142 Words

We favor the repeal of the 18th Amendment.

To effect such repeal, we demand that the Congress immediately propose a Constitutional amendment to truly representative conventions in the States called to act solely on that proposal.

We urge the enactment of such measures by the several States as will actually promote temperance, effectively prevent the return of the saloon and bring the liquor traffic into the open under complete supervision and control by the States.

We demand that the Federal Government effectively exercise its power to enable those states to protect themselves against importation of intoxicating liquors in violation of their laws.

Pending repeal, we favor immediate modification of the Volstead Act to legalize the manufacture and sale of beer and other beverages of such alcoholic content as is permissible under the Constitution and to provide therefrom a proper and needed revenue.

"I am simply gibbering with excitement," cried Mrs. Charles Hamilton Sabin, chairman of the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform, when she read this platform plank, adopted (934-to-213) by the Democratic National Convention in Chicago last week. It had been framed by a minority of the Resolutions subcommittee, later changed into a majority report of the whole committee which turned its back on a proposal only slightly less Wet.

Comparison. The Republican Prohibition plank adopted three weeks ago caused no one, Wet or Dry, to gibber with excitement. Its 526 words contained a cautious compromise and a large loophole. Like the Democratic plank it shunned the saloon. Like the Democratic plank it provided Federal protection for Dry States and proposed resubmission of the liquor issue by Congress to State conventions "truly representative."

Unlike the Democratic plank it specifically released party members as individuals from supporting Repeal or even Resubmission. Unlike the Democratic plank it did not call for immediate legalization of beer. Unlike the Democratic plank it proposed, rather than simple Repeal of the 18th Amendment, substitution of a new amendment redefining liquor's status in the nation. The tortuous Republican language was: "A proposed amendment the provision of which, while retaining in the Federal Government power to preserve the gains already made in dealing with the evils inherent in the liquor traffic, shall allow States to deal with the problem as their citizens may determine, but subject always to the power of the Federal Government to protect those States where Prohibition may exist and safeguard our citizens everywhere from the return of the saloon and attendant abuses."

Procedure. Having gotten a thumbs-down on the 18th Amendment from the Democrats and at least a thumbs-sideways from the Republicans, last week Wets made ready the next steps toward wrenching Prohibition from the Federal statute books. Mrs. Sabin's sisterhood was to meet at Roslyn, L. I. July 7 to decide which Presidential candidate it would support. The Crusaders, the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment and the United Repeal Council were to meet later for a like purpose. There are 33 Senatorial elections ahead in November and 435 Representatives to be campaigned for or against before the first step intended by both parties is taken. If a Democratic majority is returned to Congress in November, the method of procedure must follow this line:

Step No. 1. A resolution in Congress similar to the one introduced last week by Representative Loring M. Black of New York, as follows: "Resolved, that the Secretary of State be directed to immediately communicate with the Governors of the several States, directing them to call at once conventions of delegates elected by the voters of the several States to ratify the following resolution: The 18th Amendment to the Constitution is hereby repealed."

If two-thirds of both national chambers adopt this resolution, Step No. 2 will be up to the 48 Governors.

Step No. 2. Each Governor would recommend to his Legislature that a day be set and appropriations be made for a special election of delegates to a Constitutional convention. State laws would determine the apportionment of representation at these conventions, the like of which have never been held in U. S. history, all Constitutional amendments heretofore having been ratified by the Legislatures, at Congress' direction. Thus a fresh series of local Wet-Dry fights must be fought since Wets consider that present apportionments of representation in many Legislatures vastly favor the rural (normally Dry) populace, and the proposed conventions are to be, the national parties agree, "truly representative."

Step No. 3. When the State conventions assembled they would elect chairmen who would put one question to the floor: To repeal or not to repeal. Each delegate would vote yes or no according to whether he had been chosen to represent Wets or Drys. Each chairman would report the result of the vote to his Legislature, which would forward it through the Governor to the U. S. Secretary of State.

Step No. 4. If three-fourths of the States thus signified that they wished the 18th Amendment repealed, it would automatically be dropped from the Constitution. Otherwise it would remain.

The procedure would be approximately the same if a Republican majority were seated in Congress. But the Republican proposal on which the conventions would have to pass would not be simply Repeal or Retention, but a new amendment superseding the 18th.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.