February 15, 1933 (2)

Again:

The police power, which 1s exclusively in the States, is alone Connally competent to the correction of these great evils and all measures of restraint or prohibition necessary to effect the purpose are within the scope of that authority.

Mr. President, I wanted to say that this question of the right of the States, in the exercise of the police powers, to control the liquor traffic within the States, was fairly and squarely presented in many cases to the Supreme Court, always a portion of the court contending that the police powers should be permitted to be exercised by the States to the full extent within the boundaries of the States.

I venture the opinion, and it is my belief, that the eighteenth amendment would never have been adopted had it not been for the open, brazen, corrupt, persistent defiance of the laws of the dry States by the liquor interests outside those States. At the time the eighteenth amendment was adopted, 33 States had prohibition in some form. The people had declared they wanted to be rid of this evil, or at least to control it in their own way. These States were invaded, their laws broken, their officials corrupted, by the same influences which now plead for States rights and local control. They did not at that time respect that right at all. They trampled upon it and scoffed at it. Therefore, be drunk. if we are to have what we are now promised, local selfgovernment, State rights, the right of the people of the respective States to adopt and enjoy their own policies, we must have some other method, some other provisions of the Constitution, than those which existed prior to the adoption of the eighteenth amendment.

All this was sought to be remedied by the Webb-Kenyon Act, and I am very glad indeed the able Senator from Arkansas has seen fit to recognize the justice and fairness to the States of incorporating it permanently in the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Idaho yield to the Senator from Illinois?

Mr. BORAH. I yield.

Mr. LEWIS. May I ask my able friend from Idaho a question? The Senator from Idaho has no doubt, has he, that it is both within the power and the propriety of Congress to enact a law that will make it a crime for what we call the wet States, or those living in one, to ship or send any intoxicating liquor across the border into a dry State?

Mr. BORAH. I have no doubt, if the amendment is adopted, that it will be within the power of Congress, as well as within the power of the State, to punish those who ship liquor into a dry State.

Mr. LEWIS. Such is my contention. I have been insisting upon such enactment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment proposed by the Senator from Arkansas.

The CHIEF CLERK. The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. RoBINSON] proposes, on page 3, to strike out section 3, as follows: SEc. 3. Congress shall have concurrent power to regulate or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors to be drunk on the premises where sold.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: · Ashurst Costigan Hull Robinson, Ind. Bailey Couzens Johnson Russell Bankhead Dale Kean Schuyler Barbour Davis Kendrick Sheppard Barkley Dickinson Keyes Shtpstead Bingham Dill La Follette Smith mack Fess Lewis Steiwer Blaine Frazier Logan Stephens Borah George McGill Townsend Bratton Glass McKellar Trammell Brookhart Goldsborough McNary Tydings Bulkley Gore Neely Vandenberg Bulow Hale Norbeck Wagner Byrnes Harrison Norris Walcott Capper Hastings Nye Walsh, Mass. Caraway Hatfield Patterson White Clark Hayden Pittman

Hebert Robinson, Ark.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventy Senators have answered to their names. A quorum is present. The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. RoBINSON] to the amendment of the committee.

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. President, may we have the amendment stated?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be again stated for the information of the Senate.

The Chief Clerk again read the amendment.

Mr. BLAINE. Mr. President, let us have the yeas and nays.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, this is the amendment upon which I reserved freedom of action. It will seem strange to some that I should have any hesitancy about this pro ... vision of the Constitution as I am so pronouncedly against the return of the saloon. But I do not believe that this will prevent the return of the saloon. I think it will prove wholly delusive. I am quite clear in my own mind that once we legalize the sale of · intoxicating liquors and turn them back to the States, as a practical proposition the Federal Government can not possibly supervise how they shall For instance, it is claimed that at the present time we can not execute the eighteenth amendment, although it is illegal to sell liquor. Now we propose to make it legal to sell the liquor and propose at the same time to step in as a practical proposition and designate where that which is legally sold shall be consumed. As a practical proposition I do not believe it is possible to do it.

The second proposal to which I invite attention is this: When we come to execute this provision we will be executing it against the States, not like we do the eighteenth amendment against individuals. A State will designate the manner in which liquor may be sold. It may adopt the license system or it may adopt the saloon system. The Federal Government will be in the attitude of calling a state to the bar of public opinion and asking it to readjust its laws, to reenact its laws, to reestablish its system. The State will really be on trial before the National Government-not the individual, but the State itself which is backing the system and has the right to do so under the proposed amendment. The State has a perfect right to adopt the system, and if we undertake to say that the National Government shall step in as a sovereign against the second sovereign and control its system, in my opinion, it will prove utterly impractical. ·

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. President-

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Idaho yield to the Senator from Delaware?

Mr. BORAH. I yield.

Mr. HASTINGS. Does the Senator think that under section 3 a State could do anything which the Congress had prohibited?

Mr. BORAH. But it does not prohibit it.

Mr. HASTINGS. My understanding of section 3 is that, giving Congress concurrent power to regulate or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors to be drunk on the premises where sold, it would leave the Congress in a position to enact a law which it would be illegal for the State to exceed. That is my understanding of it.

I think it has the additional advantage that all the Congress would have to do would be to enact the necessary law regulating or prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors to be drunk on the premises where sold and, Congress having done that, it would not be possible for the State to legalize any person to sell contrary to the provisions of the Federal

Mr. BORAH. On the other hand, suppose the State adopts a system and enacts a law which permits liquor to be drunk on the premises where sold?

Mr. HASTINGS. My own theory about it is that if Congress enacted a different law, the State provision would thereby become illegal.

Mr. BORAH. That is what I said, that we will have two sovereignties contending against each other as to the method in which liquor shall be drunk. Does the Senator think that is a practical proposition?

Mr. HASTINGS. I do think it is practical. I think Congress might enact a law stating what might be done in the way of selling liquor to be drunk on the premises, and then, immediately that Congress had enacted such a law, it would be necessary for the State to limit its own laws in that particular.

