July 31, 1917

Mr. REED. The Senator will find it on page ri38, in the righthand column. [Reading:]

If I were asked what law has been the greatest educational benefit to my State, I would have to answer the prohibitory liquor law. When that law went into effect the illiteracy of the State was 49 per cent. It has decreased since that time to less than 2 per cent-the lowest of any s · State in the Union, excepting one.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator from Kansas?

Mr. REED. In a moment :' . 1\Ir. THOMPSON. But I can save a good deal of time. That statement has been corrected in the RECORD. It was corrected the following day. It should have been 4.9 per . cent. It was merely a typographical error.

Mr. REED. I followed that with this statement:

Mr. llEED. l\Ir. President, I want to ask the. Senator from Kansas it ~eg~·dP~i~r:rL~gb6FFICER. Does the Senator from Kansas :yield t~ the tc him." (VoL Senator from Missouri? . .

Mr-. 'l'HOMPsox. 1 yield to the Senator.

Mr. REED. Did the Senator from Kansas state that before- the prohibitory law was passed in Kansas the illiteracy was 49 per cent? . er Mr. Tuo:\rPsox. My understanding ois that prior to 1880 the llht· crncy was 4!) per cent. . .

Mr. REED. Oh, there never was a community in America which was SO ignorant as that-not even in Kansas.

Mr. CURTIS. 1\Ir. President, will the Senator permit me?

1\fr. REED. I will permit the Senator in a moment, when I finish this sentence.

Now Mr. President, if the Senator corrected it the next day, ! am glad of it for the sake of Kansas; but I want him, when he sends out his campaign speech, to insert that at the same-time I was making the statements with reference to Kansas he said that the degree of illiteracy was 49 per cent. and that I came to the defense of Kansas and repudiated the statement, and set the Senator right-a fact. however, which be was not willing to accept at that time, but which, upon looking up the records a day (}!.' two later, and finding that I was correct, he somewhat reluctantly conceded in the RECORD.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I stated in the RECORD the day after the Senator made llis speech, I believe, that L was absent during his remarks. and I put the correct figures in the speech which I delivered-and I think the Senator was present-show· • ing that the percentage of illiteracy in Kansas was only 5.6 per cent. J

1\lr. REED. I understand, of course, that it was a mistake; but I want the Senator from Kansas [Mr. THOMPSON], sends out his campaign speech, to tell the people of Kansas how I valiantly came to their defense on the memorable 19th day of December. · ·

Mr. STONE. 1\Ir. President, the Senator from Ohio [Mr. HAnDING] has proposed an amendment to the pending joint reso.- lution which provides in substance that the States shall act upon the joint resolution within a period of six years. I think that amendment ought to be agreed to, and I shall vo.te for it; but I do not rise at this time to discuss that, nor to discuss the joint resolution itself as reported from the Committee on the Judiciary. I have it in mind in due time on to-morrow, and after • the · amendment proposed by the Senator -from Ohio has been acted upon, to propose another amendment to the pen d . mg joint resolution upon which I shall ask the JUdgment of the Senate and it is upon that amendment that I desire to .address the Senate this afternoon. I must d(} that this afternoon, or not at all, under the limitations of the unanimous-consent agreement. . ~ . b The amendment I have in mind to propose will be ill su stance, though it may not be when offered in the exact phraseology I a m golD!! to read. namely:

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation f but this article shall not be. enforced until the- Congress shall have made proviSion for the ascertainment and payment of dam· ages resulting from the enforcement of the same.

I · h t 0 dd IL

It is to that proposition that WlS a ress royse

AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLlll ALWAYS Ji'OR PROTECTION OF

PROPERTY RIGHTS.

1\Ir. President, from the commencement o~ our Government our people in both Federal and State Constitutions have declared for the protection of property, and that private property should not be taken. or damaged by public act without just compensation. . .

This is a fundamental principle of our social organism and law and everyone growing up as an American or living under our' Government absorbs the idea as being a vital part of American life. To the layman and the lawyer alike it is common knowledge. All classes understand that, and accept it and indorse it as a fundamental principle of our institutions and our Government. This principle is founded on that t'nle of right so well stated by an eminent American, when he said" that the demands of absolute and eternal justice forbid that any private property legally acquired and legally held should be spoliated or destroyed in the interest of public health. morals, or welfare without compensation."

And it has been written of this principle by n great judge:

This power to take private property reaches back of all constitutional provisions and it seems to be a settled principle of universal law that t he right of compensation is an incident to the exercise of that power; that th e one is so inseparably connected with the. other that they may be said to exist not as separate and distinct principles but as parts ' o• one and the same principle.

And again, in speaking on this question the Supreme- Court says: 1 lD 1 ecogmzl g "And in this 'there is a natural equity which commends it to everyone. lt In no wi e detracts from the power of the public to _U,.ke whatever may be necessary for its use, while, .. on the other hand • 1tj prtevenh ts the public from loading upon an individual more than h 1 s us s are o the burden ot government, · aml says that when be surrenders to the public something more and different from that which is Pxacted from other members of the p\Ibllc a full and just equivalent shall be retnrned

37 ' L, Ed. U. s. R., p. 467 ·> .

TWs principle is enunciated in our National Constitution in the sentence that no person shall be deprived of liberty or prop erty with t d f 1 h 11 • t t b ou due process 0 law, nor . s a pnva e proper Y e taken for public use without just compensation.

THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION AUENDMEN'l' IS A DAMAGtl TO A~D DESTRUC- ~ION OF' PROPERTY l'WW LEGALLY HELD .A!\'D LEGALLY USED CONTRARY

TO THE SPIRIT OF OUR LAW .AND GOVERNMENT .

I ·s important to keep clearly in mind the fact that the busi ness and property affected by this proposed amendment is in • all States where laws legalize the business aml protect the property and capital invested and protect the right of the workman to labor in the industry.

