February 16, 1933 (2)

In my last campaign, in 1928, when the wet issue was prominent, I stated that I considered the referendum votes of the people as an instruction to me to vote" dry," and that I would continue to vote " dry " unless and until the people by referendum vote changed their instructions.

During all these years I have kept that pledge by voting "dry" on every measure in behalf of prohibition that has come before Congress previous to this session.

But in 1932 we had in the State of Washington another referendum on the repeal of the prohibition laws. In that election the people in the referendum voted overwhelmingly "wet." That is a mandate for me to vote to submit the eighteenth amendment for repeal and to vote for such liberalization of the Volstead Act as is permissible under the Constitution. I shall so vote whenever these measures come before the Senate.

The people do not vote on the tariff, on taxes, on farm bills, or on the money question. They elect men to the House and Senate to pass on such legislation. On such questions I have always taken the responsibility of deciding how I should vote in conformity with the principles I have advocated and the pledges I have made in the past and for what I believed to be for the best interest of the people as a whole. This I shall continue to do.

If I were unwilling to keep my pledge to the men and women who elected me to carry out their will, as registered in the prohibition referendums of my State, I would consider myself faithless to my trust and unworthy of a seat in this body. To break faith with those whose votes I secured by such pledges would, in my estimation, be an embezzlement of power given me by the people, and I would consider such action little less than treason.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I think I can state my views in less than half the time that is permitted to me. I am one of those who have reluctantly become convinced that the prohibition experiment is a failure. I do not like to see us revert to the days which we knew before prohibition, the days of the saloon on every street corner. Consequently, Mr. President, feeling that way, and being a firm advocate of the principle of local option, I am glad to support sections 1 and 2 of the resolution as reported from the Judiciary Committee. I do not like section 3 because I do not want to see a concurrent power on this subject reserved in the Congress. Nevertheless, I do like the effort that section makes to prevent the return of the saloon.

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. GLASS] agreed to strike out that grant of concurrent power which appears on page 2, line 7, of his proposed substitute, and when that shall be stricken out I will be glad to vote for the substitute of the Senator from Virginia. If that amendment shall fail, I will then propose the amendment which I now send to the desk and ask to have read.

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

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania yield to the Senator from Ohio?

Mr. REED. Yes.

Mr. BULKLEY. Is it the Senator's view that striking out the provision in the Glass amendment concerning concurrent power will deprive the Congress of any power to enforce the proposal?

Mr. REED. Excepting in the District of Colwnbia and in the Territories the Congress will have no power to provide prohibition enforcement in the separate States, further than the power that it now has to regulate interstate commerce. It can prevent shipments into dry States; it can do that at present; it does not need any further grant of constitutional power for that, but I believe that striking out the concluding sentence in the first section of the Glass amendment will deprive the Congress of the concurrent power to conduct prohibition enforcement as it is now doing.

Mr. BULKLEY. To me it is an astonishing proposition that the Constitution should prohibit the saloon and still not have power to enforce its prohibition.

Mr. REED. Not at all. We prohibit a hundred different the :floor. things in the Constitution. We say, for example, that the States may not coin money; we do not pass any laws about it; the Constitution by itself makes invalid every effort by the States to create their own currency. Now I ask that the amendment be read.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Let the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania be read.

The CHIEF CLERK. At the end of the joint resolution it is proposed to add a new section as follows:

SEc. 3. The sale of distilled spirits for consumption at the place of sale shall not be permitted within the United States or any Territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr. President, the statement just made by the Senator from P~nnsylvania [Mr. REED] is to me astonishing. He proposes to place in the Constitution an inhibition against the establishment of saloons by the States and to justify that action on the ground that the Federal Government shall have no power whatever to enforce the inhibition.

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

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Certainly. I yield for a question.

Mr. REED. I did not say that the Federal Government would not have power. Of course the Federal courts would strike down any State law that established saloons.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Well, Mr. President, if the Federal Government is to take away from the States the power to regulate the liquor trafflc, in the event it should be legalized under any amendment that may be submitted, it is surprising to me that the Senator should desire to amend the Constitution so as to prohibit the establishment of saloons and also deny to the Federal Government the power to enforce that prohibition.

I maintain in all sincerity-and I believe the Senator from Pennsylvania will ag1·ee with me-that if the Constitution prohibits the establishment of saloons that is an implied grant of power to enforce the prohibition, and, if it is not, such a provision is worth less than nothing and ought not to be incorporated in any proposed amendment. -

Mr. President, the debate has proceeded to-day on the theory that the States of this Union have few powers and that what powers they have ought to be subtracted from them. It is an astonishing proposition.

Mr. SWANSON. Mr. President--

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Arkansas yield to the Senator from Virginia?

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. I yield to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. SWANSON. Of course, my vote on the various amendments and substitutes will be dependent upon the issues involved. I have a great regard, as have the people of Virginia, for the judgment of my colleague, the junior Senator from Virginia [Mr. GLASs], but as I understand section 2 as adopted last night, it prohibits the transportation and use of any intoxicating liquors in a State, Territory, or possession of the United States that prohibits such transportation and use by its own laws. Is th~t true?

