bill, but I know what space in a newspaper means these days, and that is the whole trouble. Nobody knows what is going on except as he gets it from the newspapers, and if it comes about that they are occupied with a thing like this war, all sorts of foolish and. wicked things happen behind their backs, and if behind their backs, then behind ours, the people's. I ask you to print this letter in the hope that the editors of papers throughout the State will see it, and that they will send to Senator George F. Thompson or to the Clerk of the Senate and get a copy of that bill, and that, even under the stress of the great events that are giving to human liberty a new meaning, and to human justice perhaps universal application-they will read that Thompson bill and note how every principle, every thought that has given to our Nation leadership in the cause of human freedom, is being undermined by cowardly, contemptible legislators. Morals is one thing, liberty is another; there may be morals with liberty, but there never can be morals when liberty is denied. I hope, sir, that these cowardly, contemptible legislators will read this letter, and if you print it most of them in Congress and at every State capital may, anyway, have the chance to read it. It may be that the very worst they can do now is the very best, In their cowardice they have mistaken the minds of those on whose commission they have been permitted to vote. If they think that their votes have settled the matter, they are mistaken again. If the fools, the good fools, who honestly think that what they have accomplished is wise and well, the bad fools, who would perpetrate any folly on a lobby wage—if they think that the American people will submit to anything whatever, however named, in whatever decent guise presented, by whatever means accomplished, that denies to the people a natural, ordinary human right, to be followed up by the denial of other human rights, to be followed up by searches and seizures, by blackmails, extortions, by public rewards to private malice-if they think this, they are mistaken, awfully mistaken. I doubt, sir, whether by the 1st of July I can get it out of my mind that a right to make and drink an alcoholic beverage-a right that Noah and Lot enjoyed and that never since has been denied to any one on earth or interfered with except for the purpose of taxation or in the exercise of police regulation-I doubt if I can get it out of my mind by the 1st of next July that this right, so anciently enjoyed, has been effectively taken away from me. There must be millions of other Americans whose thoughts will be similarly embarrassed.. I and they will certainly need the attention of all the "confidential agents," Sheriffs, constables, District Attorneys that the treasuries of our country can employ. CARDINAL GIBBONS OUTSPOKEN Baltimore Sun, Feb. 6, 1918 In strong and decisive language Cardinal Gibbons yesterday denounced the national prohibition amendment and declared that legislators of the States should not bow to the "fanaticism that seems to be ruling us in this respect." He declared that some of the lawmakers seemed to be acting through cowardice in going against their strong convictions and giving their vote for the amendment when it is brought up. He, declared that the vote in the Maryland Senate last week was a complete surprise to him and indicated that "those who would abridge our liberty" are at work in earnest and must be combated. The Cardinal declared with emphasis that if the National Prohibition bill is ratified by the States the commonwealths will lose control of the regulatory powers they now possess and which give them the upper hand in the control of the liquor situation and at the same time they will lose the revenues that rightfully belong to them. "I feel," said the Cardinal, "that if the amendment is ratified there will spring up in all parts of this country illicit stills that will manufacture a low grade of whisky that will do more harm than the good grade is doing. Beer and light wines will pass out of existence and the man who wants a drink will have to resort to the brand of intoxicant that is made surreptitiously, and we all know what effect that will have on the men of the country. The police powers that are now exercised over the liquor business will be lost and I fear that Federal officials will be unable to cope with the situation. "It is argued by those favoring the passage of the amendment that liquor is injurious and therefore should be exterminated. There are many articles in the average drug store that are more injurious to the human system; many articles that are deadly if taken internally, yet we would not think of closing the drug stores of the nation because a few persons now and then get from the druggists poisons with which to end their lives. The nation would not for a moment consider the abolishment of all poisons from these stores. "Liquor is an aid to health at times, as any reputable physician will tell you if you take the trouble to inquire. It has been used to great advantage in the preservation of health and it therefore is something that does not injure the human system when taken in moderation. "There is no greater advocate of temperance than myself. I have preached it on every occasion when I have had the opportunity. I feel that this is the only way to overcome the evils of drink that do exist. I am certain that it cannot be done by the prohibition amendment, for there will be nearly as much liquor available, but of a low and harmful grade. "Liquor is one of God's creatures. Christ proved that at the wedding feast when he changed water into wine and blessed it. Our Saviour would never bless something that was to be a curse to the human race, as the advocates of prohibition would have us believe. Some try to argue that the drink that Christ made for the wedding feast was comparable to the modern grape juice, but this is not so. It was wine in every sense of the word. "It seems that some of our legislators would make Mohammedans of us. Mohammed's tenets forbid the use of wine, yet the Mohammedan drinks his wine or his other liquor despite his faith. "It will be a calamity if this amendment is adopted. It will be only a step to the abridgment of other liberties that we enjoy. Those favoring the amendment will not be satisfied with this victory and they will try to impose other obnoxious laws upon us that will make our personal liberty worth very little. "If the members of my church carried on a campaign in the legislative halls of the country with the same vigor as the Prohibition advocates they would be accused of trying to seize the reins of government and putting the country into a terrible plight. I feel deeply this attack on our liberty of living and partaking of those things which the Creator has provided for us, and trust that legislators will have the courage of their convictions and vote to retain the power of the State over this business, which can be made as clean as any other." WOULD RESTORE CANTEEN Boston, March 29, 1919. Major Gen. Clarence R. Edwards, commanding the Department of the Northeast, told workers at the Boston Army and Navy canteen to-day that if he had anything to do with it, "beer and light wines would go back in canteens." "When canteens were started," he said, "I was stationed at Buffalo. I ran the first one there, and I was so anxious to see it succeed that I very nearly put on an apron and sold beer. If you could do that now you wouldn't have to waste so many smiles. It makes for contentment. All your dear boys are drinking wine over there, and there's no drunkenness and no excesses." ENOUGH SAID Chicago, April 2, 1919. The vote yesterday on the proposition, "Shall Chicago be dry territory?" was as follows: Four out of every five men voted wet and three out of every five women did the same. The Trades' Union Liberty League issued the following statement: "Through the overwhelming defeat of the drys Chicago has spoken in tones that will ring in the ears of those subservient lawmakers who have so cravenly surrendered the liberty of American citizens at the dictation of a clique of paid prohibition lobbyists, There will now be no let up in the protest against prohibition tyranny until the freedom of the people has been fully restored to them. This is the message Chicago sends to Congress." FROM NEW ENGLAND Boston, April 1, 1919. Twenty-eight cities and towns changed from the "dry" to the "wet" column in the recent local option elections. Among them are a number which have been no-license for more than a generation. This change of sentiment has excited interest throughout the State and is universally attributed to the desire to protest against national prohibition. Montpelier, Vt., April 1, 1919. Vermont showed her distaste for national prohibition in the recent local option elections, when 24 cities and towns voted for license, as against 13 last year. Among them are communities which have not had licensed saloons in fifty years or more; some, indeed, have never had places where liquor was sold. Vermont rejected State Prohibition a few years ago, and strong resentment is felt at the action of her Legislature in ratifying national prohibition. |