were almost prophetic words. What Lincoln saw as in a vision we hope to see in reality.

Mr. President, the great reliance of the opposition to prohibition now seems to be the laboring man. He is made the shield from behind which the liquor traffic wages its fight. Long petitions alleged to be signed by laboring men and alleged to represent the views of members of labor organizations are J1l'e­ sented to the Senate protesting against prohibition. A few days ago a t\\o-page advertisement appeared in the 'Va hington Times, alleged to represent over 2,000,000 workingmen, protesting to the President and Congress against the proposed prohibition of beer. This advertisement was published without any signature to vouch for its truth, and, while purporting to speak for the workingmen, it certainly was , not paid for b~· the workingmen. Who paid for its printing? Who had it inserted in the paper as an advertisement? Not labor but the liquor interests. It is interesting also to note that the number of labor unions alleged to be represented on this petition i;;; only 445, out of a total of 22,000 in the United States, and yet it is claimed to represent almost as large, if not n larger, membership than can be found on the official · roster of the American Federation of Labor. Forty of the labor unions listed are bartenders' unions, and no doubt many of the other unions acted solely out of sympathy with their fellow working· Mr. Charles Stelzle, a labor expert, shows in another adYer­ • tisement, appearing in the Washington Star on Friday, June 15, that in this petition the members of many labor organizations are counted two, three, and four times. First, in their local union ; second, in the central labor union; ; third, in the State union; fourth, in some national or international organization ; and, fifth, in some cases in such organizations as " personal liberty leagues" and "mutual benefit societies."

Mr. Stelzel has shown that only 15,000 persons in the whole country are engaged in occupations peculiar to the liquor industry, such as brewers, malsters, distillers, and rectifiers. the remaining three-fourths of the whole are carpenters, electricians, machinists, teamsters, and others for whose labor there would be immediate demand to take the place of those who are going into the Army and to make up for the shortage in immigration. The total number employed in the manufacture of liquor. even in the related trades last named. is 62,920. No doubt many workingmen have been alarmed by the industrious agents of the liquor traffic as to losing their jobs, and very likely many , ha v~ been willing to sign petitions out of sympathy · for labor unions connected with the liquor business because of the brotherhood very naturally felt among labor unions, but we may sympathiz: with this solicitude without accepting its wisdom or the validity of the grounds upon which it is based.

A most significant fact about this labor petition is that all of the alleged petitioners except two come from 21 States without prohibition. The omission of protests from prohibition States is the most eloquent part of the whole document, for it suggests at once to those who come from States where the workingmen have seen the effect of prohibition and have no disposition t'o petition against prohibition even as an act of sympathy with their fellow workmen, that they know they will be doing them n great kindness to give them the prohibition that has worked so well for labor as well as capital in the prohibition States. Of all men who should be against the liquor traffic the laboring man, individually and collectively, should be its strongest foe. It takes his wages and gives nothing in return except a weakened body and an inflamed mind. His wife and. children suffer and his home is filled with poverty, distress, disease, and death. His employer distrusts him, be loses his work, his liberty, and his all. Many of the best and strongest labor - leaders recognize this and have taken a firm stand against tl1e liquor traffic, and I hope to see the day when the man at th~ head . of the greatest labor organization in the world · to-day, who has done so much for labor, who has so well deserved its trust and confidence, who has lead it along right lines in many ways, and who can do more than he has ever done before to bring to himself the love and admiration of millions of men, women, a~d t ; children, may lend the might of his influence upon the side of this great movement which means so much to those who he has so ably represented. When Samuel Gompers takes a stand individually and us the head of the American Federation of Labor for prohibition, then indeed will he rise to the full stature - of his great ability and great leadership.

l\1r. Thomas L. Lewis, president of the United Mine Workers, speaking for that great organization of men who toil in the bowels of the earth in order that our people may have warmth and our industries motive power, says: · If you want to know where the miners of America stand upon the temperance question, I will tell you. In our constitution we have a clau s e which forbids any member to sell intoxicants even at picnics. Some people say that the saloon is a necessary evil. I do not believe in that kind of doct-rine, because the liquor traffic tends to enslave the p e ople, to make them satisfied with improper conditions, and keeps them ignorant. ‘The leaders of the trades-unions are called on to fight the saloon. · One of the esteemed labor leaders is Mr. John Mitchell. He was formerly president of the United Mine Workers of America and represented them ably in the arbitration which was ordered by President Roosevelt, and was subsequently made vice president of the American Federation of Labor. He says, and experience in prohibition States verify his statement:

If a brewery is clo s ed down, in its place springs up a factory. If a saloon i s clo s ed, in its place comes a store. It is simply a process well !m o wn to union men, the same process as follows the introduction of machinery. It is a readjustment, a changed condition of society. reading. Almost every disturbance in the ranks of organized labor can be traced !J a c k to some connection with the saloon.

In a letter dated January 19, 1917, he says:

I believe that liquor has contributed more to the moral, intellectual, and material deterioration of the people and has brought more misery to defen s eles s women and children than any other agency in the history of mankind. ·

Mr. John B. Lennon, treasurer of the American Federation of Labor says:

The saloon stands for ignorance and degradation.

In the same strain l\1r. H. F. Travelock, president of th-e National Eight-Hour League, says: ·

The use of liquor and its influences have done more to darken labor's homes , dwarf its energies, and chain it band and foot to the wheels of corporate aggre s sion than all other influences combined.

'l'be Right Honorable John Burns, one of the most eminent of living labor leaders, confirms this statement as aLso h·ue of British workingmen when he says that:

My experience of the workshop, the street, the asylum, the jail have given me exc e ptional opportunities of seeing the ravages of alcohol. My participation in many of the greatest labor movements of the present generation has enabled me to witness how drinking dissipates the social force, industrial energy, and social strength of the people.

These quotations, which might be very much extended, may be properly concluded with the words Of Chief B. M. Arthur, of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers:

If I cou t d I would inaugurate a strike that would drive the liquor traffic from the face of the earth.

After prohibition bad been in effect in the State of Washington for more than a year I wrote to the labor leaders in the larger cities of the State for a frank expression of their views of prohibition from the labor standpoint. I never received a single ndYer s e reply. Many of the letters were not written until after my letter bad been submitted and considered by the local organization, so that the expression of opinion given by the writers of these letters represented not alone the opinion of the writer but the opinion of the organization itself. It will be noted that LABORERS the opinion expressed by - the great labor leaders, some I have quoted, are more or less confirmed by statements contained in these various letters. The suggestion that sobriety and temperance increases the power and enlarges the ability of labor and its organizations to cope with the wealth, power, and organization of industry should have the careful attention of every laborer.

1\Ir. President, I have here a letter from E. P. Marsh, president of the Washington State Federation of Labor, dated Everett, Wash., April 27, 1917, and addressed to me, in which he says:

WASHINGTON STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR,

Everett, Wash., AprU ?:1, 19n.

Hon. WESLEY L. JONES, Washington, D. 0.

MY DEAR SENATOR: I have yours of recent date, asking what in my opinion has been the effect of our State-wide prohibition law.

I am glad to answer. I opposed the passage of that law for several reasons, which led me to believe 1t would be an economic disaster and cntaU a hardship upon many thousands of workmen belonging to trades and industries directly and indirectly connected with the liquor traffic, workmen belonging to organizations affiliated with the organizedlabor movement.

And that, 1\lr. President, is the basis for much of the opposition to the submission of · this pi:oposed constitutional amendment. It is made by organizations out of sympathy for those who are directly employed in the industry • . That was one reason why this gentleman opposed prohibition in the State of Washington. He continues:

Undoubtedly the law d.id work some great hardships, particularly upon men with families past the prime of life, who had no other trade to follow. The greater good to the Commonwealth following so quickly upon the passage of this law greatly outweighed the individual hardships, in my opinion. We have experienced none of the dh·e disasters so freely prophesied and , which · some of us feared. From a labor standpoint-an organized-labor standpoint-let me say that the change has been noticeable in that we have had a different class of men to deal with right away-sober, a little money in their pockets. amenable to discipline and sound reasoning. It may be significant-! think It Is-that the past 12 months has seen the task of organizing th~> work people of this State become vastly easier than in the old saloon clays. You can talk sense to sober men. men with a dollar in th e ir po c kl't.;; to pay their initiation fee.