The proposal is for the Federal Government by constitutional amendment to override the wishes of the people of the States wherein the business is conducted and put an end to it.

There is no doubt that the adoption of this amendment would destroy the business o:f those engaged in the malt, vinous, and distilled liquor industries; no doubt that it would render valueless for the present purpose for which it is used millions of dol· lars’ worth of property; no doubt that it would take away the right to ea~n a living of thousands of men who have learned the business under the sanction if not by the invitation of the Jaws of the . State and Federal Governments, and who now have the protection of their respective State laws ancl State governments of their right to labor in these · industries and earn a living thereby. This business, this property, the occupation of these thousands of men, all now protected and legalized by State when he laws, it is pt·oposed to destroy by an act of the Federal Government without compensation and over the objection and against the wishes of the people of the States · where the business is carried mi. But it will - doubtless be said that this property nnll business and the right to labor therein are not taken physically b)" the proposed amendment; that there is no direct taking or destruction · in the physical sense; that there is no actual physical conversion of the property or the business; but in Wallace, Thirteenth United States Reports. pages 166 and 167, a Supreme Court justice answered this suggestion as follows:

It would be a very curious and unsatisfactory result If, in construing a provision of constitutional law always understood to have been adopted for protection and security to the rights of the individual as against the Government and which has received the commendation of jurists and statesmen and commentators as placing tll« just principle of the common law oa that subject beyond the power of ordinary legis· lation to change or control them, It shall be held that If the Govern- ment refr-ains from the absotute conversion of real property to the -uses of the public it can destroy its value entirely, can inflict irreparable and permane-nt injury to any extent, can in effect subject it to total destruction 'W'ithout making any compensation. because in the narrow· est sense ol. that word it ls not taken for · the public use. l:'lucb a con· struction would pervert the constitutional provision Into a restriction upon the rights of the citizen as those rights stood at the common law. instead of the Government. and make It an authority for the- invasion of private rights under the prete-xt of the public good which bad no warrant or authority in the laws or practices of our ancestors.

The modern doctrine of · the courts as to when the right to compensation exists has been defined in this wise:

.Any substantial interference with private propert;v: which destroys or lessens its value or by which the owner's right to its use and enjoyment is in any substantial degree abridged or de troyed is in fact and in law a taking in the constitutional sense to the extent of the damages suffered, even though the title and the possession of the owner remains undisturbed. (Lewis on Eminent Domain, 3d ed., Vol. I, sec. 55, . pp. 50-57, 67; 28th Utah R., p. 211.)

I conclude therefore, it is clear that, if this loss and damage which will b~ inflicted by J?USSnge by Congress and adoption by the States of this amendment were inflicted by a congressional act the provisions of the Federal Constitution prohibiting destruction and damage of private property and bu iness without compensation would apply, and if the congressional legislation did not itself provide compensation, under the decisions of our courts and the policy of our Government, the public faith would require those suffering loss by the congressional act should be recompensed according to the due proce s of the law of the land. The records of our Government and courts abound in cases of this sort where legislation or other governmental act has damaged or destroyed property or business, and always where property has been legally held and u ed and business legally -conducted the Government has rendered just compensation to those injured. One comparati-vely recent case of damages paid by the Government for loss caused by enactment of . a"'statute by Congress is what is known as the Sugar Case. rec ·t f U ·t d St t ported in the forty-first volume, Law _Edi ion o Dl e . a es Reports, page 215. In tb1s and all similar cases the Government · . · ·n the obligation ta compensate has acted on the theory that it was and is a cardinal prmr1ple o~ om ins I u­ tions that private property, legally used and legally held. shall! 1 not be destroyed or dam a O'ed either by public or private act, without a right to compensation. The business of the malt, vinous, and distilled liquor industries is legalized now by the Jaws of the States where carried on, and the property and capital invested therein are protected by the laws of those States . . The business is legally conducted, the property is legally held and legally used, and the workman has the protection of the law in his right to labor therein. If a private citizen in one of . these States legalizing these industries by any act of his interferes with the business, destroys the property, . or injures it or damages it or interferes with the right of the workmen to labor therein, the citizen so doing must answer in the courts · of the land for his a<'t, and unless legal defense can by him be established he must compensate for all losses he may have inflicted. Why is this law of compensation enforced against the citizen who might thus damage the property or the workmen employed in the industry? What is the principle on which the law of compensation, as embodied in our Constitution, is founded? Tile answer is that it is morally and legally wrong to take private property or to injure the same by public or private act without compensation, and, as said by the Supreme Court of the United States, Seventy-first United States, page 120:

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people equally in war and in peace and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men at all times and under all circumstances.

Now, if n private citizen may not damage or destroy the property legally used and legally held in this business, and may not prevent the workmen from earning a living in these industries without responding in compensation for any loss incurred by his net, are the people of the United States in their collective ca- pacity as a Federal Government to be justified morally or exCJ.lSed from . doing what the Government itself compels by .its constitutional mandate its citizens to do-that is, . r _ respond in dr . mnges and compensate for destruction of business carried on _ with the sanction of the law and damage to property legally llelcl uud legally used?

