r-vTP(-wwjr -?-
The Commoner
FEBRUARY, 1917
9
Bishop of Tucson on Prohibition in Arizona
Below will be found a statement recently
published in the Fortnightly Review, giving the
views of the Rt. Rev. Henry Granjon, Bishop of
Tucson, Arizona. Special attention La called to
this article, because the bishop, as will bo seen,
opposed the law as originally passed. The fea
ture which ho opposed has been modified and he
recognized the good prohibition has done and is
likely to do. Ed. ,
Prohibition, as enacted into law in this state,
has proved rather beneficial, all things duly
considered. It has done away with the saloon
evil, and that alpne weighs 75 per cent in the.
balance. With us the saloon -was, beyond the
shadow of a doubt, an unmitigated evil. It was
the bane of this young, struggling common
wealth. Every man and woman who voted dry
had chiefly in view the extermination of the sa
loon. It has been closed tight, and all hope and
pray that it will stay"closed. Our people take
tho view that local option is only a half-measure,
of little, value, and somewhat inconsistent. If
good, the lesser of two evils, they reason that it
should apply throughout the state; and if it is
an undesirable move, they contend that this also
applies to every community. They look upon
local option as a mere makeshift, dodging tho
real issue, and according more weight to the
preference of local aggregations for the lower
interests of life, than to tho high, moral worth
of the movement, for the benefit of the people
at large.
In Arizona, Prohibition has prohibited, not
absolutely, to be sure, but to a very apprecia-m-extent.
From the laboring class it has taken
away the ever-present temptation, and many a
laborer, burdened with "a largo family, is glad
that he has been made to learn, of necessity if
not of his own choice, the boon of sobriety.
Hence an increase of comforts in the home, of
self-respect, of genuine family happiness and
peace, and on the whole of law-abiding citizenry.
In view of these good effects of prohibition, the
majority of the people are perfectly satisfied
with it. The price paid for the abolition of tho
saloon, in the form of an increased taxation, is
pro-rated among all classes, and is willingly ac
cepted. Where an untoward aftermath of the measure
was felt, is in certain side issues, such as gen
eral business depression, which followed hard
upon the heels of prohibition, although this
may have been more of a coincidence than any
thing else, and if remains to be seen whether,
after prohibition has become a fixture and a
habit, a strong reaction will not set in, to the
ultimate benefit and satisfaction of all concerned.
Again, prohibition lias begotten the bootlegger,
and probably bootlegging, like smuggling, is
one of those things that will ever be among us.
But the worst features of bootlegging, sternly
run down as it is by the officers of the law and
necessarily limited, do not begin to compare
with the far-reaching injury caused by the open
door, licensed saloon. It has also be.en stated
that prohibition has increased the number of
drug fiends. However this may be, the evil has
not reached the extent where it could materially
affect the issue.
The worst feature of the Arizona prohibiten
law, and the one which caused me at the time
to instruct my 'priests to discourage voting for
It. was its disregard of the sacW rights of the
church to use fermented wine fortfiiecUrebration
of the Mass, and consequently to import it into
the state. I took, care to warn the promoters
of prohibition of the standing of the church in
the matter, and of our determination to fight nil
and every form of prohibition that failed to pro
file an exemption on this score. Attention was
also called by the medical and other liberal pro
fessions' to the advisability of allowing an ex
emption in favor of alcohol for medicinal and
sc entific purposes. The prohibitionists were
nn , i n framlne a drastic law that would leave
no loophole of any sort or shape for infringe
. "t'an(1 they simply waived aside our repre
ss 8 by alleKing that the priests could
nil: 8raPe-Juice and the scientists would find
itntSime 8ubstftute for medicinal alcohol, This
nr win ? Was fortunately encouraged by im
IneTnS ?nd -advised utterances from lectur-
b priests (one of them "did" Arizona recent-
7t'uu, G? bout th0 cowntry advocating pro
hibition of tho most uncompromising type, and
going so far as to say that it is up to tho church
to substitute grapo-Juico for fermented wino for
the Mass. This from tho mouth of Catholic
clergymen; our separated friends have at least
the excuso of lack of information in those mat
ters. And I belicvo I can say, so far as Arizona
is concerned, tho thought of slighting or mak
ing little of tho Catholic religion never entered
their minds. As a matter of fact, while some of
my parish priests needing altar wino found
themselves disbarred from using tho common
carriers, as these were prohibited by law to ac
cept interstate shipments of alcoholic products,
they secured wine for Mass in whatever manner
they could without tho least molestation. In
so doing, however, there remained tho grievous
and most distasteful fact that these priests woro
placed in tho necessity of proceeding, technical
ly, in violation of the letter of the law.
These anomalies have now been corrected, by
a recent decision of the state supreme court, and
the common carriers accept shipments of liquor
for "personal use." A new prohibition amend
ment is about to be introduced, through tho in
itiative process, which would abolish the per
sonal privilege, but will grant an exemption for
sacramental and scientific purposes.
In conclusion I would say, speaking for this
section of the country as specified at the start,
I can not but stand in favor of prohibition in so
far as, and precisely because it appears to bo tho
only available means at present to stamp tho un
speakable saloon out of existence. Together
with a majority of my people I believe that on
the whole this is decidedly a blessing. That the
same result could eventually bo attained, and
temperance efficiently promoted by methods less
drastic and more in accord with human nature
than prohibition in its extreme form, seems not
Improbable. The principle of personal use un
der proper regulations, being an inherent right
of every human being, might bo respected. Tho
law might content itself with prohibiting highly
spirituous liquors, or taxing them so as to make
them prohibitive, and permitting only very light
wines and very light beers. Punishment for
drunkenness could be made so severe as to prove
remedial and a deterrent. Whatever ways and
means might be devised, so long as they avoided
extremes and struck tho just medium, woujd
probably in the long run bring the people nearer
to the reform sought than a system of coercion.