No ; I would never ~o back to the wet régime; I believe and trust that it is gone forever m the State of Washington. - · With kind regards, I remain, ·

Sincerely, yours, · E. P. MARSH, Preside-nt. Mr. President, I have here copy of a letter from .James A. Duncan, secretary of the Central Labor Council of Seattle, representing 25,000 or more laboring people, together with an interview which he gave to the papers; also a letter from Mr. H. L. Jones, acting · secretary of the North Yakima 'Trades and Labor Council; also a letter from Robert L. Proctor. president of the central labor council, belonging to the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. I ask that they be printed in the RECORD as a part of my remarks, without

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McNARY in the chair), Without objection, permission is granted.

The letters and interview referred to are as follows:

CE~TnAL LABOR CouNCIL OF SEATTLE AND VICINITY,

AFFILIATED WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR,

Seattle, Wash., April SO, 1917. Hon. WESLI!lY L . .TONES, ..

United States Senate, Washington, D. 0.

DEAR SIR: In reply to your letter of April 21 requesting information regarding the effects of prohibition. I am very pleased to inform you that I was a strong . advocate of the abolition of the liquor traffic ln the interests of the workers particularly , before the measure took <>lrect in this State, and when the fight for a dt ' y State was on was the target of many bitter attacks because of my position.

At that time I predicted that a dry State would redound to the best interests of labor and fought against our Central Labor Council going on record against initiative measure No . 3. It was a bitter fight, nnu I hesitated a long time before consenting to run for the secretaryship for fear of opening up the old wet-and-dry question but was extremely gratified upon making the race to be elected while the wets were :,till in force.

My predictions have been more than justified by the results. As is indicated by the clipping which I am inclosing, labor has prospered as never before and is forging ahead by leaps and bounds until we have reached the point where there is a _ very noticeable silence upon the part of those who fought to retain the name of Washington in the list ot wet States.

In order that you may feel assured that I am not injecting too much of my personal viewpoint, I might say that as long ago as last Oct<.,ber I was sent to a law enforcement meeting at the Arena to offichi1Iy represent organized labor upon this question and expressed the sentiment then and there that I am expressing to you at this time.

Of course, it was hard for some people to see the consistency of some of us in refusing to stand by the brewery workers in their struggle for existence, but there have been a great many converts won since the State went dry, and who now see things from a much broader viewpoint; in fact it is a rare thing now to find an advocate of a return to the old condition of affairs. · Trusting that this information will be helpful to you in forming conclusions and assuring you of my hearty cooperation, I am,

Yours, very respectfully,

JAMES A. DuNCAN, Secretary.

[From Seattle Star, Sept. 9, 1916.]

A.RE CLAD AS WELL AS BANKERS SINCE LIQUOR JS NO MORE wtLCOME IN SEATTLE.

(By James A. Duncan, secretary Central Labor Council.) .

A year ago our enemies hoped and some of our friends professed to believe that when the State went dry the labor movement would go to the dogs.

These hopes and fears have a11 proved groundless.

True, this law had the effect of putting rw.t to exceed 450 Seattle trade unionists who had been directly or Indirectly connected with the liquor business out of employment, but, on the other hand, the membership of the garment workers' union has increased in the past year over 40 per cent, which equals more than one - fifth · the number thrown out of employment, while the number of waiters losing th e ir po itlons is to some extent offset by the additional number of waitresses put to work in places that have ceased to dispense liquor.

In addition to this, at least 3,000 more members have join e d other unions not directly affected by the . operation of the dry law, except; perhaps. in so far as some may now find themselves in a better posi- tion to pay dues. Some of the organizations report great improvement ' t-ment in this regard. · · ·

It ts indeed encouraging to see men of such crafts as the long- s horemen, who were content but a short time ago to walk around curing their leisure in overalls, now dressed in such manner as would do credit to bankers. · It has been said by some officers of the longshoremen's organization that · the splendid solid · front and unwavering determination which insures victory in the present strike could never have been maintained if the saloons had been open, and much more serious violence nnd disturbances would surely have occurred.