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. That is entirely true.

Mr. SWANSON. As I understand, if the sale of liquor and saloons were to be prohibited by the State of Virginia or the State of Pennsylvania or any other State in the Union, section 2, as adopted, would allow the Federal Government to prevent the transportation and use of intoxicating liquors within that State. Is that true?

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. That is true.

Mr. SWANSON. Consequently, it is left entirely to the States to determine in what manner intoxicating liquors shall be sold or used and to what places such liquors may be transported. Is that established definitely under section 2 of the proposed amendment?

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. I think that is true.

Mr. SWANSON. I should like to ask the Senator-­

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Arkansas has

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr. President, I can not yield for other Senators to express their opinions in my time.

Mr. SWANSON. I merely asked the Senator if the premises stated by me are correct.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. The language of section 2 is perfectly plain.

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

That leaves to the States the power of regulation; it places the moral force of the Government of the United States behind the States in the enforcement of their laws; and that is exactly what we on this side of the Chamber are committed to, in so far as we can be committed by a platform declaration. Our platform states that we will-

Effectively prevent the return of the saloon, and bring the liquor traffic into the open under complete supervision and control by the States.

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

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Yes.

Mr. WATSON. The platform of the Senator's party says that" we urge the enactment" by the several States of such laws as will do that.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. The platform reads:

As will actually promote temperance, effectively prevent the return of the saloon, and bring the liquor tramc into the open under complete supervision and control by the States.

That is what I read.

Mr. WATSON. Mr. President--

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. I can not yield; the Sen- on ator understands that I have only a few minutes left. I namely, should like to use a part of my own time.

The issue here is whether the Federal Government is going went away. to take away from the States all power after repealing the eighteenth amendment, in the event the repeal shall be of ratified. The question is whether we will say, "You must show find some other way of disposing of liquor in the event your pared people are authorized to dispose of it."

Now let us look at this question from a practical stand- cation. point.

Everybody condemns the saloon. I am no champion of the saloon, and never have been. I have submerged my personal the views, in so far as I am able to do so, and have conformed of them to the platform declarations of my party, believing back"? that it is my duty to take that course. But suppose we say there never shall be a saloon, but there shall be the sale of and liquor. How is it to be accomplished? Is that an implied liquor declaration in favor of the State's going into the liquor York business, in favor of the State's engaging in the sale of liquor? If we deny to the States all power in the deter- never mination of any question as to how liquor shall be disposed that of, what are we going to see done about it? What is the practical effect of it?

Granting that the saloon is very unpopular, if liquor is to under be sold at all it must be sold either in saloons or by State officials agencies, and I do not think that the Congress ought to be drinking committed to the policy that we are choosing permanently land, between those agencies.

The states of the Union have some measure of responsi- country. bility. They have just as much ability to handle this question as the Congress has, and, from the way we are deal- the ing with it, I am inclined to think just a little more ability tion, than we are displaying. The character of the men who to serve the States in public office is comparable in integrity the and in capacity to that of those who serve the Federal govern Government. This is another illustration of the disposi- in tion of some in public life to take away all powers from the tions States; and I am not willing to do that, particularly in view of the declaration I have read.

The statement has been made by the Senator from In- at diana [Mr. RoBINSON] that one who votes for the joint the resolution as it has been amended votes for the return of power saloons. That declaration is not sustained by the facts. States We simply vote, in the event the amendment to the Con- cency stitution is ratified, that the States shall possess some power in determining how this liquor problem shall be handled. soN]

I agree with the Senator from Kansas [Mr. CAPPER] that who there is no ideal way of dealing with the liquor problem. the We have been looking for such a way for almost a century, under and it has not been found. Troubles and difficulties inhere and in the problem, and they will not be solved by a declara- knows tion in the Constitution of the United States-which, as drank insisted by the Senator from Pennsylvania, there will be that no power to enforce or carry out-that the States shall not both deal with this subject in accordance with their best judgment. We say that we are opposed to the saloon, and yet over in a time when saloons are unlawful we see them established and maintained in many communities where the law called forbids them; and the question arises, or may arise, in the murders minds of many Senators, as to whether an unlawful speak- pened easy is a preferable institution to a licensed saloon.

I do not justify the saloon, and I hope that it may never knows return; and I have grave doubt, in whatever form this New amendment is submitted, whether 36 States of the Union will ratify the amendment. I believe, however, that there is Why sufficient sentiment in the country favoring a change of the facts? present conditions, as they relate to the control of the alcoholic-beverage traffic, to justify this Congress in submitting the question to the people of the United States for whole their decision.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator from its Arkansas has expired.

Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, it seems to me that to a J which great extent we have lost sight here of the real substance of this proposition. One Senator after another has risen this floor and assumed a fact which does not existthat if we repeal the eighteenth amendment liquor is going to come back. I should like to ask when it ever Every man in this Chamber knows that the police records the Capital of the United States-Washington, D. C.­ that in the 10 years following prohibition, as comwith the 10 years preceding prohibition, five times as many persons under 21 years of age were arrested for intoxiTherefore, if five times as many persons under 21 years of age have been arrested in the 10 years following prohibition as were arrested in the 10 years preceding it, in Capital of the United States, right here under the nose Congress, what is the use of talking about liquor " coming Every man here knows that he can go to the telephone have a bootlegger come up to his office and deliver within a half hour. Every man here knows that New and Chicago and every other large city are filled with speakeasies. We know that crime has grown on a scale before seen in the history of any country. We know gunmen have ruled our cities. Yet men have the effrontery, it seems to me, to stand here and say that we are " going back " to this wicked thing called liquor, when the present condition it has corrupted more public and Government officers than ever before, increased among the young, built speakeasies all over the and made hijacking and bootlegging and distilling in an illegal way the words of mouth of every citizen in this I say that we never should have taken this question from states. It is not a national question. It is a local question, it can be solved best in the communities that have deal with it. This Government never was conceived with idea that we would reach out into every community and the habits and the morals and the religion of people those communities. We were to deal with national quesonly-the Army and the Navy, interstate and foreign commerce, post offices and post roads, and the rest of the 18 powers given to us by the Constitution. We bad no right all, except by turning our backs upon the philosophy of

Constitution, to go out in the States and assume this and this control. The sooner we give it back to the the sooner we shall establish law and order and deand some respect for government.

When my friend the Senator from Indiana [Mr. RoBINgets up and tells about the good women of this land are going to be debauched with liquor he loses sight of fact that the good women of this land are drinking more prohibition than they ever drank under the old regime, every man in this Chamber knows it. The Senator also that more youths are drinking to-day than ever before in the history of this Republic. He knows there is more graft and corruption and hypocrisy in high and low places than ever before happened in this country. He knows that out of 3,000 prohibition agents

25 per cent of them were discharged for discovered corruption in the first eight years of the existence of soprohibition. He knows that there have been more in the city of Chicago in a single year than hapthroughout Great Britain in 10 years of its history. He knows that a criminal ring has dominated that city. He that at this moment there are 5,000 speakeasies in York City, and he knows that bootlegging and illicit distilling go on from one end of this Republic to the other. do we not tell the truth about this subject and face

Mr. BROOKHART. Mr. President--

Mr. TYDINGS. We have made a dismal failure of the fabric of temperance. We have dragged this country down to a degraded point in its morals, in its temperance, in public behavior, that never existed before in all its annals. Yet we stand here hoping to keep a part of this power has not helped America toward temperance, in my judgment, but has only destroyed the temperance that we have built up through decades of teaching and example and precept.

Mr. BROOKHART. Mr. President--

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator fmm Maryland yield to the Senator from Iowa?

Mr. TYDINGS. I yield for a question, if it is a brief question.

Mr. BROOKHART. Does not the Senator know that when Chicago had 7,000 legally licensed saloons it had 12,000 "blind pigs "?

Mr. TYDINGS. I do not yield further. Does not the Senator from Iowa know that right here in the Capital of the Nation, over which Congress has complete jurisdiction, five times as many persons under 21 years of age were arrested during the 10 years following the adoption of national prohibition as were arrested during the 10 years preceding it?

Mr. BROOKHART. Mr. President--

Mr. TYDINGS. Yes; but that does not count-of course not. The Senator does not want facts. He wants to chase a will-o'-the-wisp, the imaginative prohibition and temperance, instead of the actual thing itself.

Mr. BROOKHART. The Senator has asked me a question, and I should like to answer it.

Mr. TYDINGS. I have only four minutes left, and I refuse to yield.

Mr. President, in my humble judgment, trying to be as fair with all the circumstances as a human being can, I say that I believe that the open saloon was no worse, to say the very least, than the hidden, insidious speakeasy-not a bit in the world-except that we could see the saloon and see its evils; but because we sweep our dirt back of the door, that does not mean that · the dirt has been swept out of the chamber.

Prohibition enforcement! Temperance! Morality! Where is it u · under the regis of the eighteenth amendment? What are the gains? Where are they-with the young? With the women? Elimination of the saloon and substitution of the speakeasy? The crime, the murder, the graft, the corruption, the hypocrisy of men who occupy the highest legislative positions in the gift of this Republic? Are there any Senators in this Chamber who have violated the eighteenth amendment or the Volstead Act? Are there any Representatives in the other Chamber who have violated the eighteenth amendment? I do not say there are. Senators themselves know the answer to my question; . and if this law can not be observed in those places, in God's name, where can it be observed?

Shall we be a bunch of hyprocrites, lashed by the lash of the Anti-Saloon League, in the face of 13 years of dismal failure; or shall we honestly face these facts as they are now presented, and as every one of us knows them?

We have made a failure of this thing. It was doomed to failure from its inception. We ought to be men enough to turn it back to the people of each community, who can settle it better than can we, having in view the conditions in their communities. New York can handle its problems better than the people of Oregon can handle the problems of New York for New Yorkers. Therefore, when we have made the experiment, when we have given it money, governmental support, new courts, new district attorneys, and hordes of agents, and we have failed, in God's name, in the interest of temperance, let us give it back to the States from whence it ought never to have been taken in the first place.