Mr. BORAH: How could we compel a State to modify its law? Would the mere fact of passing an act of Congress strike down the State law?

Mr. HASTINGS. Instantly the Congress enacted the law upon the subject and laid down the rule or prohibited the act from being done, any citizen at any time could by some civil action prevent another citizen from acting under some authority that came from the State. That is my own notion about the way it would operate.

Mr. BORAH. I do not think the National Government could act in a judicial capacity and strike down a law passed by a sovereign State and which it had a right to pass. The Senator will concede that in the first instance the State would have a perfect right to license a saloon.

Mr. HASTINGS. The State would not have any such right if the Congress by some act had prohibited it.

Mr. BORAH. But suppose the Congress has not acted?

Mr. HASTINGS. Oh, I agree to that. Unless the Congress acts this section does not become effective at all, but when the Congress does act, then the State may not exceed the powers given under the Federal act.

Mr. BORAH. It seems to me that unless we put into the amendment a specific statement to the effect that liquor shall not be drunk upon the premises where sold and make that prohibitive in the Constitution, we are going to get into all kinds of difficulties and troubles. And even then as a practical proposition it seems to me it would be impossible of successful enforcement. Now, above all things I do not want to deceive or mislead in writing a constitution. I feel if I should vote for this I would be doing an insincere thing and that about the fundamental law.

Mr. HASTINGS and Mr. BLACK addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Idaho yield; and if so, to whom?

Mr. BORAH. I yield first to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. HASTINGS. I do not want to take the Senator's time, but in view of the condition about which complaint is constantly being made, namely, that Federal appointees are going into the States and enforcing the police power there, and so forth, which is so objectionable from the viewpoint of many States and many persons in those States, my own thought was that that was not involved in this section at all.

Mr. BORAH. When the Congress passes a law how is it going to be enforced unless Federal agents are sent into the States to enforce it?

Mr. HASTINGS. If I were operating under section 3 of this resolution, I would not have Congress pass any law which had any penalty attached at all to it but I would rely upon the fact that that law is supreme; that the States cannot exceed it; and therefore some civil action may be taken against any person operating under State authority and selling liquor in violation of congressional authority.

Mr. GLASS. Mr. President, if offenders are not deterred by criminal action, how could we expect them to be deterred by an inane civil action?

Mr. HASTINGS. If the Senator ' tor from Idaho will permit me to answer the question, I will say that I assume that no State anywhere would pass a law after Congress had acted under this section and had said that it shall be unlawful to do this in any State in the Union. I assume that the members of the legislatures of the States of the Union who at the same time they take an oath to support the constitution of their own States also take an oath to support the Constitution and laws of the Federal Government would not permit any act to be passed by their own legislatures in violation of the provisions of the congressional act.

Mr. BLACK. Mr. President--

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from Alabama in just a moment. The able Senator from Delaware is answered by the long experience which we have had under the eighteenth amendment. Each member of the legislature of every State in the Union has taken an oath since the eighteenth amendment has been adopted to support and maintain the Constitution of the United States. To support and maintain the Constitution of the United States, in the language of Abraham Lincoln, means the enactment of such laws as are necessary to maintain and enforce the Constitution of the United States; and yet the States, one after another, through their legislatures, have . repealed all laws which enabled them to maintain and enforce the Constitution of the United States, and the members of those legislatures did not seem to think that they were violating their oaths in doing it. I think they did.

Mr. HASTINGS. I think that is a pretty complete answer to my suggestion.

Mr. BLACK. Mr. President--

Mr. BORAH. I yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. BLACK. I want to ask the Senator from Idaho if he agrees with the viewpoint of the Senator from Delaware that under this clause the law passed by Congress would control and be over the law passed by the State? As I understand, the Senator from Delaware takes the position-and I think it is correct-that if two jurisdictions or two sovereignties each pass a law, one of them, of course, has to be supreme. Does the Senator agree that that would be the Federal law?

Mr. BORAH. Do I agree to it?

Mr. BLACK. Yes; which would be supreme?

Mr. BORAH. Well, I am very frank to say that where two sovereign powers have the right to enact laws, and both of them have a perfect right to do so, it would be very difficult for me to know which one was supreme as the question would be presented here.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. And it would result in great confusion.

Mr. BORAH. Yes.

Mr. BLACK. I should like to ask the Senator one other question, if be will permit me. That being true, suppose Congress should pass a law restricting and regulating, to a certain extent, the sale of liquor in Delaware or Idaho, and then suppose the State of Idaho or Delaware wanted to impose greater restrictions; they did not want liquor sold in their State in the manner prescribed by Congress; under which law could the citizen operate? Would be operate under the Federal law or under the State law?

Mr. BORAH. Well, excuse me­

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. President-

Mr. BORAH. Just one word more, and I will conclude. the State of Illin0is.

Mr. LEWIS. May I be pardoned for saying to the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Alabama that I bad be­ Lincoln. fore me a few months ago, among other decisions, a decision of the Supreme Court of Connecticut which passed upon that question, and it was held that where a local law was in conflict with a Federal law and the subject matter was the same the Federal law became supreme, and the court gave it precedence.

Mr. BORAH. There is no doubt about that as a general proposition; but where a State gets its authority to pass a law from the Constitution of the United States, from the same source that the Congress gets its authority, and both of them are sovereign within their territory, I do not see how it can be said that one is supreme over the other.

Mr. BLACK. If the Senator from Idaho will yield for one further question, assuming that the Federal Government should pass a regulatory law which was not prohibitive, whereas a State wanted a prohibitive law; if the law is as stated by the Senator from Illinois, the Federal law would prevail, and, of course the prohibitive law of the State could be stricken down. Therefore, instead of that State having a law prohibiting the sale of liquor within its borders, Congress would pass a law which would coerce the State into permitting the sale of liquor under regulations laid down by the Federal statute.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, just a word more and I shall conclude.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President-

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Idaho yield to the Senator from Oklahoma?