A city of sober, organized workers means a city of workers «:arning fair wages within .reasonable , hours, with sufficient t : nds and leisure to take recreation, visit the stores to make purchases. and -with the mean . . to livP under wholesome. sanltarv conditions.

The prosperity of the presE-nt Is being most largely enjoyed by the skilled workers, · not bec:ause of Indifference on · the part of thE." skilled worker to the interests of tb~ unskilled worker but because the skilled workers are tbt> most generally organized, while it is a much more difficult matter to organize unskilled workers.

However. great strides are being made in the organization of the unskilled workers. and while 1t is not wise to advertise the details In connection with new organization work, it is safe to say that several organizations of unskilled workers have recently been organized. with ex<·E."IIPnt prospects . for the future

Prosperity for the workers, .like prosperity for ~be business man. consists in graspiD~ and improving every opportunity that comes along. whether It hP in tbt> lndu:<trlaJ field or the political. and the sooner the workers recognize this fact the greater and the more rapid will be their progress.

NORTH YAKIMA TRADES AND LABOR COUNCIL,

North Yakima, Wash., May s. 1917.

Hon. W. L. JONES,

Washington, D. 0.

DEAR Sin: Your communication of April 21, relating to the prohibition law in this State as affecting the workingman, was read at the IDPf>ting of th•• trades rounc11 last evening, and l am instructed to inform you that the laboring men of North Yakima and vicinity are more than satisfied with same. believing no one is more b e nefited through its application t!ill.n the wage earner, and we wUl hE."artily Indorse any action you might take furthering th"' prohibition movement.

RespectfuUy,

NOllTR YAKllUA. TRADES A~"D LABOR COUNClL,

H. L. JONES, Acting Secretary.

LOCAL UNIOY No. 131,

. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF

CARPENTEllS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,

Seattle, Wash., April 21, 1917. Senator WESLEY L. JONES,

W a.~hington, D. 0.

DEAlt SENATOR: Regardless of what my personal opinion might. have been on the question of prohibition prior to its enactment into law in this State. 1 have this to say of its operation and consequent effect on tbi> stantlards of tbP workingman.

This point can be aptly illustrated by the following: I am an officer of the carp t> n1er · union. . and consequently more intimately in touch with the financial condir.on 1 and the home life of the members. and can say that the operation of the prohibition law is a decided advantagt> to the workingman. ·

Being a salaried officer, I am naturally the first to be appealed to when a member Is tn Bnanciru difficulties, and will say that since the dry law has tiPen effective m~ loan business has fallen off fully 75 per cent, and tbo . loans which have _ bee.n made have been, for the most part, prompt!£ liquidated .

1 also notice . t> lba the members are keeping up their union dues and our lo s of membership from the nonpayment of dues has been very little.

The families of the membership have been. until recently, when the pn~s are prohibitive, able to maintain better living conditions, and consequently make better citizens.

On tllt:> whole I believe the prohibition law ls a decided advantage to the workingman, and I am looking forward with sincerest interest to the time when liquor will be an unknown quantity in this country.

Sincerely.

ROBT. L. Proctor,

President Central Labor Council.

Mr. JONES of Washington. Mr. President, this testimony could be duplicated from other States where prohibition has ~n adopted. .

It is a significant fact, and one which the American workingman should carefully ponder, that the Socialist Party in Porto lUro put a prohibition plank in its platform and n~<?J'es. ivety lt.>tl a campaign at the recent election in Porto Rico. with · the result that the industrial centers antl large towns have a dry majority, and Porto Rico set an example to the people of this country by giving 30.000 or 40 . 000 majority for prohibition. The socialists of Europe are moving toward prohibition on the ground thnt even a few glasses of beer being used daily drowns the aspirations of workingmen -to better their own condition& and that of their fellows.

~11·. President, for the consideration of the laboring men, and in conn ec tion with the claims of the brewery people that their industry is iu the interest of the laboring man. and asking his support in order that this industry may be continued, I desire . to r act two extracts from the 1915 Year Book of the United State Brewers' Association. There are quite a number of articles iu this book, and some very interesting things in it. I think we hnYe a right to conclude that what they say that . may b~ against their interest is the truth. At page 287 I find this language: · And just as a system of credit tends to make people extravagant, to outtun their income. squander their capital and become bankrupt, so resort to alcohol tends to make a man exp e nd more than the rightful amount of physical or mental energy. to draw upon his reserve, and become finally bankrupt ln body, mind. and estate. It is the fatal facility wllcb ulcohol gives to a man to,· drawing upon his reserve, making him feel stronger, wiser, and happier for the time, that constitutes its chief danger.