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. President, the remarks made by the senior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. RoBINSON] a few minutes ago show a height of courage seldom seen on the floors of the Houses of Congress. Everyone knows his record. Everyone knows how consistent it has been in this regard. It is very difficult for a public man, it is very difficult for the Congress of the United States to admit that it has ever made a mistake. But we have been trying an experiment for the past few years. Every student of history knew that it would probably fail, because every time in the history of civilized nations a powerful central government has attempted to direct the morals and habits and beliefs or its people, it has failed.

When our Government was organized, when the Constitutional Convention was sitting in Philadelphia, the question was brought up as to whether the Congress of the United States should have the right to pass sumptuary legislation, legislation which would deal with the habits of the people, with what they ate, drank, and wore. But these celebrated fathers of the Constitution were keen students of history. They realized that in every great nation in the world when the central government had attempted to control the habits of its people, to make that wrong which custom made right, they failed; that a law could only be enforced when it was actually the crystallization of public opinion. They believed, and correctly, that sumptuary legislation could only be enforced when it was passed by the States or the communities therein, and, therefore, the Congress was not given that power.

Beginning about 1812, communities in the United States became alarmed at the growth of drunkenness, at the increase of intoxication, and steps were taken to meet that condition by prohibitory laws in various communities. About the middle of the nineteenth century a wave of prohibition resulted in some 18 States adopting prohibitory laws, but it was found that those laws could not be enforced. When communities containing people whose habits led them to enjoy and not to abuse intoxicating beverages wished to have their manners and customs continue as they had under their fathers and grandfathers for countless generations, they would find some means of accomplishing that result. Therefore, after a few years, nearly all the States, I think with the exception of Kansas and Maine, abandoned the position which they had taken theretofore.

Then came another wave of prohibition among the States, and it was tried for a while and abandoned. But in communities which had adopted a " no license " plan by the vote of the people in the community it was difficult, if not impossible, for a socalled blind tiger or speakeasy to exist. Mr. President, in our country, where so many million people are descended from the inhabitants of European nations where for countless generations wine, beer, and other alcoholic beverages have been on the tables every day of the year, it is impossible by any law ~o make those people believe that their ancestors did wrong. It is impossible to make the people of Germany believe that beer is poison when they have seen generations of Germans using it as a daily beverage. It is impossible to make the inhabitants or the descendants of people of Spain, of Italy, Greece, or France believe that wine is a poisonous beverage. When it is abused, it is, indeed, harmful.

In adopting the eighteenth amendment, we interfered with the growth of temperance. I know that that statement is directly contraverted by ardent enthusiasts like my friend the junior Senator from Indiana [Mr. RoBINSON], who to-day maintained that a vote in favor of repeal, as we propose to vote to-day, is a vote for the return of the saloon in every State and in every community. That, of course, is a statement not actually founded on what will happen, for there is nothing in what we propose to do that will prevent any State or any community from deciding that it does not want to have alcoholic beverages sold in the community.

Where communities consist of people whose ancestors for generations have believed in the temperate use of wine and beer, it is utterly futile for the Federal Government to insist that it knows better, and to undertake to prevent alcoholic beverages from being sold where they are to be consumed. In the News of to-day there is an editorial, very brief, which deserves reading for the benefit of the REcoRD. It is entitled " The Senate's Opportunity " and reads:

THE SENATE'S OPPORTUNITY

The decision of the voters on November 8 has been put squarely up to the Senate.

The Democratic Senate leadership has met the prohibition issue squarely by rewording the Blaine amendment to make it a straight repeal measure, to be passed upon by the voters of the States through conventions.

The only proviso ls a restatement of the Webb-Kenyon law, already on the law books, which would write into the Constitution the right of the dry States to have Federal protection against importation of liquor.

A vote at 3 o'clock has been ordered.

The amendment is the pledge of the victorious party-a party which obtained the largest popular vote in the history of the country, elected a President and Vice President and an unprecedented majority of the Members of Congress.

The amendment is an answer to 13 years of foolish attempt to legislate morality by Federal decree.

The Senate to-day, by passing this amendment, can put an end to this costly and absurd mistake.

We know of nothing that would do more to clear the deck for an intelligent attack upon the desperate economic problem confronting the country.

Mr. President, I know that those in favor of repeal are charged by the ardent advocates of prohibition with many crimes, with being interested in promoting the liquor business, with being interested in promoting the return of the saloon, and so forth, ad libitum, ad nauseam. But a study of the figures in regard to intoxication, referred to in part by the Senator from Maryland in his speech a few moments ago, gives clear evidence of the fact that under prohibition temperance has decreased and not increased. Two years ago, from figures which were before the committee, it was shown that there were more people arrested for intoxication in the United States than in the year before prohibition was adopted. Worse than that, far more young people were arrested. Prohibition was adopted to keep the young people from ever knowing the taste of alcoholic beverages. Yet in the city of Cleveland year before last 30,000 persons were arrested for intoxication. The courts in that city keep a record of the ages of persons arrested for intoxication, and we were told by a judge of one of the courts that the average age of those 30,000 persons was only 25 years. In other words, 15,000 of those persons were under 25 years of age, and when prohibition was adopted were not more than 11 or 12 years of age, although it was to keep States. young people from ever knowing the taste of intoxicating beverages.