Mr. BORAH. Does the Senator wish to ask me a question?

Mr. GORE. I do. I will first say that I appreciate the difficulties which the Senator is pointing out, and I want to ask him if the situation might not be clarified and those difficulties obviated if we should strike out section 3 and substitute language something like this-

That no State shall authorize or permit the retail sale for pri­ · vate profit of distilled spirits for beverage purposes.

Certainly that would obviate the conflict of the sovereignties. The gravamen of this trouble lies in the sale of distilled spirits for private profit. Such a provision would prohibit that being done, and then the · States could sell liquor through some State organization as is done in Canada or in Scandinavian countries. It would remove the clashing of sovereignties and would eradicate the chief difficulty and trouble about the liquor business.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I have spent some time during the last 18 months trying to determine how the National Government may control the consumption of liquor within the States after we shall repeal the eighteenth amendment. It is my judgment, and that is the reason why I am voting as I do both against the repeal of the eighteenth amendment and against this section-that when we shall have legalized the sale of intoxicating liquor and turned it back to the States there will be no power that can, as a practical proposition, prevent the return of the saloon except the people within the respective States. In dealing with the Constitution of the United States I do not want to vote for a clause in that Constitution which, while not so intended by those who are advocating it, I believe will be deceptive; and for that reason I shall vote against it.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. President, if I may be pardoned, I should like to remove a false impression which I th i nk the Senator from Idaho has perhaps created as to the legislative action of the State of Illinois concerning some of its local legislation. As he is a distinguished son of that glorious State which I have the honor to represent in part, I desire to say to him that the legislation which was repealed was known as the search and seizure act, under which law human beings could be seized and searched. and if the sea.rch disclooed liquor in any form upon that basis alone the individual could . be convicted. That is the law that was reI pealed and wiped out.

Mr. BORAH. The Senator is in error. I did not mention

Mr. LEWIS. I thought the Senator said the State of

Mr. BORAH. I referred to what Lincoln said as to what constituted maintaining the Constitution, to wit, the passage of laws which were essential to its enforcement.

Mr. LEWIS. My correction was unnecessary; I misinterpreted the Senator's language.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, since the State of Illinois has been cleared of any wrongdoing, I want to offer a few remarks regarding this proposed amendment. To my mind the amendment in its operation will present no difficulty whatever.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for a moment?

Mr. BORAH. I yield.

Mr. HASTINGS. I should like at some time before the Senator concludes his remarks-and 1 am making this suggestion now so as not to interrupt him again-to consider the advisability of striking out the word " concurrent."

Mr. NORRIS. I was going to make that suggestion if there was any doubt in anybody's mind.

Mr. President, I do not agree for a moment with those Senators, for whose judgment I have the highest respect, that this provision if retained in the proposed amendment will get us into any difficulty whatever. I refer to section 3. Suppose we leave it in and it goes in the Constitution of the United States. Let us assume that the Congress passes a law under this section prohibiting the sale of liquor to be drunk upon the premises where sold and fixing a penalty for its violation. Then let us assume that a State passes a law, or had passed one before Congress enacted a law on the subject, providing for the saloon, the old kind of a saloon, and suppose some individual for the violation of the act of Congress is indicted in the Federal court and brought to trial. He is indicted for the violation of a law passed by Congress, based upon a specific provision of the Constitution of the United States, and he offers in defense that he is operating his saloon under a State statute. Would any one claim that such a contention would be a defense? Would any court even permit him to offer that in evidence? In the first place the law is plain; it has been passed by Congress; Congress has a right to pass it; it is admitted to be based upon this provision of the Constitution, and no one claiming a right to violate that law can offer it as a defense, unless he can show he is acting under a law that comes from some authority higher than Congress; and I take it that would be an impossibility, because Congress is operating under the Constitution of the United States; it has passed a law that the Constitution specifically permits it to pass and it would not make any difference, so far as that law is concerned, so far as the trial of the offender is concerned, that the State has passed a different law or has passed any law whatever. It would not be any defense. The only question involved in that case would be, Is the law under which the defendant was indicted a constitutional law? Did Congress have authority to enact it? Here it is in black and white. It seems to me it is as plain as anything can possibly be.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President-

Mr. NORRIS. I yield to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. BORAH. May I ask my friend this question: A man is brought into court for violating the act of Congress. The prosecution must establish his criminal intent; and he presents, in defense oi his intent, the authorization of his sovereign St at e. Now, in the last analysis the court might hold that the authority of Congress was supreme; but, in my opinion, the jury would take into consideration the fact that this man was acting by authority of his State.

Mr. NORRIS. In the first place, he would never get it in evidence. The first thing that would happen when he offered his State license would be an objection on the part of the prosecutor, and that objection undoubtedly would be sustained without any hesitancy. He never would get it in evidence. The jury never would have an opportunity to consider it. He has violated a Federal statute. The authority of Congress to pass the Federal statute stands unquestioned, because it is based upon the specific language of the Constitution; and unless he could show some defense under the Federal law there would not be anything to do but to find him guilty.

Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. Mr. President--

Mr. NORRIS. I yield to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. Furthermore, the court unquestionably would instruct the jury to disregard the evidence if it did get in.

Mr. NORRIS. Of course it would.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I can not see how it would be possible to deprive the man of the evidence which would nullify the charge of criminal intent on his part.

Mr. NORRIS. Oh, but, Mr. President, in a statutory offense you would not have to prove intent. The violation of law is sufficient to show his criminal intent. Every man is conclusively presumed to know what the law is. To show, for instance, that he had told somebody that he intended to violate the law, or something of that kind, while proper evidence, would never be necessary in the violation of a Federal statute.

Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. Mr. President-­

Mr. NORRIS. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. As a matter of fact, it is not evidence at all. That would be no evidence, as a matter of fact. The question is whether or not he violated the statute. That is the only question.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, permit me to say-and then I will not interrupt again-that the books are full of cases where statutes, although afterward declared void, were permitted to be introduced as reflecting upon the intent of the party charged with the commission of crime.

Mr. NORRIS. I will venture to assert that the Senator can not find any case anywhere in the history of jurisprudence that · would apply to a case coming under a constitutional provision like this, passed by a legislature acknowledged to have authority to do it.

Mr. BORAH. If we can get an adjournment of this amendment until to-morrow morning, I feel I will be able to bring them in.

Mr. NORRIS. All right; I should like to have the Senator bring them in.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. President--

Mr. NORRIS. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. LEWIS. Will the Senator from Nebraska let me tell him a bit of history in Illinois?

The firm of Grommes & Ulrich, very large importers, and for years a very well-established institution, a large retail house, decided to dissolve and go out of business. It proceeded to avail itself of the statute of the State of Illinois which allowed it to dissolve and dispose of its goods. It, therefore, sir, disposed of its whiskies, wines, champagnes, and so forth, by disposing of them in gifts and sales to many establishments all around the city.

The members of the firm were indicted for conspiracy to violate the Federal laws on prohibition. The case was tried before Mr. Justice Evans, of the Wisconsin circuit, but sitting in the circuit court of appeals at Chicago. The statute of Illinois allowed the concern to dissolve itself and to dispose of whatever it possessed, whether it be wood or ironware or silver or what not, and the question was whether the members of the firm could be convicted for carrying out the law of Illinois which gave them authority to do what they did, because it also ran counter to the law of Congress passed subsequently.

That was the issue out in that State in a trial which lasted, I think, for a couple of months; but, as the Senator has correctly stated, right there arose the very complication to which he has made reference. Finally the sitting judge, . With another Federal judge sitting with him, decided that the question should go to the jury to pass upon the good faith · and honest intent of the defendants; whether they really meant merely to comply with their home law and incidentally violated the Federal law, or whether they were merely seeking to evade the Federal law by their action. But the complication and the confusion did exist in the exact manner our eminent friend from Nebraska has described.

Mr. NORRIS. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President--

Mr. NORRIS. I yield to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. GEORGE. May I suggest that the question of crimi,nal intent, unless it is made a specific ingredient of a statutory crime, is never any more than the mere intent to do the thing which the statute forbids.

Mr. NORRIS. To do the thing that constituted the violation of the statute.

Mr. GEORGE. Exactly.

Mr. NORRIS. I thank the Senator for that. There is not any question about that being good law.

Mr. President, let me say in conclusion that if this amendment goes into the Constitution, and we do not want the return of the saloon, here is the only hope of preventing it. Strike it out and the saloon comes back. There is no way to prevent it. There can be saloons all around, in every State in the Union, if the States provide for it, and Congress is helpless.

We have been discussing prohibition for years. I have been, I think, at least in my own mind, fair enough to admit that in my judgment prohibition was a failure; and I have expressed a willingness to help to modify, if I can, the Volstead Act in order that we may see whether it is true, as Senators and other people everywhere have been proclaiming for years, "If you will give us beer and light wines we will all be happy, and there will be no more drunkenness, and it will result in a better morality, a more complete temperance life of our people, a better enforcement of prohibition, and the banishment of the bootlegger and the speak-easy." I have made up my mind, prohibitionist as I have been nearly all my life, that since it seemed that prohibition enforcement was falling down, we had better try that experiment; and I have, in the committee, voted in favor of reporting that kind of a bill that is now on the calendar of the Senate. I should like to see it enacted into law. I do not want to put this country back to the days when the saloons were rampant. I want to avoid it if I If we adopt this amendment, and it becomes operative with section 3 out of it, there is nothing to prevent the return of the saloon. It is the only hope. If those of you who · said, " The prohibition amendment is wrong, but the saloon is wrong, too, and if you will repeal the prohibition amendment we will help you to provide for laws that will prevent the return of the saloon," meant what you said, then it seems to me you ought to keep this provision in this amendment, because it is the only hope.

Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr. President--

Mr. NORRIS. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I infer from what the Senator has so ably said that he is of the opinion that the majority of the States and the public are opposed to the saloon and to the speak-easy, and that the only chance of removing the present evil, which is now the speak-easythe former evil being the saloon-is by a proposal of handling the liquor question in some other way than it is being handled now, or was handled through the saloon. Do I correctly interpret the Senator's views?

Mr. NORRIS. Yes; that is right. That is what I believe.

Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. And does not the Senator think that a proposition that prevents any State from reestablishing the saloon is the only likely one that will receive the support of 36 States?

Mr. NORRIS. I think so. I think that is true.

Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I thank the Senator.

Mr. NORRIS. Senators and all the other people who have been advocating the repeal of prohibition have been promising the public that they would see to it that the saloon did not come back. Here is the avenue through which the saloon is coming back, or the avenue through which it is going to be prevented from coming back.

I believe I am fair in giving to the Senate what I think was the judgment of the Judiciary Committee on this matter. We did not believe that as a practical proposition it would perhaps be necessary for Congress to legislate on the subject. We believed that if this section were left in here, knowing that Congress had the right to legislate on the subject, a State would hesitate before it passed a law that would permit the saloon to come back, knowing that at any time there would exist the power in Congress to legislate on that subject and prevent the saloon from coming back.

As I look at it, there is no doubt whatever but that there would be no difficulty in the enforcement of the law-not anything like the difficulty that was presented to us in the enforcement of the prohibition amendment that we have had for the last 10 or 12 years. It would be easy of enforcement, because, in the first place, there is a sentiment in the country-! think, as the Senator from Massachusetts has said, a strong, almost a unanimous sentiment, on the part of all classes of people-that they do not want the saloon to come back. If we strike this out, it may be possible that it will come back. The Senator from New York [Mr. WAGNER] said he thought that in his State they would not legislate the saloon back; but, if they do not, they need not fear this law.