But the answer doubtless will be that this is a constitutional amendment and not a congressional enactment, and that while perhaps it is true that if the damage was inflicted by congressional act compensation Should be paid, yet by an amendment to the Constitution it can be done . without incurring responsibility for compensation. Waiving but not conceding, the question whether or not · it can be legally done . without compensation eve;1. by constitutional amendment, and admitting for the sake only of the present discussion the power exists, does it change the principle involved because we destroy the property and the business by an amendment to the Constitution instead of by congressional act? If the loss should be inflicted by congressional act, there is no doubt in my mind that the right to compensation therefor would exist. The damage to property in these industries now legally held and used in these States is the same whether the ·,, loss is inflicted by congressional act or by constitUtional a-mendment. Only recently in this body the question of the right to destroy ami damage this class of property without compensa· tion was discussed, and, as I remember, • it was practically con· ceded by all .. if damage ensued · on , congressional action compensation must be paid according to the terms of the Constitution . . On what · theory is the constitutional proposition founded which would exempt it from the just principle which prevents destruction of private property by Public act without compensation? It is the demand of absolute - and eternal justice that private property legally acquired and legally held shall not be spoliated '' or destroyed in the interest of public health, morals, welfare, or any other public interest without compensation. This is the sound proposition on which the American-idea . of legal protection to property is grounded. Does it change the principle or tile morality of the act because you do the damage by a constitutional am.endment instead of by a congressional enactment? Now, the Federal Constitution protects the citizen from the tection: acts of the State or the acts of a fellow citizen which would destroy his private property legally held and used without compensation therefor. This is one of the great bulwarks of right in our organic law. Now, it is proposed by this amendment to put into this same. ' Constitution alongside of this provision that protects the private citizen in his property and his business and his righ.t to labor a provision whereby the people of the United

· th · ll

S States ill eu· co ective capacity as a Federal Government would destroy hundreds of millions of dollars of property now legally owned and legally used . under the laws of the States where located without any compensation . :whatever for . the damage done. If the principle in our Constitutions, National and State, declaring _ no person shall . be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law, nor private property taken by public act without just compensation, is co ' correct, and if it is right that private property legally held. and used shall not be destroyed by governmental action without compensation, then why is it not sound governmental policy tQ say _ that this private ' property belonging to these industries now legally h"eld ancl used should not be destroyed by governmental policy or change of policy without compensation? When the tariff laws were changed so as to injuriously affect the sugar industry Congress promptly met the loss sustained · by providing compensation, and the Supreme Court upheld the act.

It is true Congress can as a war-emergency act authorize the taking of private property for public use, but if no provision is made in the act for compensation the Government is in honor bound . to pay the owner the value of his property as determined according to the due process of the law of the land. But. certainly it will not be contended that this is a war measure. The men who have invested their money in the business and those who have spent their lives learning to labor and are laboring in these industries were permitted, if not invited, by the laws of the United States Government and the various States and cities of the country to go into the business, and approximately two-thirds of the voters cf this Republic now live in States whose laws sanction and legalize this business. ·

Has the Government of the United States -the moral right; in violation of the spirit of the Constitution and of its historic policy, to destroy millions of dollars of property invested in the business that for years it' has recognized a.s legal and which now is a legitimate business in the States whereJt is carried on? Granted for the time being that the Government of the United States is supreme in this matter, can · it afford to do ­ this? It must be admitted it is practical confiscation to deprive citizens of property and values legally acquired without redress or compensation. In most of the larger States the business is legalized and the property and money invested protected and the workman protected in his right to labor and earn a living in this industry, and now it is proposed by an act of the Federal Government to destroy hundreds of millions of dollars of prop· erty of the citizens of these States and deprive hundreds of . .f. thouSands of the citiZens of their occupation against the will of the people of these sovereign States, and all without offering any compensation for the loss sustained. This amendment is advocated on the theory that it is conducive to public welfare, health, safety, and good order, and therefore confiscation without compensation is justified; but the whole theory of our Government, State and National, is founded on the proposition that · confiscation of property . without compensation is wrong in morals and in principle. This must be admitted. Now, if that is true, . we have this condition : That it is · proposed in order to promote the public welfare, health, safety, and good order, an immoral and wrongful public act-! use the word "immoral" in the ... sense that whenever the government of a State does a wrong thing against its citizens it is fundamentally wrong and, there· · fore, fundamentally immoral-must be committed ' by our Government of taking and destroying property without compensa- tion and against the wishes of the people of the States wherein the confiscated property is located. . .

!To emphasize, I repeat that if an individual citizen in any of the licensed States could by his act render useless . property used in these industries he would have to respond in dm ; damages, and the owner would be compensated. Now, is it any less wrong, morally or legally, for the Federal Government to destroy or injure this property in a licensed State without compensation than it would be for a private citizen so to do? In its last analysis the contention in behalf of this amendment without compensation reduces itself to the proposition c that it is _ justifiable to commit a moral wrong, if not a legal wrong, and to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Federal and every State Constitution, in order to promote public welfare. Of this contention I will say as the Supreme Court said of a suggestion that war emergencies might suspend constitutional pro· No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences · was ever in vented by the wit of man · * * *. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false.

In my judgment it would be better to make the record of our Government in the manner of dealing with the question of loss and damage ensuing in the adoption of this amendment square itself with all our prior governmental history and policy, and square itself with the inexorable law of right and justice, and prevent our . Government from committing a great moraL wrong of this character.

ECONOMic SIDE oF QUESTIO::..

Capital now invested in brewing business is estimated at m!g~~~g-'b'\isiness~-about=========================== $750,000,000 80,000,000 Wine making, alJout -------------------------------- 30,000,000 ~f_~~t~nJiou~~ol~vested-in-tbe1:eta:ii-tradeis-estima-ted-at 60,000,000 about __________________ .:. _______________________ _ 421,601,380

There are employed in the retail · and manufacturing branches, including · owners and proprietors, -probably 800,000 persons.

Indirectly engaged in the business and dependent on allied business industries there are additional persons employed of approximately 200,000 persons.

based on my information, 1; think this is a conservative estimate of the capital invested and the number of men occupied in these industries. ·

Mr. President, at this time, with the disturbed conditions produced by war, to wipe out all this property without compensation, thereby inflicting $1,000,000,000 loss on private citizens and at the same time deprive 1,000,000 of our citizens of their means of livelihood in the manner proposed, is, in my opinion, a fundamentally wrong governmental policy and can not be successfully defended. '

COMPENSATION I~ OTHER COUNTRIES.