The story is the same all over the country. High-school children who never thought of partaking of alcoholic beverages or spirituous liquors in the days before prohibition now think it is the smart thing to do. There are communities where no high-school society or sorority or other organization can even secure a club or a hotel in which to hold an annual dance because of what goes on.

It is because those of us who have studied this question free from bias, and interested only in promoting temperance, have come to the conclusion--

The VICE PRESIDENT. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, after listening to the debate to-day, particularly on the subject of the saloon, I have become convinced that there will be no way to prevent the return of the saloon if the eighteenth amendment shall be repealed. I agree with everything the able Senator from Virginia [Mr. GLASS] has said with reference to the saloon, and I am just as much opposed to its return as anyone could possibly be. No power on earth could keep that institution clean, or make it respectable, and I do not want to see it returned. For that reason I am going to vote against the repeal of the eighteenth amendment.

Mr. President, what is the situation now? We have in the Constitution the eighteenth amendment, which prohibits the sale of intoxicating liquors, and prohibits their being sold and drunk upon the premises where sold. Gentlemen come to us now and say that we must repeal that amendment because we can not enforce it. Yet they say to us in the next breath, "If you legalize the sale of intoxicating liquors, the National Government can effectively prevent their being drunk on the premises where sold." In other words, we are asked to turn back to the States the power to do everything except control the places where liquor may be consumed. In my opinion, under any possible amendment which can be drawn, that would be a practical impossibility. If we can not prevent liquor being drunk on the premises of 5,000 saloons in New York to-night, when it is illegal to sell it, could we prevent it being drunk upon those premises after it was made legal to sell it?

The only way to fight the American saloon is to fight it as it was fought when we adopted the ei g hteenth amendment, that is, to outlaw the liquor traffic and make it an outlaw under the laws of the United States. If we have not the courage to enforce the law against sale, shall we have the courage to enforce the infinitely more difficult task of preventing the place of drinking legally sold liquor?

Suppose, as an illustration, there were in the State of New York a system which permitted the sale of nonintoxicating liquors in a saloon, but the Government said that intoxicating liquors should not be sold. Then suppose intoxicating liquors were sold in some saloon. It is proposed to take away the power of the National Government to enter that saloon to see whether or not those in charge were selling intoxicating liquors; to rob the National Government of anY power to supervise the selling of intoxicating liquors.

I say that where nonintoxicating liquors are sold-as is now proposed in the beer bill, providing for beer which it is said will be fifteen one-hundreds of 1 per cent of being intoxicating-unless there is a supervising power with full control and authority to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors, intoxicating liquors will be sold. And even if the power were given, it would be impossible to execute it. Let us not mislead or deceive the men and women who are making the fight against the saloon. If we can not give them real and effective protection, we should not give them a false and ineffective protection.

If there is stricken out of this measure the provision for concurrent power, and if there is taken from the National Government any authority or any power to supervise, there will be turned over to the lawless elements of the States the power to do precisely what it is said they are doing now, running saloons in violation of the fundamental laws of the Can we expect the States of the Union which have now repealed all enforcement laws, which have repealed all laws by which to enforce the Constitution, to give us aid in controlling the places where liquor shall be drunk, after we have given authority to sell it and dispose of it? Certainly not. It would be practically an impossible proposition.

Mr. Presi~ent, I venture to say here upon the floor of the Senate to-day that, just so surely as the eighteenth amend· ment shall be repealed and the liquor traffic turned back to the States, the saloon as it was known in the old days will return, and that brutal institution, where criminals consort and crime is bred will be running in full blast in less than 60 days after the eighteenth amendment shall have been repealed . . Yea, more than that, it will be running within 30 days after the beer bill, which is now upon the calendar for action, shall have been passed.

Governments have tried to deal with the liquor question for a hundred years-yes; for 200 years-yet they have never been able to devise any scheme by which they could control the lawlessness of the liquor traffic. The liquor traffic itself is lawless, and to say that we can control it by permitting liquor to be sold, but providing that it shall not be drunk at this or that particular place, is imposing an impossibility which no governmental agency could execute. Make the sale legal and give the States power and right to set up a system for sale and distribution; make the drinking where sold illegal but give the Government which makes it illegal no power to execute its will or enforce its laws; that is the most consummate legal riddle yet devised by the genius of

Mr. REED. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it.

Mr. REED. What is the pending question?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The pending question is the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the Senator from Virginia [Mr. GLASs].

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I move to amend the substitute of the Senator from Virginia, on page 2, line 7, by striking out the word "The" and lines 8, 9, and 10, as follows: "The Congress and the several States, Territories, and possessions shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” I understand that the Senator from Virginia is not disposed to resist this suggestion.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. REED] to the amendment of the Senator from Virginia [Mr. GLASS].