That is, as I have stated, found in the Brewers' Yearbook for 1915. At page 291 I find this : ' It would be ot very great advantage if it were possible 'to prevent the . . salE.' of intoxicating liquor entirely to youths under 21, and thus prevent them from making drafts on their . physiological capital, just as the law already recognizes that minors shou-ld be prevented from making fe~~~~;:rafts on their monetary reserves by obtaining loans from money I hope that the laboring men, when the campaign comes on, will consider these statements and the source from which they come.

Labor and labor organizations should consider well the character and effects of the liquor traffic before they prote t against prohibition. I do not blame them for looking at the matter from their own standpoint. They ought to do so, and I want them to do so. When they see that it is u ·ing them solely for its own advantage arid to their detriment I have so much confidence in their intelligenc·e and good character to believe they will not lend it their aid further.

There are some wage earners directly employed in the 1 liquor industry. These, of course, will be directly a ffeded. The rec­ · ords show, however, that from five to six times as m~my men are employed with the , same amount of capital in other indu.­ tries as are employed to an equal amount of capital in the liquor industry. Such and new industries would soon absorb these worker~ if the liquor industry were stopped. This has been the actual experience in prohibition States. The wages paid in other industries are us a rule higher than in the liquor industry. While it is commendable for labor and labor organizations to strive to protect the interests of their fellow workmen in the liquor industry, they should not sacrifice the welfare of the many for the good of the few, and e pecially when tho e few can be and will be well cared for in other lines of industry. This is especially true now when so many of our best young men are taken from every line of work. Many times the number of those employed in the liquor traffic will be needed to take these vacant places.

Mr. President, in connection with the letters from labor leaders as to conditions in our State I want to ask at this time also permission to have printed an interview in Collier's Weekly of March 24, 1917, by Hon. C. B. Blethen, the editor of the Seattle Times. - I want to say that this paper was one of the strongest · n~est opponents to prohibition when the campaign in our State was on ; but in this interview he takes up all of the objections that were made at that time, and shows that the evils prophesied have not only not occurred but that they have actually ht>t>n refuted by what has taken place in our State. I want to print that in connection with the letters from the labor leaders. The Seattle Times is now one of the strongest advocates of prohibition in our State.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the absence of objection, it is so ordered.

The matter referred to is as follows :

(C. B. Blethen In Comer's Weekly. Mar. 24. 1917.]

Now, I say to you, not as a man who has never tasted liquor. but as a business man whose principal occupation Is to observe and then write of what be sees, that prohibition does not ba ve to be discussed from the moral standpoint at nll, though any halfwit knows there is no excuse for a saloon. It may bP discussed from the standpoint of business, of commerce. of bank clearings. Let us then examine the following facts:

We insisted, for example, that Seattle would have miles of empty stores as the result of prohibition. Yet to-day tbl' only vacant places formerly used as saloons, outside the old tenderloin. do not. as I have shown, exceed 20 ui number, and <>acb of these ls ln a district no longer of use in retail busi!le s. The rest of thE." vacancies are new stores not yet completed. Before mt> as r write is the bulky list of these old saloon locations, each one tabulated like this:

"J. 0. Short. 915 Second Avenue. Two-story brick. Florshc1m Shoe Co."

Ot the 211 places vacated when the saloons were put out of business 191 have been occupied by new businesses.

We said that taxes would go up in the city of Seattle. They went down from 18.98 to 18.11 mills.

We insisted that bank clearings would go down. The total bank clearings of 1915 we-n• $612.!l28,R79. Those of 1916 were $790.217.950, an increase of more than 177,000,000.

Of course, I kr·ow that ReattiP has been· doing a lot of shipbuilding and that her ocean-borne commerce has increased a lot. What ot It? We said certain things would happen. They did not. We said that bank deposits would go down. Look:

At the end of 1915. $87 815,076.