However, as things stand there is no choice, and
prohibition, with all its faults and flaws, seems
to me a worthy cause. The experiment is worth
while even if only partially successful. As to
the many, very many, thank God, who know how
to use nature's gifts as God intended them to be
used, .and who honor their manhood by their
self-control and habits of moderation, the sac
rifice asked of them is one of Christian renounce
ment and brotherly love, well worth generous
acceptance for the, sake of the vast throng of
weaker fellowmen who, as it seems, can be saved
from themselves only by the use of the strong
arm of the law. After everything has been said
pro and con, so long as our constitutional re
ligious rights are not trespassed upon, we as
Catholics, children of saints, may well afford to
join the crusade of our times, and let our. ex
ample shine before the world, .that God and His
church may be glorified. r
AMENDMENT FOR NATIONAL PROHIBITION
IrcHhe house of representatives, December 22,
1916, Representative Martin A. Morrison of In
diana introduced the following joint resolution
proposing an amendment to the constitution of
the United States:
"Resolved by the senate and house of repre
sentatives of the United States of America in m
congress assembled (two-thirls of each house
concurring therein), That the following amend
ment to the constitution be, and hereby is, pro
posed to the states, to become valid as a part of
the constitution when ratified by the legislatures
of the severa,l states as provided by the constitu
tion: , L
"Section 1. That the manufacture, trans
portation, importation, sale, barker, exchange,
gift, or other disposition of intoxicating liquors '
for beverage purposes In the United States and
all torritory subject to the Jurisdiction thoroof,
and tho exportation thereof, aro forever prohih
ltcd.
"Sec. 2. That the soveral states within their
rospectivo Jurisdictions shall havo power to
enact all needful legislation for tho enforcement
of so much of section ono horeof as rolates to
tho manufacture, iutrastato transportation, sale,
barter, exchange, gift, or othor disposition of in
toxicating liquors; and it shall bo tho duty of
tho congress to enact all noodful legislation for
.tho enforcement of all othor provisions of said
section one.
"Sec. 3. That this artlclo shall not be
deemed or construed to affect any power no
vested in tho several statos In rolation to Intox
icating liquors for other thun boverago pur.
poses."
PIIOIIIIUTION A SUCCESS
A' traveling man of wido experienco writos as
follows, of the prohibition law of tho west and
tho effect-of tho law:
"Before I loft San Francisco I dotormlned to
investigate very thoroughly, conditions which
exist now In tho cities of Portlnnd, Ore., also
Seattle, Tucoma and Spokane, Warni-nuton,
compared to conditions which existed beforo tho
states of Oregon and Washington went dry; as
affecting the individual and tho business peoplo.
Pleaso permit mo to state that I Interviewed
the principal business people In oach of tho
cities referred to, and-1 do not heiitnto to state,
that without a singlo exception, every ono of
them stated to mo that they did not believe that
they could overestimate tho groat benefit which
these states referred to had dcrlvod from havlnr
gone dry.
"They statod that the families of all of tho
working peoplo aro very much better provided
for, and that all of the small merchants, whoso
stores arc situated in the parts of the different
cities where the working people reside, stato.
without oxooptlon, that neroru tno states re
ferred to went dry, that the working peoplo vlr-.
tually all owed them bills, which would lap from
time to time, and were never paid up In tull, and
that now thoy pay their, bills promptly, and
havo paid up all of their old bills, and that thoy
are doing a larger and raoro profitable business
than ever before.
"The large, representative merchants In theso
different cities referred to, state that tho de
posits in all of the savings banks have Increased
very materially. They state also that tho busi
ness of all of the large department stores shows
a decided Increase, which thoy attribute to tho
fact that the families of the working men havo
more money to spend.
"Theso representative morchants also statp
that the same condition of tilings applies virtu
ally to every small city and town throughout tho
states referred to.
"The writer trusts that you may live to see
prohibition put into law in every stato In the
Union, which you are so earnestly working to
accomplish, and that you may have the satis
faction of realizing this within the next- few
years, the same as you have lived to see put in--to
law during the last four years, the many
things which you have fought for so hard, be
ginning with 89G."
Tho states of Iowa, South Dakota and Ne
braska all went dry duringVlliG Ia3t year. When
the issue of whether salodna should bo permit
ted In the District of Columbia was before the '
senate recently boUh of the Iowa senators and
both of the South Dakota senators, believing
that they were sent to Washington to repre
sent the sentiment of their people on moral
questions also, voted for prohibition. Senator
Norris of Nebraska, whose, state went 30,000
dry In November, also voted for prohibition in
the district. Senator Hitchcock, of Nebraska,
alone of the six senators voted against it.
Having clone their best to have the Webb--fCenyon
law declared unconstitutional, the rep-
resentatives of the liquor interests are now
saying Uiat the decision AGAINST tho SALOON
makes national prohibition unnecessary. Would
they have admitted that a decision against the
law would have made national prohibition
necessary? No, they simply try to play ths
state against the nation and the nation against
thd state. .H