In t11e following countries, by legislative enactment, the principle of compensation for loss incurred by governmental action in prohibiting or restricting business in like industries has received approval by government legislation: Great Britain, Switzerland, France, Norway, and Province of Quebec, Canada. The official return of license statistics for Great Britain for 1913, published by the British Government in August, 1914, states that 1J1ere wtis paid under the licensing act of 1904, providing for compensating the holders of extinguished beer and liquor licenses, amounts as follows:

During the nine years, 1905-1913, £8,873,137 was collected from the beer and liquor trade and paid over by the inland revenue to the compensation authorities, who paid out in compensation ~r 8,961 licenses a total of £8,073,127, and at the end of 1913 held balances aggregating . - ·""' • £685,975, subject to claims in respect of 439 licenses refused, but not paid for down to the end of 1913. The difference of £114,035 odd (in addition to interest earned on sums lying in bankers' hands and any sums outstanding on loans less interest) presumably went in expenses. In Switzerland the principle of compensation has been enforced for nearly five years. A law went into effect in 1910 forbidding the manufacture, sale, and importation of absinthe. This law was the outcome of a referendum submitted to a popular vote and adopted in 1908. The amendment carried a compensation clause, on the strength of which an indemnity law was passed by the Federal Council. The decree of the Federal Council of Switzerland provided that the money required to · compensate all . interested parties for • losses sustained . by them was to be obtained by raising the price of ardent " spirits. The . compensation to the owners of absinthe plants and to the manu: facturers and holders of absinthe averaged four tfrnes the amounts of yearly profits in each case, labor excepted. Under this law labor has also been compensated in an equitable man- ~ 11er. An examination of the Swiss law's chief provisions will discto e that the Swiss Government compensated all interests materially concerned-farmer, manufacturer, landlord, and workingman. -

I have no copies of the laws passed in France prohibiting the manufacture and the sale of absinthe, but according to telegraphic dispatChes the French act provides that indemnities should be provided to manufacturers affected · by the bill, and later dispatches disclose that the French policy will perhaps be to buy the stock of absinthe-which is the liquor prohibitedfrom tl1e manufacturers and distil it into alcohol, and it was suggestion. · said the French Government would make a profit by this operation; and still later dispatches report that a measure was passed allowing approximately $2,600,000 as reimbursements for taxes paid by liquor dealers on absinthe In their possession and for the purchase of their stock of absinthe. It is thus fairly clear that · the French compensation scheme embraces protection of all interests suffering financial loss by reason of prohibition of absinthe.

The alcohol commission appointed by the Norweiian Govern- ment to consider and report on the liquor question in all aspects handed in its report on May 6, 1915, favoring compensation.

The principle of compensation received legislati-ve indorsement in the Province of Quebec, Canada. In the cities of Quebec and Montreal liquor-license holders whose licenses were annulled by statute are indemnified. The indemnities paid to eliminative license holders in the Province of Quebec is provided for by the imposition of a special license duty during J.O years upon the remaining hotel and restaurant liquor licenses. ~his special license is so framed that it is not only to repay the principal in 10 years but also interest at the rate of 41 per cent upon the indemnities advanced to eliminative license holders by the provincial government. In other words, the remaining license holders are taxed to pay the cost of the indemnities paid to those ordered out of business. This recognition of the principle of compensation in Canada represents an entirely voluntary legislative action, because, while liquor licenses are recognized a.s vested • interests in Canada, vested interests are not protected by organic constitutional provisions backed by court decisions, as they are in the United States, and oo court in Canada has power to declare any parliamentary act unconstitutional.

When the Quebec Parliament decided ejected licensees were entitled to compensation it took this move wholly upon its judgment, voluntarily recognizing that the rights of license holders are as absolute us those of other property holders and should not be summarily destroyed without compensation.

The public sentiment for compensation for property or rights injured by governmental or private action has been asserting itself more vigorously in later years, as witness the legislation of 24 States that have passed workmen's compensation laws, n.s well as the Federal Congress. This field ~ long neglected, but now the principle of compensation has been put into effect. Economic writers .all indorse tlle theory of compensation ns being the only sound governmental policy. Our Federal courts , . . have all held that the traffic in these industries was legitimate commerce and that the products of these industries are legitfmate subjects <>f interstate commerce. ·

There is no question about the right of the Federal Government to provide in this amendment or otherwise a compensation for any loss occasioned by reason of the destruction of the business or the property involved in these industries.

The story of the wave of prohibition in Russia as a war measure has been given great publicity in this . country, but I am informed-and I make the statement upon that informationthat not in a single instance did the Russian Government deprive anybody of property. My information is that every vodka shop in Russia belonged to th~ Russian G-overnment. .

It was .a Government institution; they simply ceased to manu.facture or dispense vodka. . From the information I have been able to gather I am led to believe that every country that has attempted to restrict the sale, consumption, and . distribution of intoxicating liquors has tendered compensation to those suffering loss therefrom. ~

EFFECTS OF "PROHrBITION WITHOUT COMPENSATION.

Mr: President, any kind of prohibition legislation by this Congress : , whether as & . war measure, prohibiting grain in making distilled and fermented liquors, or by the submission of a constitutional amendment, will be acted on and accepted by . the financial · and business world and the public as the beginning of nation-wide prohibition, and all the financial and business disturbances that might follow the cessation of manufacture of alcoholic drinks as beverages under a war act by _ Congress would as SWiftly and surely follow the passage of a resolution by Congress permitting a noncompensatory prohibition aruenu:. ment. The financial and buSiness and general public would make no distinction in either case. The public press and public sentiment have indorsed the compensation idea in connection with prohibition, as disclosed by the discussion and expressions of public opinion in the papers and otherwise concerning a recent action of the Senate of the United States with 1 1 reference . ,. 1':..,. to distilled liquors. Tlie compensation can be raised from a fund by an extra assessment or tax on the industry by congressional enactment. _

I wish - there were more Senators present to consider this I have no doubt it will be argued in support of this amendment without any compensation clause attached that its passage and submission to the State legislatures will leave the revenue intact from the industries for the Government for the remainder of the war, because it will take from two to five years to get the necessary 36 States to 'adopt the amendment, and that no shock to business or industry would occur during the war period.

