r rnrf-fq!FierW
The Commoner
VOL. 18.. NO. 10
10,
r
i' "
not pulling tlio cat's tall, I am just holding tho
tell, tho oav Is dojng tho pulling." I am not
disturbing, iho, harmony of ray party. It 1b tho
wot democrat who is disturbing tho harmony of
the domoqrattc party.
When ratification hogan eight democratic
statoa voted, for ratification hoforo a slnglo re
publican stato ratified and of tho fourteen that
have now voted for ratification ton of them cast
their electoral votos for Woodrow Wilson two
yoars ago. Don't call tho democratic party a
whiskey party any moro. If our parties are to
share equally in furnishing tho thirty-six states
nccosoary for ratification thon our share is
olghtoon and tho republicans' share eighteen.
Wo havo furnished ton of our eighteen and tho
republicans havo furnished only four of thoirs
and wo havo thirteen moro that aro suro to
ratify. If only thirty-six slutos ratify we will
havo flvo moro than our half. Isn't that a protty
good rocord for the democratic party, my
frlonds? Tho situation is oven hotter than that,
It is not only posslblo for the democrats to in
voko tho rulo of tho majority In bohalf of pro
hibition, but tho republicans can also. When
this quostiou was submitted tho republicans o
tho Sonato gave ovon a largor porcentago than
we did In favor of prohibition. Wo wore throe
to ono and they woro flvo moro than throo to
ono. In tho IIouso wo had two-thirds and they
had two-thirds, but wo had just a little larger
porcontago than thoy had. Now, that is tho re
cord. ARGUMENTS OP ADVOCATES OF SALOON
HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY
Wo havo also taken away the arguments be
hind which tho advocates of tho saloon used to
hido. I will glvo you tho only argument you
have hoard In ton years from any man who
wan tod to bo considered respectable. You havo
all hoard it. Tho man would bogin by saying:
"If by my vote I could drivo out tho saloon I
would bo tho first ono to voto for prohibition,
but you cannot enforce prohibition, and as pro
hibition cannot bo onforcod I would rathor havo
a well regulated saloon than a prohibition law
unenforced," Isn't that tho argument that you
have hoard? That is tho only argument within
rocont yoars. H cannot bo raado any more.
First, wo havo tho th'ng now that thoy said thoy
would Ulro to havo. They said Jf thoy could wlpo
ft out of tho United States that thoy gladly do
Jr u ll ?8 lh0 cllftnc to wipe it out of tho
United States. When prohib'tion was to bo votod
on in a town thoy said, "If wo havo prohibition
in our town thoy will havo another wet town
near and we will havo to take caro of our drunks
when thoy come back, and wo will not havo any
license foes." Is not that what they said? And
then when county option was to bo voted on
thoy said, "If wo make our county dry there will
bo a county noar whore it will bo wet." if you
said, 'how about state prohibition," they said,
"if wo have state prohibition there will bo a wet
state near." Now, my friends, wo aro going to
have a nation dry and no wot nation near
So wd havo tho very condition now that'thev
have been hoping for if what thoy said wS trio
More than that, wo now have laws that onubTo
lis to enforce prohibition, as we could not do it
a few years ago. For instance, we have the
Wobb-Kenyon law that enlarged tho ower of
tho state; and, strange to say, tho very men
m which used to say that prohibition could not bo
enforced - that thoy would bo for It it it could
were opposed to tho Wobb-Kenyon law that el
n?Ml tUo ll0VfQr of thG stto to enforce pro
hibition, and what was-their objection' Thoy
said it would "Interfere with interstate com
mprco," that it would "violate the federal onT
StUutlon,;' and men which had never risen'
tho dignity of a justice of the peace a t-l 1
WoBsomed out Into constitutional klwyora n
Washington when thoy defended the liquor i -torests,
I havo found that tho most Xniflod
and respectable argument a man can make who
ho is ashamed to give his roal reason is the nn
constitutionality argument, but in spite of aU
t.ho pathetic pleas of saloon representatives for
tho constitution Congress passed tho law n!