It seems to me, therefore, that if the States are going to do what Senators who are advocating the striking out of this amendment claim and believe, this law can not hurt them a particle. Congress will never undertake to legislate on the subject if the States themselves prevent the return of the saloon.

Therefore, Mr. President, I am opposed to striking out section 3.

Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr. President, ' I do not care to take up the time of the Senate in discussing this question. We have listened for several hours to speeches, and I am ready to vote.

My views are so concisely and clearly stated in one of many letters that have come to me, and in some newspaper editorials, that I am going to ask that they be inserted in the RECORD at this juncture of the debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without . objection, it is so ordered.

The matter referred to is as follows: WORCESTER, MAss., January 30, 1933. Senator DAVID I. WALSH,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR WALSH: I have been asked to write you concern- ing . the resolution on the eighteenth amendment now pending before the United States Senate. I do not think my opinions are of much value, but, as a constituent and as one who has invariably voted for you whenever you were a candidate for the Senate, I might perhaps trespass on your time sufficiently to have my little say.

I have always done what I could against prohibition from the start. I have always desired the repeal of the eighteenth amend- ment. I have not taken · my part in the battle against prohibition solely for the sake of legalized beverages. I have always believed that the eighteenth amendment was a terrible mistake because it burdened the Federal Government with the responsibility of using police powers which ought to be used by the local authorities. I have always believed that this method hampered the Federal Government with responsibilities that did not belong to it and has been mainly responsible for the crime and corruption into which we have been plunged.

The repeal resolution which is now before the Senate would, if put into effect, still continue this state of affairs. In other words, some of the worst features of national prohibition would be retained under the proposed amendment as brought before the Senate. The Federal Government would still have on its hands a department for national enforcement which the taxpayers would have to provide for, and which would continue as a menace to national well being and national freedom, and would also, I am afraid, continue as a breeding ground for all sorts and kinds of corruption.

That, to speak frankly, seems to me the most objectionable feature of the resolution. The second feature is the fact that the resolution would be referred for ratification to State legislatures and not to conventions, which was promised in the platform of the Democratic Party when Governor Roosevelt was nominated. I see no reason whatever why the principle of State cenventions should be ignored 1n the Senate 1n view of the overwhelming national demand for them. The conventions would be chosen solely on this question, whereas the members of the legislatures are chosen on a great many issues having nothing to do with prohibition. I am fairly sure that with the State conventions we should be able to eliminate national prohibition, and this of course is our main objective.

As a member of the Constitutional Liberty League of Massachusetts, I have always desired to oust prohibition from the Con- stitution. During the 13 disastrous years of nonenforcement, I have only been strengthened in my conviction that the only right way to do is to follow the · directions on the signs we have lately seen on automobiles; namely, to repeal the eighteenth amendment. May I assure you of my good wishes for your continued success?

Respectfully yours,

HENRY HARMON CHAMBERLIN.

[From America, issue of January 21, 1933]

NOT · A MATTER OF BEER

The substitute for the eighteenth amendment is growing like a snowball rolling downhill. Opposition to the substitute is growing even faster. For the substitute does not repeal the amendment. It merely affirms Federal prohibition under another and, it may well be, a more dangerous form.

What the citizen thought he was going to receive from the Senate committee headed by Senator BLAINE was an amendment couched in the following words, " The eighteenth amendment is hereby repealed," and no more. That is the form recommended by ex-Governor Smith, Doctor Butler, and the Democratic con- vention, and if the November elections have any significance, it is the form which the people desire. The committee began with a paper containing two clauses, of which the first was the SmithButler declaration. The drys protested that this would leave the dry States without protection against the States which should legalize alcoholic beverages. Thereupon the committee, ignoring the existence of the Webb-Kenyon Act which gives this "protection," added another clause, which was not a constitutional enact- ment but simple Federal legislation, prohibiting the transportation or importation of alcoholic liquors from wet to dry States. Thus at the outset of its work the committee authorized a Federal control, which is the very source of the evils of which the country is complaining, and imbedded in the Constitution, which should be a statement of fundamental principles in government, an offensive form of sumptuary legislation.

But the committee did not stop even at this point. Yielding to the senseless clamor against the " saloon," an institution which no court and no individual has yet been able to define satisfactorily, it added a third clause giving Congress "concurrent power " to regulate or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors to be drUnk on the premises where sold. The committee does not trust the States · to exercise their police powers properly, but demands that the final decision as to whether or not beer can be consumed in a hotel dining room or at a corner saloon or at a soda fountain, or in none of these places, be vested solely in Con- gress, acting under authority conferred by the Federal Constitution. Petty sumptuary legislation could hardly be carried to a more absurd extreme. Whatever "concurrent power" may mean, it certainly does not mean that any State, or all of them, can overrule Federal legislation. In practice, it signifies that the States may do what seems best, unless Congress rules that another arrangement is best. .

Throughout the hearings the committee has apparently labored under the delusion that what the country wants is permission to sop up beer and to guzzle whisky. That is far from the wishes of the men and women who for 13 years have led the fight against prohibition. As this review has repeatedly insisted, with us it is not a question of beer or of whisky, but wholly a question of good government. It is our conviction that temperance in the use of alcoholic beverages is best secured through the influence on the individual of religion and of education. Should this influence fail, so that intemperance becomes a menace to the peace and good order of the community, the necessary restrictions should be made and enforced by that community. In the regulation of personal habits, innocuous in themselves, yet subject to abuse, legislation should be the last, not the first, recourse. Further, legislation, if .deemed necessary, should be enforceable. Otherwise it will only enhance the evil against which it is directed. Thirteen years of sad experience have demonstrated beyond doubt that prohibition has no place in the Federal Constitution. It can not be enforced, and it brings with it a train of graft, perjury, murder, and general disrespect for law. Any substitute amendment which fails "to restore to the States their ancient right of local self-government," as Representative BECK writes, will perpetuate these frightful abuses, together with the funda- mental vice of Federal prohibition which is its incompatib111ty with the spirit and purpose~? of the Constitution.