An amendment submitted by Congress to the State legislatures without any time limit may be agitated and kept before the Sates forever, once Congress permits it. Once adopted by n State legislature no future legislature can set aside that adoption. If rejected . by one legislature it can be continually brought up in succeeding ones. It took many years for the income-tax amendment to be ratified by three-fourths of the States. With this prohibition amendment without compensation hanging as a constant menace over the industry all know the stockS and securities and property would be utterly unsalable and of no commercial value in the financial world. On the passage of this amendment by Congress there would be an immediate rush to sell stocks, properties, and securities nt :my price. All loans secured by stocks, bonds, or warehouse certificates, or property would be called at once. The credit o . f all persons and corporations whose money was tied up in the industry would be at once ruined. The business world would act on the assumption that the industry was to be destroyed. The effect in financial and bUsiness circles would be substantially the same as though Congress should -enact a law as a war measure prohibiting the use of grairl in alcoholic beverages during the war. If 1 he amendment is - passed without a compensation coboJ. clause, loss of credit anti pressure to collect loans will immediately force small manufacturers and dealers to throw their property antl product on tb~ market and sacrifice the same for whatever is offered. '.rhi will force big manufacturers and dealers to <lo the ~nme thing temporarily at lea t. Millions of dollars in property will be sacrificed and thousand of men will be bankrupted. You can not destroy arbitrarily without compensation $1.000,000 000 worth of property and throw 1,000,- 000 men out of employment nt the same time without some form of f~rious financial di turbance.

1\lr. Presitlent, tllis i · not a matter .of any particular interest to me. l\ly attitude with respect to it is influenced solely by my conception of what is absolutely all!l fundamentally right.

If the two amendments to which I have referred-that offered by the Senator from Ohio [1\lr. HAP.Dl ·a], which has just been read, and the one that I have i:J mind to propose-should be agreed to. I am personally inclined to vote to submit the amendment to the States.

l\Ir. SHEHhl..d.......~. Mr. President-- • 1\Ir. STONE. Just a moment. I would vote for -it if submitted in that form. At least, I wonhl vote to submit an amendment in the form I have stated, if my vote should be necessary · a.ry to paR the resolution by the requisite two-thirds majority, although in a broad way I'am not in favor of national prohibition by n con titutional amendment . • I h:u-e opposed that policy beeau e I feel that it means an invasion of the rights · of the States and a practical destruction of one of the few remaining constitutional ideas to which some of us still cling-the police power of the State ; and yet in these latitudinarian times, I feel disposed, if a fair and just amendment can be agreed. upon, to submit ft to the States and let the States pa s upon it.

1\Ir. SHEn~IAN. 1\Ir. President, did I understand the senior Senator from Missouri to say that he favored the amendment offered bv the Senator from Ohio?

l\1r. STONE. Yes.

. l\lr. SIIER:\Llli. Wh1ch pro>ides for compensated prohibition?

l\Ir. STONE. ... E. No. As I under tand the amendment submitted by the Senator from Ohio, it merely provide that the amendment • submitted shall be acted upon by the States within a giyen period.

l\Ir. SHERliA~. I bad the impression that the amendment of the Senator from Ohio was upon the question of compem ation, and that some one else offered the six-year amendment; but probably--

1\lr. STONE. I said, if the Senator will permit me, that I had it in mind to offer an amendment to the joint resolution providing for compensation.

1\fr. SHERl\IAl~. Has the Senator one pending, or does he intend to offer one? .

l\Ir. ST01. 'E I said I had it in millll to offer one to-morrow.

:\Ir. SHERMAN. I shall be very glad to see it when it is offered, l\Ir. President, because it is po ible that the Senator from l\Ii onri and my. elf may agree upon some such feature before we conclude our votes on this subject.

l\fr. STONE. Pos ibly--

1\fr. SHERMAN. 1\lr. President, I am not opposed to some reasonable form of compensated. prohibition. I am willing to vote for an amendment of that kind · if it should be drawn in some re a onable form, but not to compensate for all property which may be rendered usele s. A distillery that has the ability and the equipment for di tilling alcohol can be transformed, and. with the six-year limitation 'here it could be, possibly before the amendment should be adopted by three-fourths of the States, so adjusted that the property lost would be nothing, or comparatively . small. Outside of the large distilleries which are u ed in the United States for distilling and preparing whi ky ns a beverage, there is a material part of that property which can h.:­ reequippe(l and readjusted in such a way as to prepare alcohol for industrial, chemical, and scientific purposes; and a large portion of that property '"ilJ be saved.

I do not understand that this amendment will prevent the manufacture of alcohol. It only prevents the manufacture of intoxicating liquor u e<l for beverage purpo es. That is the language of the joint resolution of the Senator from Texas. That i its purpose. In some of the large t distilleries in the world, in Peoria, Ill, and Kentucky, used for manufacturing whisky a a beverage, outside of the property that is devoted exclusively and built exclusively for the manufacture of whisky there i s a large part of that property which can be used for perfectly legitimate purpo es. The part of a distillery, for instance, where whisky is made that is used for racking off the liquor will be wholly lost. Outside of that the greater part of the valuable property devoted to that · purpose can be used for d.istilling· nlIt is impossible for the manufacture or distilling of alcohol· to be stopped at this time. Every time, say, a $3.000 shell is made a barrel of alcohol is used, and a 500-pound bale of cotton is needed to prepare the explosive. that with the glycei·ine and the nih·ic acid that goes into it with other compounds that chemiCally combine with the cotton, makes the high-pm-.;-er explosiYe:. High e:s:plo ives require alcohol. No one believes that the manufactuee o£ alcohol will cease. I have read some criti cisms, .and I have received some telegrams and letters that seem to contemplate .that the senders and writers think that we will quit manufacturing alcohol, and so om· preparednessprog;rmu will wholly fail. That either comes from a. design to mislead or from a lack of accurate information. Alcohol wil1 continue to be made for many • years--intlefinitely-for industrial purposes. In that I include the manufacture of explosives. AU tlte shells require explosives not only of the usual kind, but Yery high-power e:s:plo i>es under recent inventions developed in tlte European war. That will continue.