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr. President, I shall object to denying the Federal Government the power to execute the mandate of the Constitution, and that is exactly what the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania proposes. The substitute of the Senator from Virginia, as now submitted, contemplates that there shall exist in the Federal Government the power to carry out the Constitution. The amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania denies jurisdiction in the Federal Government to execute the provisions of the Constitution.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The hour of 3 o'clock having arrived, the question is on the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania to the substitute of the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. REED. Let us have the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. BRATTON (when his name was called). Transferring my pair with the junior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HowELL] to the senior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. BRousSARD], I am at liberty to vote. I vote nay.”

Mr. WAGNER (when Mr. CoPELAND's name was called). I wish to announce that my colleague [Mr. CoPELAND] is necessarily absent because of the death of his father.

Mr. FESS (when his name was called). On this question I have a pair with the senior Senator from New York [Mr. CoPELAND]. I do not know how he would vote on the pending question. I therefore withhold my vote. Were I privileged to vote , I would vote nay.”

Mr. FRAZIER (when his name was called). On this question I have a pair with the junior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LoNG]. In his absence I withhold my vote. If I were permitted to vote, I would vote " nay.”

Mr. THOMAS of Idaho (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the junior Senator from Montana · [Mr. WHEELER]. Therefore I withhold my vote. If permitted to vote, I would vote " nay.”

The roll call was concluded.

Mr. FESS. I wish to announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. SwANsoN] has a general pair with the Senator from illinois [Mr. GLENN].

The result was announced-yeas 14, nays 70, as follows:

YEAS-14

Bingham La Follette Reed Tydings Brookhart Metcalf Reynolds Walsh, Mass. Fletcher Moses Shortridge Hebert Norris Trammell

NAY8-70

Ashurst Costigan Johnson Russell Austin Couzens Kean Schuyler Bailey Cutting Kendrick Sheppard Bankhead Dale Keyes Shipstead Barbour Davis King Smith . h Barkley Dickinson Lewis Smoot Black Dill Logan Steiwer Blaine George McGill Stephens Borah Glass McKellar Thomas, Okla. Bratton Goldsborough McNary Townsend Bulkley Gore Neely Vandenberg Bulow Grammer Norbeck Wagner Byrnes Hale Nye Walcott Capper Harrison Oddie Walsh, Mont. Caraway Hastings Patterson Watson Clark Hatfield Pittman White Connally Hayden Robinson, Ark. Coolidge Hull Robinson, Ind.

NOT VOTING-12

Broussard Fess Howell Swanson Carey Frazier Long Thomas, Idaho Copeland Glenn Schall Wheeler

So Mr. REED's amendment to Mr. GLAss's substitute was rejected.

Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I would like to offer an amendment to the substitute of the Senator from Virginia. On page 2. line 10, add a new sentence, as follows:

No national taxes shall be laid for collection against any intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes which shall be prohibited as a commodity in interstate commerce by the laws of Congress. I ask unanimous consent to have one minute to explain my amendment.

Mr. BORAH. I object.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Objection is made. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Maryland to the substitute of the Senator from Virginia.

The amendment was rejected.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the substitute of the Senator from Virginia [Mr. GLAss] for the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. BLAINE].

Mr. WATSON. Let us have the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered. •

SEVERAL SENATORS. Let the SUbstitute be read.

The VICE PRESIDENT. It will be read.

The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed to substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 211 the following:

Senate Joint Resolution 202

Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the eighteenth amendment

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when rati.fied by conventions in three-fourths of the several States:

"ARTICLE-

" SECTION 1. Article XVIII of the amendments to this Constitution is hereby repealed. The sale of intoxicating liquors within the United States or any territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for consumption at the place of sale (commonly known as a saloon), and the transportation of intoxicating liquors into any State, Territory, District, or possession of the United States in which the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors are prohibited by law, are hereby prohibited. The Congress and the several States, Territories. and possessions shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. "SEc. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress."

The VICE PRESIDENT. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the Secretary will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. BRATTON <when his name was called). Repeating the announcement of my pair and its transfer, I vote" nay."

Mr. WAGNER <when Mr. CoPELAND's name was called). I wish to announce that my colleague the senior Senator from New York [Mr. Col>ELAND] is absent because of the death of his father. If he were present and not paired, he would vote " nay.''

Mr. FESS (when his name was called).' Announcing my pair as before with the Senator from New York [Mr. CoPELAND], I wish to state that were I at liberty to vote I would vote " yea.” .

Mr. FRAZIER (when his name was called). On this question I have a pair with the junior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LoNG]. Not knowing how he would vote, I withhold my vote.

Mr. NORRIS (when Mr. HowELL's name was called). The junior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HowELL] is absent on official business of the Senate. He is paired with the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. BRATToN]. If my colleague [Mr. HowELL] were present and voting, on this question he would vote "yea."

Mr. THOMAS of Idaho (when his name was called). Making the same announcement as before, I withhold my vote. If permitted to vote, I would vote " nay.”