[Editorial from the Baltimore Sun, issue of January 12, 19331

REDEEM THE PLEDGE

The prohibition repeal resolution as submitted to the Senate is a repudiation of the pledge in the platform of the Democratic Party upon which the election last November was won. The pledge was that the question of repeal should be submitted to constitutional conventions. The resolution before the Senate proposes that it be submitted to State legislatures.

There are compelling reasons why the issue should not be submitted to State legislatures. To do so would likely cause prolonged delay, inviting nation-wide participation in the fight in every State, opening opportunities for corruption, plunging the country into continued excitement and bad feeling, to say nothing of the ch a otic conditions that would prevail while the issue was being settled. The resolution allows seven years for the States to act, no consideration being given to the certainty that the interim would be marked by steady aggravation of the evils that have been witnessed in t he past decade. It is inconceivable that enforcement of prohibition would not go from bad to worse in view of the fact that many States have repealed their own Volstead laws.

Moreover, State legislatures would not be chosen solely on the issue of repeal, and election to these bodies would not constitute a referendum on prohibition. Many wets and drys will not cross party lines to vote their views on the liquor question. In choosing delegates to constitutional conventions voters would cast their ballots on a single proposition and express their convictions without giving thought to many other important matters that are involved in the selection of members of the legislature. Another objection is that legislatures of many States are not so constituted as to give equal representation to urban and rural voters. For this reason, even if Congress were held not to have authority to dictate the composition of the conventions, selection of delegates to them by direct vote of the people would supply a better test on prohibition.

The resolution under consideration violates the platform of the Democratic Party in another particular by retaining concurrent power in Congress to "regulate or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors to be sold on the premises." This provision retains a police power in the Constitution of the United States which the Democratic Party is pledged to eliminate. Its retention would mean a continuation of policies that have aroused deep-seated hostility to the Volstead law. It is not repeal. It is modification. · True, Senator WALSH of Montana is quoted as saying that he does not believe the power would ever be exercised by Congress. In that case there is no excuse for granting the power. However, we disagree with Senator WALSH and believe , on the contrary , that its retention would be a constant incentive to strife and would bring down upon Congress the forces that have bedeviled it in the past.

[From the Liberty Magazine, issue of January 21, 1933]

SALOON OR SPEAK-EASY-WHICH?

The open saloon was a destructive force of great magnitude. It catered to human depravity, and it was the flaunting of its shamelessness to the public everywhere that brought us prohibition. To be sure , there were all kinds of saloons, just as there are all kinds of speak-easies, and it is difficult to frame a law that would set a definite dividing line. But admitting that the saloon was guilty of all that was charged against it, and more, too, we still have to acknowledge that the speak-easies are far worse.

They are unlawful and lawless to the last degree. There you will find the home of racketeering of the worst sort. Easy money is the tempting bait that aids and abets this criminality.

And now that prohibition is liable to receive its final deathblow we will indeed have a difficult problem before us. We will probably have to decide between the speak-easy and the saloon. It is needless to try to deceive ourselves. Why shut our eyes to a situation that we must face? We can not be hypocritical pretenders.

The liquor evil is with us. Prohibition has moved the saloons from the street corners into the speak-easies. And we know from bitter experience that the liquor habit can not be crushed by ' law. We have learned that lesson beyond all refutation.

And the question we will doubtless have to ask ourselves at this time is: Will we have the open saloon that is lawfully controlled, or will we have the speak-easy?

If we refuse to license the saloon, will it be possible to close the speak-easy?

We hear an unlimited amount of discussion as to what we must do when the Volstead law is repealed, and there is nearly always the associated warning that we must not go back to the saloon. But if we expect to close the speak-easy what other method can be used?

Some politicians are not averse to deceiving the public, and the speak-easies are hidden away on side streets. They do not flaunt their ugliness to the general public.

It is our belief, if we are compelled to choose between the two-­ and that seems to be the situation-that the saloon, licensed and controlled by governmental edicts, compelled to close at certain hours, is by far the lesser of the two evils.

And this is by no means an indorsement of the saloon. God forbid!

But there is no room for argument as to which is the lesser evil-the speak-easy or the saloon. There are literally hundreds of thousands of speak-easies doing business throughout the country at this time. If we have licensed saloons they can all be closed; if there are no saloons the speak-easies will undoubtedly find it profitable · to remain in business.

And there seems to be no possible chance of closing them by legal measures. We know that in spite of all the efforts made through Federal and State . edicts they have continued in business. There is only one way to close them, and that is through legitimate competition by licensed drinking places. We can call them saloons, or whatever we please. No matter how much we may object to their presence we can not put them out of business.

They will either exist as a secret, unlawful business, or el s e they can be subject to close scrutiny, made to conform to certain definite rules through governmental license, which would at least materially lessen their evil influence.

There are still many who will doubtless condemn this attitude, but when we have an unpleasant situation to deal with it is foolish to close our eyes. It must be recognized and handled in the most effective manner.

We will candidly admit that all drinking places should be closed. We will go further and admit that prohibition, if it could be enforced, would be of infinite benefit to the Nation.

This we have tried for a decade or more and we have failed miserably, and when we ultimately find that we are compelled to choose between two destructive forces it is certainly desirable to select that which 1s the least harmful.

Mr. BLACK. Mr. President, I do not desire to delay the . Senate, except to express my own idea of this amendment in two or three minutes.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If this amendment should be adopted in this form, it would be the supreme law of the land. In other words, it would give to Congress the power to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquor within the States.

If that power is given to Congress to regulate, it becomes important to know what " regulate " means. It means-

To adjust or control by rule, method, or established mode; to direct by rule or restriction; to subject to governing principles or laws.

If this amendment should become a part of the Constitution containing section 3, it would take away from the State the right the State now has to regulate or prohibit the sale of liquor. It would take it away by giving that power to Congress.

