Money No Object

Forecast, not enacted, last week was a doubling and a more than doubling of each and every U. S. citizen's income tax. For the enemies of Prohibition had occasion to demonstrate that adequate enforcement would cost a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) a year. And the friends and promoters of Prohibition had every reason to assure each other that--cost what it might --Congress would vote all monies needed for this cause.

Meanwhile, by debate, by letter, by whisper, by everything except precise calculation, the official and unofficial agencies of U. S. Government were attempting to fix exactly what should be spent to enforce its most famed law in fiscal 1930. The question was completely devoid of definitions but was pungently involved with politics, sentiment, vanity, religion, and a dozen characters, of which the most distinguished were the President of U. S. and the President-Elect.

The question was precipitated by a jest. Many weeks ago Maryland's bumbling Bruce moved in the Senate that 270 millions, in addition to the customary 13 million dollars, be voted for Federal enforcement. Since Senator Bruce detests Prohibition, his motion was deemed ironic. However, as the irony was labored, it was also painful. After enduring for many days the taunts of the Wets, a Democratic Senator from Georgia, who is usually harmless, but who is a passionate Dry, arose and said, yes, more money ought to be appropriated to Prohibition, but let it be the reasonable sum of 25 millions, to be spent as Secretary of the Treasury Mellon saw fit. This was the Harris Amendment.* Supported by all Dry Democrats and some Republi cans, it was altered slightly, passed and sent to the House of Representatives for concurrence. The Administration (i.e., President Coolidge and Regular Republicans) controls the House, and it was promptly stated that the House would throw out the Harris amendment. Or, if it did not, the President would veto it. How now? Is the Administration wet?

The story of the Harris Amendment must now leave the halls of the Capitol and be resumed in a building across the park. There an ancient office equipped with a creaking rolltop desk is proclaimed by a weather-worn sign on second story windows:

ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE OF AMERICA.

No Prohibition legislation can be or ever has been enacted without advice and consent (and usually whipping) from this office. There ruled the late great Wayne B. Wheeler (heavy-lensed glasses and crooked mouth). There reigns now his successor F. Scott McBride, General Superintendent and Legislative Representative of the League.

The Harris Amendment was not a part of the League's plan. It had come up suddenly as the solemn rebuke to a joke. Since it gave a fortune to Secretary Mellon, Mr. Mellon had written a letter about it. And Mr. Mellon had said he didn't want the money. Enforcement, wrote he, needed study. Ways must be found to perfect coast guarding, to relieve court congestion (at present 21,000 cases await trial), to improve enforcement personnel. Mr. McBride looked over this letter and was inclined to agree with it.

But Superintendent McBride is not the power that was Superintendent Wheeler. The League is essentially a religious organization. Mr. McBride is a minister who, after education at Muskingum College, had several obscure pastorates before beginning his unsensational rise in the League's service. There are other anti-salooning ministers more powerful than he. Principally there are two Methodist Bishops -- Nicholson of Detroit, Cannon of Virginia.

Thomas Nicholson, born in Canada less than 70 years ago, rose through years of bible teaching to be titular head -- President -- of the League.

James Cannon Jr., many years ago, pinned upon his mother's breast her only jewel (the white emblem of Prohibition) and laid her to rest and dedicated his life to her battle against alcohol. No mean gen eral, he could fight on two fronts, upward in the church, onward against politicians. Both battles culminated last year in un qualified personal victory. In politics, he undermined the Byrd better-government organization in Virginia, which endorsed the Wet Smith, and put the State in the Republican columns. For this activity he was declared last week to be the man who had done most for Religion in the U. S. (see p. 34).

It was Bishop Cannon who pounced upon Secretary Mellon's letter, and with a tone of authority which electricity clearly recorded, despatched a long telegram, in part as follows: "Hon. Morris Sheppard, Senate Chamber.

"Kindly read this open telegram to Secretary Mellon at Senate session today:

"Hon. Andrew Mellon, Secretary Treasury, Washington.

"We are amazed at your failure to recognize great dissatisfaction with inadequacy of present program and to grasp eagerly opportunity presented by proposed appropriation for immediate development of more adequate program.

"Why cannot appropriation be made subject to such distribution as the Secretary of the Treasury may determine after thorough investigation; part for Coast Guard, part for customs, part especially for Canadian border; part for doubling or trebling present field force, increasing salaries to induce higher type men to apply for this responsible and hazardous work; part for more thorough, stringent surveillance of breweries and distilleries to prevent illegal distribution of high-powered beer and diversion of industrial alcohol; part for intensive, nation-wide education campaign, employing best talent to prepare accurate, striking posters and circulars emphasizing danger to individuals and to society of use of intoxicants, also the physical, economic, personal and social benefits of abstinence and prohibition, appealing to patriotic citizenship to abandon and discourage self-indulgent, demoralizing lawlessness.

"It will be difficult for the average citizen to believe that there is much zeal and eagerness on the part of the Secretary of the Treasury to secure adequate enforcement if he refuses this opportunity to develop and carry out an adequate program.

"Speaking for those whom we represent, we respectfully request prompt reconsideration and earnest support of the proposed appropriation. Otherwise the questions inevitably arise. First, Does the Treasury Department sincerely desire efficient enforcement? Second, Is it unable to develop an adequate program?

(signed) JAMES CANNON Jr.,

Chairman.

EUGENE L. CRAWFORD, Secretary Board of Temperance and Social Service, Methodist Episcopal Church South.

Bishop THOMAS NICHOLSON, President Anti-Saloon League."

To this Mr. Mellon replied, rehearsing with patient care his objections to receiving money in such a loose and unbudgeted manner. The Senate altered the Harris Amendment by offering the money to the President, not the Secretary of the Treasury; then quickly and obediently passed it. By this time, of course, Superintendent McBride was loudly concurring with the Bishops.

But now the strategy was clear. The League insists that the great issue in the Hoover-Smith election was Prohibition-- with Hoover winning principally (although not entirely) because of his stout stand against liquor. As everyone knows, Mr. Hoover is a great organizer. Floods, foods, waterways, foreign trade--he can, by reputation, organize anything, solve any practical question. Therefore he can solve the enforcement problem--and he is obligated to do so.

The one requisite to the solution of the typically Hoover type of problem is money. If he fails to solve enforcement, his best alibi would be lack of money. Therefore, the one paramount concern of the League is to see that President Hoover gets all the money he wants. Hence, as soon as the money issue was raised, Bishop Cannon saw the necessity of getting Congress on record as willing to vote vast sums for enforcement even before the Administration asked for them. How much more, then, will it vote vast sums when President Hoover does ask for them.

The Harris Amendment was, then, essentially a challenge to Herbert Hoover. Bishop Cannon was in effect saying, through Congress: "Investigate Prohibition. Make a plan. Money is no object. With whatever sums you need, it is up to you to dry the U. S."

This strategy had already been foreshadowed by Superintendent McBride who said in Colliers: "We look forward to Mr. Hoover's Presidency. We expect that prohibition enforcement will reach its highest efficiency during the coming four years. We believe in Mr. Hoover and believe that he is wholly conscious of this mandate of the Drys.

"We believe that if we are mistaken in this, if this high point in enforcement is not reached within the coming four years, that Mr. Hoover is going to be painfully embarrassed four years hence.

"And we, the Drys, will be painfully embarrassed, too. It will mean that we have been remiss or perhaps negligent."

And, of course, in this strategy all Democrats were willing to concur -- since it may put Mr. Hoover in a hole.

*It was an Amendment to the regular Deficinecy Bill which includes a lot of miscellaneous items for the current conduct of the Government.