A very large part of the Peoria distilleries now making bev- . erage whisky ca.n be transformed for the manufacture of indu. trial alcohol. There is no occasion to ba>e many millions of . dollars' worth of property destroyed. There is no occasion either for millions of bu liels of grain to go into whisky and other millions to go into malt liquors, or other . foodstuffs, fruits, grape , and the like, to go into forms . of wine that are I -. injurious, , it is true, than corn whisky or rye whisky. Never- · theless, they are food products, and there is no reason· at thi~ time to de . h·oy the food value of these immen e quantities of foodstuffs by turning them into intoxicating liquor.

l\Ir. President, I wish to be as brief as r can and keep within a reasonable adjourning time here. Home of what I wish to say I will say to-morrow under the 10-minute rule, but we are tolu that tile brewing processes must · continue. that beer i~ lwnl h,\. It may be healthy to some people, some kinds of beer, but not the kind of beer \\e are making in this country. The beer that is brewed in this country i slop, 1\fr. President. It has destroyed. more vital organs than human disease. It is largely brewed from corn and cheap rke. There are- bubbles in it as large as a soap bubble. The bubbles that ornament the average schooner of domestic-brewed American beer look like the bubbles coming out of a pipe when a ·child blows bubbles for amusement. Th~ small. fine bubble, not much larger than the head of a pin, that: come from the malt-brerved beer, is very scarce in this country. I repeat, 1\Ir. President, that the brew of beer out of corn and rice and cheaper proce se employed is literally a corro . i'\e, rot-­ ting, burning slop. It has rotted more kidney and perforatcu more stomachs, and destroyed more livers by cirrhosis and. ab- · scesse than all the natural diseases to which human flesh ever fell heir.

On billboards over the country we have seen the legend. " The beer that made Milwaukee famous.” I saw away down in · Yucatan at one time a parody on that. It said, "We brew the beer that made Milwaukee jealous." I went in and tried some of it. No white man can habitually drink it and. live. It may J.?e good for the men that dwell in the Tropics, because they are short lived, and. some of them think it a blessing to die, anyhow--a relief from a sore >exation of the flesh.

But we u. e food tuffs for beer, for stout, for ale, and for vnrious other sorts of fermented or brewed liquor. Under thi amendment we will discontinue that, and the brewery will lo e . ome of it value. If it can not be used for a Yinegar factory or fm~ apple butter or for some legitimate purpose, I a.m willing to pn.r for it. There is a large part of the Anheuser~Buscb Brew- ing Ass ciation's property which can be used for lawful purpo es, and I do not believe a. jury impaneled in a United State court would give any extraordinary damage . Their · breeding . barns and their stables and their fields, . where they r:tised horses at one time, ·will not be lost. ~eben· automobiles that · have sne('eeded animal power for u·ucking purposes since then will not be lost. All tho e vehicles ca.n be u ed. together with such animals as remain in their service, for legitimate purpose . Not one dollar would be a proper subject of award by way of damages in condemnation proceedings before a jury if you were. condemning, under- the right of eminent domain, this property -to take it to use it for some other purpose. But ,\ when it is taken under the exercise of the police power of tl1e State, when we take it because it . has been devoted to a purpo e that is declares to be no longer lawful, then all 1 of the unlawful portion of tlJe · property that was u ed, if it can be converted into tiny other lawful pursuit; will not be lost, and "ill not properly be eonsidered in an estimate of damages.

But tlle saloonkeeper comes in, and lle is to be protected. Who offers that argument, and who writes the brief?

I wish to coincide with the senior Senator from Kansas [Mr. THOM-PSON]. In presenting the brief on this question, Mr. President, I know who writes the brief for compensation for the saloon keeper. It is the brewery's lawyer. How are tlle breweries interested in the saloon keeper at the corner I pass on my way home, that seemed to have some kind of a vested right almost under tlle shadow of a schoolhou s e in my town before they were voted out la t April, all of them in a bnncll? It is because, l\Ir. President, the brewery i s the willful, guilty agent that breeds the saloon keeper all over the country. The brewery is the power that sets up convicts in the saloon business all over my State . No sooner are they f re e tl from their sentences by lapse of time than · the brewery picks them up and make them fit subjects to be intrusted with a barroom and fixtures alld a stock of beer and enough whisky to go along as a handmaid of the blessed beverage that give s health and strength-as they say in their adverti s ements. I never saw a man drink it in my life, steadily, that was not a good candidate for Bright's disease, or indigestion, or paralysi ·, if lle kept it up long enough.

I began with many friends of liberal habits more than 30 years ago, 1\lr. President. Unfortun a tely some of them thought that brewers and distillers told the trn t h ; their names have been cut · on tombstones many a long year ; some of them becau e they thought they could practice that belief. I have seen too many of them die in my time; I have seen some of them die with strange complaints, seeing strange things in the air and hearing strange voice ~ ; and in the delirium tremens that took them to their graves I have remembered that they were the victims of the saloon keeper, promoted by the brewery.

It is time now to tell the truth about the e things. I have made up my mind the few remaining years of my life to tell the truth about it. I have voted "dry" ever since I have been a voter in local elections. I have pas s ed far beyond the point where I believe that it is a question of local option.

Local option is well enough i.n its " · way, but to me you might just as well say that East St. Louis ought to have local option in murdering negroes and not be interfered with by anybody outside of the town. "It is a local matter. What business is it of yours or mine, living outside, if they do this?" It is just as much of a local matter, they might argue, as the saloon is a local matter.