In other words, if section 3 should become a part of the Constitution of the United States and the State of Alabama desired to prohibit the sale of liquor in a saloon and Congress should determine that it would regulate the sale of liquor in Alabama merely by imposing a license tax of $1,000, the right of Alabama to go any further would be denied. It could not prohibit the sale of liquor in Alabama, because that right would be reserved to the Congress of the United States by this section of the amendment. In other words, this is not an amendment which would give to the States an added right with reference to the control of liquor within its boundaries. It is an amendment which would take away from every State in the Union the right to determine how it would regulate the liquor traffic within its boundaries.

Mr. President, I am opposed to that. I voted against it in the committee. Since it remained in the proposal, I voted against a favorable report of the joint resolution. I desire to state now, because I shall not make any further remarks, that if this section is not stricken from the resolution, I shall vote against a resubmission of the eighteenth amendment to the people. I favor the resubmission of the eighteenth amendment to the people, to be voted upon by conventions, unless there is added this provision which takes away from every State in the Union the power to determine whether or not it shall regulate or prohibit the sale of liquor within its boundaries. This would go to exactly the opposite extreme of the eighteenth amendment. The eighteenth amendment prohibits the sale of liquor in any State. If this amendment should become the law of the land, no State would have the right to prohibit the sale of liquor within its own boundaries if it saw fit to do so, for Congress would have already asserted its right to enact a law covering that subject.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is not difficult to imagine that there might be a Congress which would be opposed to any State passing a prohibition law. Let us suppose that were the case, and that Congress should pass a law saying, "We will undertake to regulate the sale of liquor," and then should say, "We will regulate it by providing that liquor may be sold within a State "-and it would have that right, under this provision-" but those desiring to sell it must first pay a license of $1,000." That would be the supreme law of the land, because it would be enacted under the Constitution itself.

Mr. President, in so far as I am concerned, I shall vote to strike out section 3. If section 3 is not stricken out. I shall vote against the submission of the amendment. I simply wanted the REcoRD to show the facts, so that those who voted might have called to their attention the fact that, instead of being a movement to permit the States to prohibit the sale of liquor in a saloon, this amendment would deprive the States of the right to prohibit the sale of liquor in a saloon. Both the State and the Federal Government can not have the power at the same time. The action of one of them will be the supreme law of the land, and the supreme law of every State is the Constitution of the United States. When the Constitution delegates to Congress the right to determine in what way liquor shall be sold in a State, if it is sold, then a law enacted by Congress will be supreme, and the States of this Union will be helpless, they can not regulate the sale of liquor within their own boundaries, nor can they prohibit it.

Mr. President, I shall vote against the third section for the reasons I ha v e stated, and for the further reason that it would result in a state of chaos and confusion. This matter should be submitted back to the people, to be voted upon fairly and squarely upon its merits, and not with an amendment which would further take away from the people a right which they have had heretofore. They would be far better off if they desired to prohibit the sale of liquor within their States, if there should be a plain, bald, naked repeal of the eighteenth amendment, because then they could regulate or prohibit the sale of liquor in the States as they saw fit, and not in the manner Congress saw fit to prescribe.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FESs in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. RoBINSON] to the amendment of the committee.

Mr. BROOKHART obtained the :floor.

Mr. BLACK. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KEAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Iowa yield for that purpose?

Mr. BROOKHART. I yield.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Ashurst Costigan Hull Robinson, Ind. Bailey Couzens Johnson Russell Bankhead Dale Kean Schuyler Barbour Davis Kendrick Sheppard Barkley Dickinson Keyes Shipstead Bingham Dill La Follette Smith Black Fess Lewis Steiwer Blaine Frazier Logan Stephens Borah George McGill Townsend Bratton Glass McKellar Trammell Brookhart Goldsborough McNary Tydings Bulkley Gore Neely Vandenberg Bulow Hale Norbeck Wagner Byrnes Harrison Norris Walcott Capper Hastings Nye Walsh, Mass. Caraway Hatfield Patterson White Clark Hayden Pittman Connally Hebert Robinson, Ark.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventy Senators having answered to their names, there is a quorum present.

Mr. BROOKHART. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. RoBINSON] seems to be very much disturbed because the lame ducks are going to have a vote on this amendment. So far as I am concerned, I am one of the lame ducks who do not want that responsibility. I have been perfectly willing all the time to pass it over to the Senator from Arkansas when he will be in control of the majority in the United States Senate in the session soon to be held. But I want to say to the Senator that since he has forced the decision upon me, I do not want him to do all the squawking. Mr. President, at this time I am going to speak briefly upon the amendment under consideration.

Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Iowa yield to the Senator from Oregon?

Mr. BROOKHART. I yield.

Mr. McNARY. I desire to propose a unanimous-consent the section would read: agreement that we proceed to the consideration of the pending amendment, giving the Senator from Iowa 10 minutes to conclude his remarks, and then recess until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning; and that at 3 o'clock to-morrow afternoon we vote upon the pending joint resolution and all pending amendments thereto.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. NORBECK. Mr. President, just a moment. I very much desire to vote on the pending amendment if I possibly can, but the Committee on Banking and Currency are holding hearings relating to the New York Stock Exchange and there are many Senators who will be present at those hearings to-morrow morning. Would it not be possible to take a recess until 12 o'clock instead of 11 o'clock?

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. We propose to vote to-night, in just a few minutes, on the pending amendment. There will probably be no further votes until the debate has been closed to-morrow.

Mr. McNARY. I am willing to yield to the suggestion of the Senator from South Dakota and change the proposal accordingly; that is, that we proceed to the consideration of the pending amendment after the Senator from Iowa has 10 minutes in which to discuss the matter--

Mr. BROOKHART. Mr. President, I do not think I shall need more than 10 minutes, but a time limit always has a tendency to confuse me a little.