The roll call was concluded.

Mr. FESS. I wish to announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. SwANsoN] has a general pair with the Senator from Illinois [Mr. GLENN].

The result was announced-yeas 38, nays 46, as follows:

YEAB-38

Bankhead Gore Neely Shortridge Brookhart Grammer Norbeck Smoot Capper Hale Norris Steiwer Connally Hastings Nye Stephens Dale Hatfield Patterson Thomas, Okla. Dickinson Hayden Reed Townsend Dlll Keyes Robinson, Ind. Watson George Logan Russell White Glass McGill Schuyler Goldsborough McNary Sheppard

NAYs---46

Ashurst Byrnes Johnson Robinson, Ark. Austin Caraway Kean Ship stead Bailey Clark Kendrick Smith Barbour Coolidge King Trammell Barkley Costigan La Follette Tydings Bingham Couzens Lewis Vandenberg Black Cutting McKellar Wagner Blaine Davis Metcalf Walcott Borah Fletcher Moses Walsh, Mass. Bratton Harrison Oddie Walsh, Mont. Bulkley Hebert Pittman Bulow Hull Reynolds

NOT VOTING-12

Broussard Fess Howell Swanson carey Frazier Long Thomas, Idaho. Copeland Glenn Schall Wheeler

So Mr. GLASs's motion to substitute Senate Joint Resolution 202 for Senate Joint Resolution 211 was rejected.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I now offer the amendment which I have heretofore sent to the desk and ask that it may be read.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The amendment will be re­ Broussard ported.

The CHIEF CLERK. At the end of the joint resolution it is proposed to add a new section, as follows:

SEc. 3. The sale of distilled spirits for consumption at the place of sale shall not be permitted within the United States or any territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania to the amendment reported by the committee, as amended.

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

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, I should like to inquire what is the status of the motion which the Senator from Pennsylvania entered to reconsider the action taken yesterday by which section 3 was stricken out?

Mr. REED. If I may answer the Senator's inquiry, I will say that I entered the motion, but it has not yet been called up. However, if my amendment shall not be adopted, I will then make the motion to reconsider the action whereby the section referred to was stricken out.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. REED] to the amendment reported by the committee, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are demanded.

The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Chief Clerk proceeded to call ' the roll.

Mr. BRATTON (when his name was called). Repeating my announcement respecting my pair with the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HowELL] and its transfer to the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. BRoussARD], I am at · liberty to vote. I vote

Mr. FESS (when his name was called). Repeating my announcement of my pair with the senior Senator from New York [Mr. CoPELAND], I withhold my vote. If I were permitted to vote, I should vote " yea."

Mr. FRAZIER (when his name was called). On this amendment I have a pair with the junior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LoNG]. Not knowing how he would vote, I withhold my vote.

Mr. LOGAN (when his name was called). I have a pair with the junior Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Davis], who has not voted. I do not know how he would vote i! present, and, therefore, I withhold my vote. If I were permitted to vote, I should vote" yea."

Mr. THOMAS of Idaho. On this vote I have a pair with the junior Senator from Montana [Mr. WHEELER] therefore, withhold my vote. If permitted to vote, I should vote "nay."

The roll call was concluded.

Mr. NORRIS. I desire to announce that if my colleague the junior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HowELL] were present, on this question he would vote "yea." He is paired as has already been announced by the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. BRATTON].

The result was announced-yeas 37, nays 47, as follows: Bankhead Goldsborough Norbeck Smoot Brookhart Gore Norris Steiwer Capper Hale Nye Stephens Caraway Hastings Patterson Thomas, Okla. Connally Hayden Reed Townsend Costigan Keyes Robinson, Ind. Watson Dale McGlll Russell White Dill McNary Schuyler George Moses Sheppard Glass Neely Ship stead

NAYs---47

Ashurst Byrnes Hull Robinson. Ark. Austin Clark Johnson Shortridge Bailey Coolidge Kean Smith Barbour Couzens Kendrick Swanson Barkley Cutting King Trammell Bingham Dickinson La Follette Tydings Black Fletcher Lewis Vandenberg Blaine Glenn McKellar Wa g ner Borah Grammer Metcalf Walcott Bratton Harrison Oddie Walsh, Mass. Bulkley Hatfield Pittman Walsh, Mont. Bulow Hebert Reynolds

NOT VOTING-12

Davis Howell Schall

Carey Fess Logan Thomas , Idaho Copeland Frazier Long Wheeler

So Mr. REED's amendment to the amendment reported by the committee, as amended, was rejected.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I desire to submit an ~ . amendment to come in page 3, line 6, after the word "repealed." I hope that Senators will make reference to the joint resolution at that point.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma to the amendment reported by the committee, as amended, will be stated.

The CHIEF CLERK. On page 3, at the end of line 6, after the word "repealed," it is proposed to strike out the period and insert a comma and the following:

Except that no State shall authorize or permit the retail sale of distilled spirits for private profit, or by any private agency, corporation, or person.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. GoRE] to the amendment reported by the committee, as amended.