There is not a State in the 48 States of the Union that has ever bad a fair chance on the dry question, even when it voted dry. Maine is surrounded by land and water, with the possibilities of the habitual violation of her laws. Kansas, as stated by its senior Senator, has been territorially surrounded at all points of the compass until recently, and is yet bounded on the east by wet territory. Every dry State has had a similar experience. Every one of those States has lived with the everpresent possible inundation from the wet forces ' all around them, and nothing but the slender dikes of a State-creat~d law to defend them against the lawless deeds of those whose principal purpose is to break the laws of the dry States.

I have heard all the time, Mr. President, that you could not enforce the liquor law, and what is the use of passing laws that you can not enforce? Who break them? The very men who offer the criticism ; the very men who vote against all regulatory laws, State and National; the very men who object to any kind of regulation are the ones who come in afterwards a.nd break the laws, and then offer their own offenses as the criticism for . the laws that they despise and violate.

\Ve have had a Sunday closing law since 1848 in Illinois, that no saloon in ILlinois could open and sell on Sunday. Have saloons ever paid any attention to it? No. Immediately after the riot in Springfield, Ill, it was trailed to the contempt for and carelessness of the law in the town, as it was in East St. Louis born of lawlessness hatched in the saloons of a liberal administration. So we began to ask them to obey the Sunday closing law. They laughed - at it. They continued to laugh at it. Juries were empaneled in Chicago and it was proved beyond question. They promptly acquitted them. The present mayor has enforced the law in the city of Chicago against saloons.

Outside of Chicago, in Cook County, the lid is off all the time. Sunday, daylight, midnight, and every other time saloons are open to e\erybody-men, women, children, drunkards, and everybody else who has the price.

I do not know what the result will be. The State attorney of Cook County announces that he intends to close the lid outside of the city limits of Chicago. I hope he will succeed.

I have been through that fight for more than 20 years. In 1909 I ran as a candidate for mayor for my home city, following the riot of 1908, a wide-open town. I was defeated by 137 votes, counted out in the very di trict or ward where the people were whom I wished to regulate. I accomplished the purpose. I had a hearing before the people of my home city. I lind no more ambition to be mayor than township constable, except as it served the pm · purpose. I told them what :t knew about i t aml told the liquor interests in Springfield they must either clean up or clean out. It took eight years from that spring of 1909 to the spring of 1917 until they were cleaned out, because the brewers and saloon keepers would not reform. There were 215 saloons in a town of 70,000 population in business last spring before the election.

They got what they em·getl. Still, it is said it is a local question. It is no longer local, no more than the principles of sound government are local, no more than the principles of human life are local, no more than the principles of common decency are local, no more than the universally accepted principles of morality are local. It is a national question now and will remain a national question, and as the Senator from Washington [l\fr. JoNES] said, a nonpolitical question, unle s it is forced to be made a political question, and then it will become one. Old party lines may, if the emergency require, disappear, but the reign of the saloon can not endure in this country.

It is h·ue, as the junior Senator from Georgia [l\Ir. lli:&n­ WICK] said, it began as a local question. It is regarded now by many of the Senators from Southern States as a local ques­ • tion. I do not quarrel with their belief on that subject. I only say that when it is a local question and a State goes dry, and it is surrounded by partly or all wet territory you do not give the State a chance to be dry. You do not or can not enforce the laws and then offer that as a reason why all regulatory or prohibition laws should never be passed, simply because they are continually violated.

I am going to put in enough here to indicate what I mean on this subject and will then let it· go at that. I intend to vote for this amendment or the resolution in any form in which it finally come s to a roll cal1, if it contains the e s sential principles of the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating beverages. I can do . o without even arguing the que s tion of the justice or injustice of it. I can vote for its submission on - the ground that it is n subject of long continued agitation, one that has long been before States and people and has at last ri s en to the dignity of a pr o po ed constitutional amendment; the 48 States of this Republic have a right now to pass upon that quesfion. •

Even if I were wet, if I were oppo ed to the amendment, there • is no reason why any Senator should deny to the people of the States the right to pass upon a question and approve or reject this amendment. I put it upon · that ground, if I could put it upon no other. Congress ought to vote to submit it to the people of the States. .

In a sort of parenthetical way I asked here a few days ago or weeks ago is there anything more sacred than u human life? Still compensated emancipation for the slave was an open question at one time. Let me briefly recur to those things. In Lincoln's message read in this building on December 3, 1861, as it was laid that morning on the desk of :Members, the present method of addressing Congress having been in cli s use, and all the Members read the mes age on that day recommending that Congress provide for accepting such persons from such States according to some mode ot valuation, "such persons" referring to such slaves as by their masters were made capable of being emancipated or freed .

In the privacy of his own room l\Ir. Lincoln wrote a compensated emancipation for the State of Delaware, a border State. George P. Fisher had been elected a Member of Congress on n sort of combination ticket, a free soiler in that State, as a Member of the House. l\Ir . Lincoln communicated through him with public sentiment in Delaware. They ascertained by a canvass of the members of the legislature it could not pass. The bill therefore was never introduced by the free soilers.

The proslavery men, however, in the Legislature of Delaware recited the whole bill in a preamble or joint resolution and condemned the bill at great length. A majority of the house members, of 21 members, passed the bill, repudiating compen atecl emancipation. In the senate there were nine members. One member was absent. Four members voted for it and four members voted against it, and it lost on the tie. Those record s are found in the Senate journal of the State of Delaware at the special session of 1861 and 1862.

Again, President Lincoln, in a message of March 6, 1862, recommended the pas age of a joint resolution for compensation. Roscoe Conkling introduced the resolution on the lOth of March, 1862, found in the Congressional Globe of that date. Conkling was then a Member of the House from the State of New York. It pas ed the House on the 11th day of March, 1862, by a vote of-89 to 31. It passed the Senate on the 2d day of April, J 8G2, l>y a vote of 32 to 10. It was approved by Presloent Lincoln April 10, 186~. .