At the end of 1916, $10S,OOO,OOO.

Savings-bank deposits are not available, but the banks assure mQ that there has been a tremendous increase in deposits and numbers ot new accounts.

We all agreed Seattle would lose in population. "The Government says we have gained more than 15,000, having on December 21. 348.G~D. Post-office figures confirm this. . .

The liquor dealers ~aid, the business men concurring, that crime would increase, particularly drunkenne s.

Note this tabulation of crime taken from police records of two years: 191 5 lYlG Arre:sts !or all offenses ___ ... _ ‘ ---·-···-·-- ... _ .. _ ...•.. __ _ 18,325 10,653 li::~~~:.~~~~~~~:.~~~~~~~.~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 6,301 3,~i , Other crimos of Yiolence ...... -- ....... -.- . ~ --- ... -- ... -·.- ...•. - .. 171 149 Suicide ............... __ .....•• --- ••••. _ .•••..•.•..••••.. ___ .. _ ... . 95 54 'Burglarl&~, theft, etc ..• ---._.-~··--·-------------- .. ---- ........•.. 422 2M

The liquor men insisted destitution would increase. Yet the newspapers which for [ears have conducted their own charity bureaus found only about c.a~?e in 20 this winter as compared with last. Police records show : · 1915 1916 rrofessional bt>gging ............................................. .. 708 128 Abandoning famili e.> .. . ........................................... . 15 3 One of the pet wet arguments has always been that - the population of jails and houses of correction increases in dry territory. The record shows: 1915 1916 2,464 1,182 . ~~~£a1~uR~fo;!e~~~~o i « .'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: 184 160 walla w alia r >c niten t iary ... . .................................... . 735 645 Collections are much better The grocery stores and meat markets say that in addition to buying more, the average small-account man next? is paying quickly-two or three times more promptly than ever before. There were many vacant homes and flats in 1915, although that was a · good year. You can't rent a place in which to live in Seattle now unless you search long and have great luck. We said general business would decline. While this is well covered in the statement of clearings, let me say right here that there is not a merchant in Seattle who was in business in 1915 who has not done a much better business in 1916.

CAN YOU BEAT IT?

Prohibition, even in the limited 'form adopted by the ' State of Washington, is an unqualified business success. 'l'be loss to certain property owners caused by the reduction of rentals and real estate values, which were based on the continued existence of the saloon, has injured neither the city of Seattle nor the State of Washington. In fact, there is another side to the shield.

CrimE: has been reduc e d almost one - half. The mon e y formerly passing over bars is almost entirely spent for better living, benefiting every person it reaches, beginning with man, wife, and children, and running through all lines of trade, and particularly through the middle-size and smaller shops, and all of it staying at home, and much of it going into savings deposits. With the raising of the living standard comes a series of other benefit... Effici e ncy i n all lines of business has been greatly increased. This begins in the lumber and construction camps, where from 30 to 50 per cent more work is accomplished . with the same crews. It appears on the doeks, where a full day's labor is bad every Monday instead of practically none, and a full day's labor is had Tuesday instead of the former half. ) It is visible in the records of industrial accidents, now cut down to less than half the average of wet years. It shows up in every business house in the large cities in the efficiency and contentment of cl e rks and workmen.

The sum total of human happiness has been increased immeasurably. When women and children have more and better food and clothes and thousands of men, formerly sent to jail as the result of booze every year no longer get into the scrapes and crimes that cause mental and physical anguish to themselves and all depending upon them, no one can dispute the fact that this Is becoming a better world for many.

Out here in tbP. State of Washington we are pretty dry now, but we are going to be drier. And the drier we get the better business wm bethat has been proved in this first great year! :More and better clothes and more and better food for the wife and kiddles ! More and better business for everybody ! Fewer and fewer people in the jails or behind on their bills! Can you beat it?

l\1r. JONES of Washington. Let labor study over and answer these questions:

What good can come to labor from a traffic that produces only evil?

What good C'an come to labor from a traffic that takes his money, and with it his time, his mind, his body, his position, and his all?

What good can come to labor from a traffic that discredits him and his organization and brings crime and riot to his door?

What good can come from a traffic that plants in his children the seeds of crime and disease?