then thQ liquor interests rushed to the White
House and domanded that the Presdent si oniS
save the constitution. Tho President callecl
a New York attorney general and that amy
general wrote an opinion saying that the law
was unconstitutional and the President nZ
Mr. taft, rolled upon Attorney General Wicker,
sham's opinion and votoed that law as unZ
atitutional, but it passed in spite of his veto
Then, the liquor interests appealed to the"
Suproino Court and said, "For Heaven's sake
don't let Congress tramplo on a sacrod. document
liko the constitution pf tho United States." Tho
Court gave it very serious consideration, and
then, by a majority of seven to two, held that
this law was constitutional, and, in order to
save thomselves any further annoyance, thoy
added that tho saloons havo no constitutional
rights in tho United States.
And so wo havo tho Webb-Konyon law, and
wo havo tho amendment to tho post-office ap
propriation b'll thajt puts tho federal govern
ment into partnership with the state when the
state goes dry. It provides that, when the stato
prohibits the manufacture and sale of liquor,
tho instrumentalities of interstate, commerce
cannot bo used to carry tho liquor in from tho
outs'do.
That provision has brought up somo very in-?
tcresting questions. I was in, Nebraska a short
time ago and talked with a United States district
attorney thoro. He told me about a case recent
ly decided there. They found ten gallons of
alcohol that had been brought from Missouri
and arrested tho man and woman in whoso
house tho alcohol was found. Thoy set up as
thoir defense that thoy had read in a newspaper
that if you would give alcohol to a sow with
llttlo pigs it would make tho sow good to her
pigs. Our judge is a very conscientious man and
he did not want to do injustice to a man and
woman who woro trying to take caro of poor
little pigs. So he examined the authorities very
carefully and could not find a case in point, not
a single case, where a sow was even remotely
connected with alcohol and ho had to fall back
on common sense and analogy. He decided that
until further informed ho would hold- that -as
investigation had demonstrated the fact that
alcohol does not make a father good to his chil
dren, it would not make a sow good' to liei
pigs.
Wo havo also tho law against advertising. Tho
law says that whenever a state prohibits the'
advertising of intoxicating liquor in tho state
the mails shall not carry any advertisements of.
liqtior into tho state from the outside.
Now, that is amore important lawjthan ,you
would imagine. Qne of the reasons why we have
never been able to find out the truth about
states where they had prohibition is that the'
liquor interests havo hired the press to lie about
tho conditions in'their own states. Not that they
would pay any Editor so much a lie. Oh, no,
They pay him so much a line for advertising
space. That is, they would hire spaco in which
to advertise the claims of an intoxicating liquor
and then the advertisements would be put on
tho back of the editorial page and left standing
long enough to soak through to the other side
and color the editorial opinion of the paper
Wo havo these three laws now, the Webb
Kenyon law, the post-office appropriation bill
amendment and tho law against advertising, and
we aro enforcing these laws.
SUCCESS OF PROHIBITION IN LARGE CITIES
OF THE COUNTRY
Would you suppose that a great mountain
city could have prohibition? It can. Denver dhi
not think so when the stato went dry. Denver
voted no when tho stato voted yes. But ten
months after prohibition went into effect Denver
had a chance to voto on a proposition to brine
beer -not whiskey, but just beer back into
the state, and Denver voted fourteen thousand
majority against allowing beer to, come back
into Colorado, ffhat was Denver's experience
And Seattle. Can a sea port town enter
prohibition? Seattle is a great sea port. Seattle
d d not think It would be good to have prohi
bition and so voted wet when tho state voted
tZ n m aftGr SeattlQ lmtl had tim to see what
prohibition meant Seattlo by a large malor!?v
voted against allowing liquor to come bTck in 0
Washington. That was Seattle's experience
Can a manufacturing town have prohibition'
Birmingham, Alabama, is a great manXcturtns
ouut a city jail, a big one on plans suited to r
saloon city, but soon after they finished tZil
jail the state went dry and they found cdm
so decreased that they did not need t eir w
jail and so when wo entered the war Birming
ham offered her empty jail to the United states
expertenc1"18 "" That S BilS
Prohibition can prohibit. Thoy havo told von
that Kansas does not enforce the law. Do vo
suppose there is a city that knows better what
thoy do in Kansas than Kansas City. Yet KansM
City voted for stato prohibition two years So
and when she did so sho was tho biggest cfty
in the world that had over voted to drive salnn
out. That is what Kansas City did. If Kans!!