Mr. McNARY. Very well. I ask unanimous consent that after the vote on the pending amendment the Senate recess until 12 o'clock to-morrow, and that at 3 o'clock to-morrow afternoon we shall vote without further debate upon the pending joint resolution and all amendments thereto.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Oregon? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. SMITH. At 3 o'clock to-morrow afternoon we are to vote without further debate on the joint resolution and all amendments to it?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the understanding.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. But we are to vote to-night on the pending amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

Mr. BROOKHART. Mr. President, I shall address myself at this time to section 3 and the motion to strike it out, which is the pending question. The Congress of the United States has no power except that which is given to it by the Constitution of the United States. If this amendment should be adopted, which I do not think it ever will be, it would be a part of the Constitution.

Section 3 as worded provides that " Congress shall have concurrent power." It does not say that Congress shall have "supreme" power, but "concurrent power," that is to say, " concurrent power to regulate or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors to be drunk at the premises where sold." That power is concurrent with what? It is concurrent with the power of the State. Therefore the State has concurrent power with the Congress and the powers are equal. Neither is supreme.

Under the terms of the amendment it would be possible for the State of New York or the State of Pennsylvania or any other State to legalize the saloon, which the amendment seeks to describe. They could make it a legal institution. At the same time Congress, with its concurrent power, could prohibit that same saloon and make it an illegal institution. That is an unthinkable provision to have in the Constitution. I am going to vote to leave it in because I think a repeal of the eighteenth amendment is a more un t unthinkable thing than this unthinkable section.

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. GLAss] will offer an amendment that would correct this inconsistency. The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. NoRRIS] has made a suggestion and I believe the Senator from Delaware [Mr. HAsTINGs] made a suggestion that would correct the inconsistency by striking out the word" concurrent." If that were done then Congress shall have power to regulate or prohibit the sale · a! intoxicating liquors to be drunk on the premises where sold.

If it were worded that way, there would be no question, I think, about the supreme power of Congress to regulate the saloon. It would take further legislative enactment, of course, to do that, but as it stands now we are going into this pandemonium of legal war of the States with the National Government; but since we are going into a national civil war with everything that is moral and decent on the one side and with drunkenness and disorder and intoxicating Bingham liquor generally on the other side, I think even this disorderly section 3 is preferable to the amendment without any restrictions whatever.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas to the amendment of the committee.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Let us have the yeas and Caraway nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. BRATTON (when his name was called). Again announcing my pair with the junior Senator from Nebraska Austin [1\fi. HowELL], I transfer that pair to the senior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. BRoussARD] and vote "yea."

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FESS, when his name was called) . On this question the present occupant of the chair is paired with the senior Senator from New York [Mr. Fletcher CoPELAND J. If the present occupant of the chair were permitted to vote, he would vote "nay."

Mr. NORRIS (when Mr. HowELL's name was called). As previously announced, my colleague [Mr. HowELL], is absent on official business of the Senate. If he were present and voting on this question, he would vote "nay."

Mr. McNARY (when his name was called). On this vote I have a pair with the junior Senator from Nevada [Mr. ODDIE]. If he were present, he would vote " yea." If I were permitted to vote, I would vote" nay."

Mr. BINGHAM (when Mr. METCALF's name was called). The senior senator from Rhode Island [Mr. METCALF], who is necessarily absent, if present, would vote "yea."

Mr. NORRIS (when his name was called). Upon this vote I am paired with the senior Senator from Florida [Mr. FLETCHER J. If he were present, he would vote " yea." If I were permitted to vote, I would vote "nay."

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. REEDJ. I transfer that pair to the junior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. CooLIDGE] and vote "yea."

The roll call was concluded.

Mr. McNARY. I desire to announce the necessary absence of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. REED]. If present, he would vote "nay."

Mr. SMITH. I have a general pair with the senior Senator from Indiana [Mr. WATSON]. Not knowing how he would vote, I withhold my vote.

Mr. WAGNER. I wish to announce that my colleague the senior Senator from New York [Mr. CoPELAND] is absent on account of the death of his father. If present, he would vote "yea."

Mr. SHEPPARD. I wish to announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. THoMAs] is necessarily absent. If present, he would vote "nay." He is paired with the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. METCALF].

Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I desire to announce that my colleague the junior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. CooLIDGE] is unavoidably absent. If present, he would vote "yea." An announcement of his pair has been made.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FEss). The present occupant of the chair announces the following general pairs: The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. MosEs] with the Senator from Montana [Mr. WALSH];

The Senator from Idaho [Mr. THoMAs] with the Senator from Montana [Mr. WHEELER];

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. AusTIN] with the Senator from Utah [Mr. KING]:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. GLENN] with the Senator from Virginia [Mr. SWANSON]; and

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. METCALF] with the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. THoMAs].

The result was announced-yeas 33, nays 32, as follows:

YEAS-33

Ashurst Bulkley Hull Trammell Bailey Bulow Johnson Tydings Barbour Byrnes Kean Vandenberg Barkley Clark Kendrick Wagner

Couzens La Follette Walcott

Black Davis Lewis Walsh, Mass. Blaine Harrison McKellar Borah Hayden Pittman Bratton Hebert Robinson, Ark.

NAYS--32

Bankhead Dill Hatfield Russell Brookhart Frazier Keyes Schuyler Capper George Logan Sheppard

Glass McGill Ship stead

Connally Goldsborough Neely Steiwer Costigan Gore Nye Stephens Dale Hale Patterson Townsend Dickinson Hastings Robinson, Ind. White

NOT VOTING-31

Glenn Norbeck Smoot

Broussard Grammer Norris Swanson Carey Howell Oddie Thomas, Idaho Coolidge King Reed Thomas, Okla. Copeland Long Reynolds Walsh, Mont. Cutting McNary Schall Watson Fess Metcalf Shortridge Wheeler

Moses Smith

So the amendment proposed by Mr. RoBINSON of Arkansas to the amendment was agreed to.