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

The yeas and nays were not ordered.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the sentiment of the Senate has been sufficiently shown, I think, to make it clear that there would be nothing gained by taking the time to vote on the motion to reconsider the action of the Senate in striking out section 3. Therefore, I will not make the motion.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The motion entered by the Senator from Pennsylvania is withdrawn.

Mr. WATSON. Mr. President, may I renew the motion?

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr. President, I rise to a point of order.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Under the unanimous-consent agreement under which the Senate . is proceeding, a vote on a motion to reconsider is not in order.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The unanimous-consent agreement limits the voting to amendments.

If there be no further amendments, the question is, Shall the joint resolution, as amended, be ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and read the third time?

The joint resolution, as amended, was ordered to be enand, grossed for a third reading and read the third time.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is, Shall the joint Patterson resolution pass?

Mr. BARKLEY and other Senators demanded the yeas and Reynolds nays, and they were ordered.

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll, and Mr. AsHURST voted in the affirmative.

Mr. MOSES. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it.

Mr. MOSES. May we not have the joint resolution read in the form in which it is now to be finally voted upon?

The VICE PRESIDENT. Let it be read.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr. President, that can be Carey done only by unanimous consent. I do not object if the Senator wishes to make the request but the rule provides that the roll call may not be interrupted.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the reading of the joint resolution?

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. I do not object.

Mr. COUZENS. I object.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Objection being made, the clerk will continue the calling of the roll.

The Chief Clerk resumed the calling of the roll.

Mr. WAGNER (when Mr. COPELAND's name was called). I desire to announce that my colleague [Mr. CoPELAND] is absent because of the death of his father. If he were present, he would vote" yea."

Mr. FESS (when his name was called). On this final vote I am paired with the Senator from New York [Mr. LAND] and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. BRoussARD]. Were these two Senators present, I understand that they would vote "yea." Were I at liberty to vote, I should vote

Mr. GEORGE (when his name was called). On this final vote the junior Senator from Montana [Mr. WHEELER] and I are paired with the junior Senator from Idaho [Mr. THoMAs]. If the Senator from Montana were present, he would vote " yea.” If I were permitted to vote, I would vote "yea," and if the junior Senator from Idaho were at liberty to vote he would vote " nay.”

Mr. NORRIS (when Mr. HowELL's name was called). As previously stated, my colleague [Mr. HowELL] is absent on official business of the Senate. He is paired on this question with the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Carry] and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONGl. If my colleague were present and at liberty to vote on this question, he would vote "nay," and I understand that the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Louisiana would vote " yea."

Mr. THOMAS of Idaho (when his name was called). On this question I have a pair with the junior Senator from Montana [Mr. WHEELER] and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. GEORGE]. I am informed that if they were at liberty to vote they would vote "yea," and if I were at liberty to vote I should vote " nay.”

Mr. WALSH of Montana (when Mr. WHEELER's name was called). My colleague [Mr. WHEELER] is detained on account of illness. His pair on this question has already been announced.

The roll call was concluded.

Mr. SlllPSTEAD. My colleague [Mr. SCHALL] is unavoidably absent from the Senate. If present, he would vote

Mr. FESS. I desire to announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Carry] is absent ori the business of the Senate.

Mr. SHEPPARD. The Senators from Louisiana [Mr. BRousSARD and Mr. LoNG J are detained on official business. The roll call resulted-yeas 63, nays 23, as follows:

YEAS--63

Ashurst Bulow Glenn Keyes Austin " Byrnes Grammer King Bailey Clark Hale La Follette Bankhead Connally Harrison Lewis Barbour Coolidge Hastings McKellar Barkley Couzens Hayden McNary Bingham Cutting Hebert Metcalf Black Davis Hull Moses Blaine Dill Johnson Neely Bratton Fletcher Kean Nye Bulkley Frazier Kendrick Oddie

Russell Trammell Walsh, Mass.

Pittman Shipstead Tydings Walsh, Mont. Reed Shortridge Vandenberg Watson

Smith Wagner White

Robinson. Ark. SWanson Walcott

NAYS-23

Borah Dickinson McGill Smoot Brookhart Glass Norbeck Steiwer Capper Goldsborough Norris Stephens Caraway Gore Robinson, Ind. Thomas, Okla. Costigan Hatfield Schuyler Townsend Dale Logan Sheppard

NOT VOTING-10

Broussard Fess Long Thomas. Idaho

George Schall Wheeler

Copeland Howell

The VICE PRESIDENT. On this question the yeas are 63, the nays are 23. More than two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the joint resolution is passed.

Senate Joint Resolution 211, as passed, is as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following " article 1s hereby proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by conventions in threefourths of the several States:

“ARTICLE

"SECTION 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

" SEc. 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, 1s hereby prohibited.

" SEc. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States. as provided in the Constitution. within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.”

Mr. SHIPSTEAD. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the RECORD a telegram from my colleague [Mr. SCHALL) to his secretary relative to his position on this question.

There being no objection, the telegram was ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows: MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., February 16, 1933.