City can take the side of prohibition you Ci
bettor take it also or else tako the word Saint
off of your name and just call it Joseph.
Prohibition can bo enforced and prohibition
is being enforced. You cannot say now that you
would vote for It "only prohibition cannot be
enforced." Yes, we havo now destroyed all tho
old arguments behind which people used to hide
They used to say that -you where violating
personal liberty, that a man's personal liberty
required the saloon. Well, you don't hear any
more of that now. A man does not have to bo
run over more than twice by a drunken chauf
feur to get an entirely now iflea of personal
liberty. Another stock argument was: "How
can you run tlie government without tho money
collected on beer and whiskey?" That, too, is
answered. A nation that can borrow nine billion
dollars of its citizens in a single year Is not
compelled to dicker with a criminal business for
money to run the government. And tho war
has taught us the value of a 'human life. Our
boys aro too precious to be auctioned off to the
saloon in return for license fees or Jiquor tax.
OLD EXCUSES OF LIQUOR FORCES HAVE
LOST THEIR FASCINATION
We have, I repeat, overthrown tho old excuses
that they used north and south. Up north here
they would say you must not interfere with
interstate commerce and down south they would
say you. must not interfere with state rights.
When I wa3 a boy I used to bo greatly interested
in the Punch and Judy show. I would look on
with open-eyed wonder as Punch and Judy
would quarrel-and fight, but when I was old
enough to know that the same voice spoke
through, both the fascination disappeared and I
was never interested in a Punch and Judy show
again until a few years ago when the brewers
PUt on the real Bunch, and Judy show.- They had
two groups of men, one up north and one down
south. Whenever an attempt was made to en
large, tho- power "of the- state to enforce prohibi
tion the group up north would shout "you must
not interfere, with interstate commerce," and
whenever,, an attempt ,was made to secure na
tional prohibition the group gwyn. south would
shout "you must not intenore wjthr, state's
rights." "
Well, my friends, it makes me think of,tfi
story I once heard. A ventriloquist went into
a saloon, leading a dog by a-string. He called
for a, glass of beer, the dog said: "Give me a
sandwich.' "When the saloon keeper heard the
voice coming from ,tho dog he said: "Can that
dog talk?" "Didn't you hear him?" replied the
owner. "Will you Sell him? I think I can use
him in my business," asked the man behind the
bar. "If you will give me my price," answered
the owner. "How much do you want?" "One
hundred1 dollars." "I .will take him," and lie
counted out the hundred dollars and handed the
money over to the owner of the dog and the
owner turned over tho string to the saloon
keeper and started out. When he reached tho
door he turned and made tho dog say: "What,
are you going to sell me?" "Yes," he replied,
and the dog said: "I will never speak again."
My friends, Jn eighteen months from today
tho volco will be gone and the saloon politician
north and south will never speak again.
They have no more excuses. If any man wants
to voto against prohibition now he might just
as well take off the mask, stand out in the open
and admit that ho is voting for the saloon be
cause he wants the saloon.
PATRIOTIC REASONS FORCED CONSIDERA
TION OF EVILS-OF. LIQUOR
But, my friends, I now come to 'the patriotic
reasons that have come to us with 'this year.
Prohibition would have won anyhow. Prohibi
tion ivas rapidlygaining even before war came
across tho sea. The war began over there on
the first of August, 1914, but we had already
submitted, prohibition in four states that went
dry in November, 1914, and then four moro
went dry in 19 1G. Before our nation entered
this war wo had gone far enough to know that
the triumph of prohibition was not. far away,
but when wo entered this conflict, the war
threw a ghastly light on the evils of intemper
ance. We found that the saloon which was bad
in peace was worse in war and we have seen
prohibition hastened by the fact that we under
stand alcohol better now; we see what it means
to a nation under stress and strain. A year ago
Congress declaredly law that no more bread
stuff stibuld be converted into whiskey, and
-24
, J.X. t