What good can .come to labor from a traffic that brings to his wife v . nd his home only sorrow, poverty, disease, and death?

What recompense is offered to labor for all these things?

Liberty ! Liberty to drink away his wages. Liberty to drink away his health. Liberty to drink away his happiness. Liberty to drink himself to death; and they impudently ask why should the State or the Nation interfere?

But this is not all. Having gotten some labor organizations to go on record against prohibition, the liquor interests now slander labor by suggesting that it is unpatriotic, that if the laborer is denied his drink even in war times, he will rebel. They, in effect, say that the laboring man measures his patriotism by a glass of beer. Who says this? Not labor, but the liquor interests. Who threaten us with rebellion? Not the-laborer, but the liquor interests. In a statement given out by the brewers a short time ago under the heading of " Nine reasons for liquor," they It (prohibition) would produce anger, resentment, and disaffection among millions of American workers.

In whose interest was this uttered? Not labor, but in the interests of the brewe s. It is a base libel upon American workers. They are as loyal and patriotic a class as we have. They will make the greatest sacrifices for their country, and surely they will resent this base slander. Was this spoken for their good? What can they hope from a traffic that will use them so? Labor protests against its unjust burdens. It complains of the smallness of its share of the proceeds of its toil. I think there is much justice in these complaints, but does it realize how it is being used to its own detriment by the liquor traffic? The liquor man, whether he runs ·a saloon or owns a distillery or a brewery, is not a phllanthropist. He is in the business to make money, and generally he does not care how he does it. He is frequently a teetotaler himself. He generally lives in a good house, if not a fine mansion. The influences that surround him and his business do not tend to sympathy or philanthropy. They are evil, degrading, and base. The brothels and the gambling dens go hand in hand with his place of business. Thugs, thieves, murderers, corruptionists, and traitors all congregate in and about his place of business along with those who may be regarded as respectable. What can labor hope from a traffic of this kind? Does it know what the traffic is seeking to do Do they realize that it is seeking to place upon them a tremendous tax burden for the years to come? The liquor traffic would have us believe that labor is its main support. It pays to the Government two or three hundred millions in taxes. From whom does this come? Not from the pockets of the saloon man, the brewer, or distiller, but largely from the pockets of the laborer. What does the liquor interests propose to do now? It magnanimously welcomes an increase in its taxes. It says it will cheerfully pay four or five hundred millions in taxes to the Government. Where will it get this amount? From the laborer. Of course it is glad to pay if some one will put up. How does labor like this cheerful imposition of two or three hundred millions additional in taxes upon his earnings?

No one points out to labor any benefits that come to him from the use of liquor. The most that has been claimed is that a glass of beer does no harm. The brewers have even abandoned this in the face of the almost universal testimony of experts, scientists, and physicians that alcohol in any form is a noxious poison and that beer is a most harmful drink. It has been left to the honorable and learned Senator from Massachusetts to refute in a most positive manner the testimony of these men who were supposed to know. The matured opinions of experience and investigation will have to give way before the profound kuowledge of this great Senator.

A few days ago, when we were considering legislation to conserve the food supply of the country, the senior Senator from Massachusetts in his anxiety that the production of beer might not be stopped said :

It is an innocent drink.

He does not tell us of the long nights of study and investigation to reach a conclusion so contrary to the mature thought's of the day. He does not tell us whether this dogmatic asser· tion has been evolved from the subtle alchemy of his inner consciousness or from historical research. A jubilant thrill must have gone through the liquor lobby when that statement was made. What rna tter to them the opinion of experts and physicians that beer is a harmful drink! They now have high and honorable, though inexperienced, authority to the contrary. In the campaign after this amendment is submitted the brewers will adorn every billboard throughout the country with a beautiful picture of the learned Senator from Massachusetts. In their next annual Yearbook they will doubtless place upon the front page a splendid engraving of his classic features over the legend, "The Hon. HENRY CABoT LonGE, author, historian, diplomat, . and United States Senator, who declares beer is an innocent drink." The brewers did not · overlook this ' sentence. It had hardly been uttered when telegrams were pouring into Sen a tors like this :

" Beer is a harmless drink. Do not take it from the laboring man." What is the truth about it? Dr. Eugene L. Fisk, medical director of the Life Extension Institute of New York, said a short time ago that the moderate drinker, who takes two or three drinks a day is on dangerous ground, and that " he is putting a narcotic poison into his system, and ultimately it will break him. It will shorten his life, impair his mind, shatter his nerves, and wreck his stomach. These conclusions are . not based on theory. They are scientific facts." He then referred to figures based on statistics furnished by 43 life insurance · companies and said :

Individuals who · o took two glasses of beer or a glass of whisky or their alcoholic equivalent each day showed that the mortality in this class was 18 per cent in excess of the average.