A ~ ain, came an act aboli king slavery in the District of Columbia. It passed the Senate the 3d. day -of April, 1862, by 29 to 14 1 and. the House on the 11th day of AprH, 1862, 92 to - 38. It was approved by President Lincoln. It provided $100,000 as a preliminary to a · t the voluntary immigration of slaves from the District of Columbia to Liberia and to compensate for such of them us were emancipated and remained in this - counb.-y. l'r e President Lincoln wrote a lette1· to Henry J. Raymond, - on the 9th <lay of l\larch, · 1862, an<l used the following remarkable language:

The cost <Jf the war for half a day would pay for every slave in the ~ ta te of Delaw a r e . The cost for 87 <lays would pay for all the slaves in ~ Iaryland, Delaware, , the DiStrict of Columbia, , Kentucky, and l\Iissouri.

Those were the whole network of border States, as the State of West Virginia had. not yet been created by the war condition that re ult e tl in the birth of that State . . It took all the border States anti created what they call in Europe in politic a kind. of a buffer State, a free-soil series of States created out of that slaYe territory by tomp e nsating slave owners for their property betwe~n tl1~ free States and the warring slave States.

In a me . sage of the 14th of June, 186~. President Lincoln sent with it a copy of the bill recommending, according to the memorandum made in March, 1862, compensated emancipation. H e wrote a letter to :l\lcDougall and another one to John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky, and in it he repeated what he had said to Raymond about the cost of the war. He showed. in detail that there were 1.798 slaves held in the State of Delaware. Figuring them at $400 per head, it amounted to $710 , 200. He propo s eu to pay for tho s e by issuing Government bonds to the owners, bearing 6 per cent interest. He bowed, too. that the cost of one day of the war at that time was $2 , 000.000. He showed that the slaves in Delaware were 1,798; in Maryland, 87.188; in the District of Columbia, 3,181; in Kentucky, 225.490; and in 1\li s. ouri, 114.065-a total of 432,622 slaves, At $400 a head. it amounted to $173,048,800, and 87 <lays of the war­ $17 4 . 000,000-would more than pay for every one of the slave in the border States. This was in :. the Crittenden letter worked out in detail. Every slave in the United States, estimating them at 4.000,000 at tbat time, at $400 a head, would haYe co t l.GOO,OOO,OOO. John J. Crittenuen n . ed his influence all ov-er Kentm .: hry to beat the propo ition and create entiment against it. Lincoln ·adly relinqui bed it and turned his attention to the ~ober <luties of subjugating by . military force the recalcitrant State-s ,

How runch did it co t when the expense bill was paid? Jt was not $1.GOU.OOO.OOO. It was $8,000,000,000 of indebtedness before the Civil War debt wa canceled . . and · it is not pa.iU yet. Some of the bond are :till out. . drawing, it is true, a reduced rate of intlebtetlnt:-. s under refunding acts, but nevertheless a part of the war tleht.

J.'or me, rather than to disturb the economical conditions of the United State in legitimate inve tment with any property that has any proper claim to the care of this Gov-ernment any property in a di~ l illery that can not be used for any purpo e, I would pay for it. The amount of it is exaggerated under the col!l, hard daylight of experience. and before a jury sifting evidence of the value of the property that will be destroyed it will lower rapidly when the acid test of truth is applied to it. But if it should reach the amount stated by the Senator frllffi Missouri of a thousand million dollars, I am willing, if it would in ~ ure the end of the traffic in intoxicating liquors. to vote for it now. If it would redeem and save some of my as ociates or their chil(lrf>n ot· children’s children from a future fate, if it will end it ~o far as this Republic can end it, I '\\ill pay for the rest of my lHe my proportional part of the billion-dollar tax tbn t it may not be repeated.

If it will stwe but n single one, if it is of your family, if it is your neigh!Jor:' family, the billion <.lollars is a cheap price to pay. It is a good deal 1ike Billy Sunday's revival. Some one asked rue on a street car, "Do you favor Billy Sunday?" I said, "Ye . ·." The man said, "I do not believe in such ensational thingl' as that." · "How many converts did. he get in your t{)wn?" He sn ict he got 1.GOO. " Bow long ago? " He said, "About 30 days ago." I asked if there were anv backslid- _ ers. He said, "Oh, yes." - "How many of them have bark­ . sli<luen? " He did not know. I said, " Suppose all but 5 or 10; what diu it co t? How mu~h did it crn t you?" "Forty thot:· and dollars." "If the 5 or 10 belonged to my family," I rephro, "all(} I had $-10,000, Billy Sunday could have had it all. If he saved only one, and the one was a member of :rourfumil:y, you wonld thin!{ that BilJy Sunday did not come to ;your town in ntin.''

1 think the · same way ahout the c1run1mrcl. Hit nnfy -saw 1 l one, but it ends it and it emls jt justly, I am not . disposed to quarrel about the compensated prohibition. for if the1·e i. any sort of assuran('e that it can be put in a reH!'-:onahle form, · if a few who · are now ·opposing this r solutron will give tlwir Yote so that it will become an as ured fact, I am willing to sit uown nn<l endeavor to frame · something upon whieh we c;m agree. Wllat I want i thnt tlie gtPatel'lt · Rt<puhlic in the worl(l shall t.ake the forward step, an(l that this crime of the a:res hall <lisnppear through just amendment of it. orp;anic chart<"r, even with compen ation, if nece . s ary. 'Ve · haYe le<l the way in many .thin6S ami we 'vill neYel' have a ~:n·enter opportnnHy to rise to the subUme level of n grent moral le"el ancl blaze the way for the future s ons of men .than we have nfm' in the pas age and submission to the Stat e s of ncb a re · olution.