February 14, 1933

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an article from a recent issue of the Florida Times-Union relative to the repeal of the eighteenth amendment.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

R. H. ANDERSON, COAUTHOR e:;- REPEAL PLANK, ASSAILS PROPOSAl.

The following statement w as made yesterday by Robert H. Anderson, Jacksonville attorney, who was a member of the Nation a ! Democratic Convention in Chicago last June which nominated President-elect Roosevelt. Mr. Anderson was a member of the resolutions committee which drafted the Democratic platform and a coauthor of the repeal plank, in support of which he spoke before the convention.

His statement follows:

" The National Democratic Convention held in Chicago last summer adopted a platform which has been generally conceded to be one of the finest declarations of party principles ever promulgated by a political party in this country. Its chief qualities were its 1 brevity, its obvious sincerity, its directness, and its want of equivocation on any subject. On prohibition the platform declared: "'We advocate the repeal of the eighteenth amendment.

.. 'To effect such repeal we demand that the Congress immediately propose a constitutional amendment to truly represen t ative conventions in States called to act solely on th a t proposal; we urge the enactment of such measures by the several States as will actually promote temperance, effectively prevent the return of the saloon and bring the liquor traffic into the open under complete supervision and control by the States.

"'We demand that the Federal Government effectively exercise its power to enable the States to protect themselves against importation of intoxicating liquor in violation of their laws.

"'Pending repeal, we favor adequate modification of the Volstead Act to legalize the manufacture and sale of beer and other beverages of such alcoholic content as is permissible under the Constitution, and to derive therefrom a proper and needed

ADOPTED OVERWHELMINGLY

"This platform was overwhelmingly adopted in the resolutions committee and by the convention in open session. Upon it the Democratic Party went before the people of this country in November, 1932, and its candidates received the largest vote ever recorded.

" There can be no possible doubt that the Democratic Party's platform on the subject of prohibition is backed by tremendous popular sentiment in the United States.

"Notwithstanding these facts, however, the Judiciary Committee of the Senate of the United States has proposed a resolution which, in substance, provides:

"1. The repeal of the eighteenth amendment.

"2. The prohibition of the transportation or importing into any State or Territory for delivery or use therein, of intoxicating liquors in violation of the laws thereof.

"3. That Congress shall have concurrent power to regulate or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor to be drunk on the premises where sold.

"4. That the amendments shall be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States.

" This proposal is about as far from that which the Democratic Party in its platform promised the people it would support as one can possibly be. It violates almost every provision of the party platform. It 1s true that it repeals the eighteenth amendment but it substitutes for it a Federal control of the sale of intoxicating liquors to be drunk on the premises w h ere sold. This will authorize the continued employment of the army of Feder a l " snoopers " at a cost of millions of dollars--one of the chief causes of prohibition's unpopularity and one of the principal reasons that the American people are determined to get rid of it. "It is now generally conceded that nat i onal prohibition was a mistake because prohibition is a police re g ulation and has no place in the Federal Constitution. It is a m a tter for regulation by the States and its regulation ought to be confined to the States. The attempted re g ulation of the sale of in t o x icating liquors by the Federal Government is the ch i ef reason for prohibition's miserable failure.

" The Democratic Party solemnly promised the people to return the prohibition question to the States where it belongs. The pending Senate resolution is a violation of that promise and Democratic Senators supporting it are breaking the party's faith with the people. A plainer and more deliberate breach of faith can hardly be conceived. I therefore call upon Democratic Senators to eliminate from t h is resolution Sect i on 3 and to keep their party's promise to the people by urging the enactment of such measures 'by the several States • as will actually promote temperance, effectively prevent the return of the saloon, and bring the liquor traffic into the open ' under complete supervision and control by the States.'

"I have no particular objection to section 2 , which prohibits the transportation of liquor into dry States in violation of the laws thereof, although it is unnecessary, because Congress ind i sputably has that power anyhow. However, if the dry States wish it written into the Constitution any more plainly than it is already, I shall not protest.

FOR CONVENTION PLAN

"I do object, however, to that part of the resolution which proposes its ratification by the legislatures of the several States. There is just one phase of the prohibition question upon which sentiment was unanimous in both Republican and Democratic conventions , and that is that the proposed amendment should be submitted for ratification or rejection to conventions of the several States instead of to the legislatures. In this way the question would be divorced from all others and an expression of popular sentiment obtained upon one of the most controversial issues which has ever faced this country. Both the majority and the minority planks which were proposed at the Republican convention · favored submission to conventions, and both the majori t y and m i nority planks in the Democratic conven t ion proposed submission to conventions. Never did anyone object to it, but, on the contrary, everyone agreed that this was the most desirable plan. Now comes along the Senate of the United States and proposes something entirely different.

"I protest against it and insist upon a resolution in full compliance with the Democratic platform.

"All my life I have fought prohibition. For 12 years I have looked forward to the day when I should see it taken out of ~he Federal Constitution- But I shall not support this resolutiOn which is pending in the Senate, for the reason that it 1s not the resolution which we promised the people. If and when it is passed, as much as I dislike to do so, I shall join hands with the drys in an effort to defeat its ratification in the Florida Legislature, because I know that if we defeat this one, the time will come when we will have a Senate composed of men who are responsive to popular demands and who will submit the kind of amendment the people have said they want."