And the Senator from Massachusetts says it is an innocent drink. One of the Senator's colleagues, who is not only n distinguished Senator but also a learned physician, the Senator , tor from New Hampshire, said in the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD of January ' 8, 1901:

Beer is an Intoxicating drink, as every physician in the entire world knows, a drink that does harm to every man who habitually uses it.

The Senator from New Hampshire on that occasion, at page 676 of volume 34, part 1, of the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD, for the second se sion of the Fifty-sixth Congress, placed the opinions of a multitude of able phy icians of Toledo, Ohio, in the RECORD under the heading:

Heer and the body-terrible testimony of the physicians against this monstrous evil 6f the day.

I would suggest that the learned Senator from Mas achusetts read these statements from these physicians. and then give us the authority for his astounding as ertions.

Mr. President. I heard the health officer of the city of New York a short time ago declare without qualification that alcohol in any form and any amount was a poison and injurious to those who might take it.

In the speech by the Senator from New Hampshire, to which I have already referred, he said:

Mr. President, every physician in the land knows that beer is intoxicating, and the medical profe sion is quite united in the opinion that the continued use of It is more detrimental to health than almost any other form of intoxicating drink.

But the Senator from Massachusetts says "it is an innocent drink."

Most significant is the attitude which business of various kinds is taking regarding intemperance. It is beginning to realize the effects of liquor upon · those who labor and of the results that are likely to follow its use. It is putting the bars up against the use of liquor by its employees, and this action is giving a great impetus to the temperance movement. It is looking at intemperance from the business standpoint, just as labor should do. In the Literary Digest for March 4, 1916. is -an article under the heading "No 'booze' for big business." I ask permission to insert that without reading.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so or· dered.

The matter referred to is as follows:

A workman for the Illinois Steel Co. in Chicago recently secured a better job in Pittsburgh 1 and before he left his fellow workmen gave him a banquet at a hotel, with 25 foremen and clerical workers as guests. There was a cocktail at every plate. When the men left the table not a cocktail nad been touched. This story is told by a writer in the Sunday-School Times to show how the antlliquor campaign in industry is working out. An investigation, says M.r. C. W. Baines in the Philadelphia Weekly, was recently made amon~ the great steel and iron concerns of Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana. and Illinois to ascertain their attitude toward alcohol, and 140 corporations, some operating more than one. plant, and with an aggregate capital of over a billion dollars, were included. The report, says Mr. Baines, is not meant for a Sunday-school document. It is, rather, "a cold-blooded business and economical deliverance intended to determine industry's hostility toward alcoholic drink and drinkers, which has been very indefinitely discussed in the public press ; to throw an illuminating ray of light on its attitude toward the movement for abstinence and prohibition in commerciaJ life." It does not concern itself with the moral aspects of the drink question, but, it is insisted, "we must not have our Sunday-school boys ignorant of the attitude of our business princes toward the imbi~ers of bad booze." Of the 140 corporations, 113 replied to the inquiry. Mr. Baines thus classifies the returns:

" 1. Ot the 113 answers, only 6 permit the use of alcoholic drink in their shops or plants.

" 2. One hundred and seven firms, the world's greatest steel and iron producers, absolutely prohibit the use of strong drink in their works. Almost without exception they testify that the abstainer is morP omdent, more reliable, and that teetotalers alone are considered when pro · motions are made. .

" 3. One hundred companies prohibiting drinking during worldna hours report . t that they are also doing • everythinfi possible to prevent drinking by employees out of working hours.' une corporation discharges any man who enters a saloon going to or from work; another suspends such an employee one week for the first offense, and for the second be is usually discharged.