and is not properly within the jurisdiction of Congress. Others attacked the Resolution on the ground that whereas it forbade the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages, it still made it possible for anyone who chose, to manufacture as much liquor for personal use as he might wish.

Mr. Cantrill, of Kentucky, said: "It would permit the free and unlimited manufacture of intoxicating liquor for personal use in communities where now, under, the Democratic principle of local self-government, it is prohibited. I would not vote for a measure to force the manufacture of liquor upon a State or community which had voted against such manufacture, and, therefore, I would not vote to give the Federal Government power to prohibit its manufacture in a State or community which voted for its manufacture. I believe in local self-government and State rights. The cry goes up from those favoring this proposition that we should be willing to let a majority of the people rule, yet, under the Resolution, it would be possible for 45 per cent. to rule 55 per cent. of our population. There are 12 States with a population of 51,000,000 people that could be controlled by 36 States with a population of 40,000,000. So that it would be possible, under this measure, for a minority to control a large majority of our citizens, upon a matter which is largely social and moral in its nature.

"There is in the land a great body of high-priced paid agitators, who are clamoring for national prohibition. It is their profession, and Members of this House should not be swept off their feet by demands from that body. The paid leaders have not dealt fairly with the great body of the people in the country. They have misled thousands of sincere, honest and God-fearing people into believing that this Resolution means prohibition, when in reality it means unrestricted manufacture of intoxicating liquors.

"Under the Hobson Resolution we have all of the evils of manufacture and none of the good coming from the taxes. . .

...

"During the elections last Fall some of the advocates of this Resolution sent word to the country that the Democratic party would not give them a vote in this House. The Democratic party to-day is giving a vote to the Resolution, and it would have been voted on much sooner if the leaders in its behalf had so desired. It is their own fault that a vote was not taken six months ago.

"At different periods in the history of our country, 24 States have tried prohibition. 15 out of the 24 have repealed this law. With this record, what relief can be hoped for in national prohibi

tion, and what can the temperance cause hope to gain? The record shows that prohibition hinders real temperance.

"Nearly $800,000,000 is invested in the liquor business in this country, which this resolution proposes to destroy without one cent of compensation to the owners of that property; $500,000,000 collected annually in Federal, State, County and City taxes, on the liquor business, which, under this Resolution, will be wiped away to be saddled upon the shoulders of labor and agriculture in the nation.

"As a temperance measure it will not prove of any value to that great and glorious cause. It will not help prohibition, because it means free and unrestricted manufacture of intoxicating liquors. As an economic proposition, it would bankrupt the nation. As a social and moral proposition, it is unwise, because it deprives the people of their right to regulate the liquor traffic in their own communities, by transferring that right to Congress."

Mr. Hobson explained the object of his Resolution as follows: "The Amendment proposed provides the scientific treatment for a deep organic disease. The systematic debauching of the youth is the origin of this terrible evil in our land. Investigations show that the great national organization of liquor interests are the agents. Their motive is the gain and profit in the sale of their goods to the crops of young drinkers as they become men. The Amendment would remove the motive; the agent would disintegrate; the debauching of the youth would end, and the nation would grow sober -the real, organic, scientific cure for this disease."

In opposition to this, Mr. Pou, of North Carolina, said: "Under the proposed Amendment any man who can raise a few dollars to pay for a still, can manufacture all the whiskey and brandy he cares to manufacture. The proposed Amendment might very properly be entitled: 'An Amendment to Legalize the Illicit Still in the United States'; it might well be entitled: 'An Act to Encourage the Manufacture of Intoxicating Drinks by Individuals." "

Mr. Brown, of Wisconsin, said: "Suppose 12 great States of the nation, like Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri and California, having an aggregate population of over 50,000,000 people, a majority of the people of the United States, should have prohibition forced upon them by constitutional amendment, which they had voted against and to which a large majority of their people were opposed; an Amendment which destroyed mil

lions of dollars' worth of property and threw hundreds of thousands of men out of employment, could such a law be enforced, and what would the attempted enforcement of the law mean? It would mean the appointment of hundreds of thousands of government officials, marshals and deputy marshals, by the political party in power, to go into the various communities to enforce the law. This army of federal marshals and deputy marshals would be many times larger than the armed military forces of the United States today."

Mr. Bartholdt, of Missouri, gave 10 reasons why, in his judgment, prohibition is wrong. Ist. Prohibition is a death-blow to the liberty of the individual. 2nd. Prohibition runs counter to human nature. 3rd. Prohibition undermines manliness. 4th. Prohibition undermines respect for law. 5th. National prohibition by constitutional amendment is unworthy of a great people. 6th. National prohibition means the complete subversion of the fundamental theories upon which our system of government rests. 7th. Prohibition means the confiscation of property valued at a thousand million dollars, property which has been acquired strictly in accordance with State and Federal law. 8th. Prohibition will take the bread from the mouths of hundreds of thousands of employees and workingmen. 9th. Prohibition will cause a deficit in the national. treasury of at least $280,000,000 a year. 10th. Prohibition does

not prohibit.

Mr. Gordon, of Ohio, said: "The preamble to this bill is a mere stump speech in favor of total abstinence, highly colored by fervid rhetoric and gross exaggerations, and the frequent use of adjectives and epithets."

Mr. Barchfeld, of Pennsylvania, quoted from a speech by Mr. Hobson on December 11, 1913, in which he said: "I want my colleagues to understand from the start, and so far as we can have them, the American people, that there is no desire, no intent, on the part of this Resolution, to invade either the individual rights or inherent liberties of the citizens, or to climb over the wall that civilization-particularly the Anglo-Saxon civilization-has built around the home." "Probably," says Mr. Barchfeld, "this has reference to the fact that the manufacture and sale of liquor for sacramental, medicinal, therapeutic and mechanical purposes is excepted from the grand prohibition of this proposed Amendment, and possibly to the idea which the prohibitionists are now seeking to promulgate,

that this constitutional prohibition will not prevent the individual citizen being his own distiller or brewer and making for himself, in his own home, all the intoxicating beverages that he can manufacture for his own consumption and gifts to his friends. This does not deceive me, and only adds to my resentment, in the name of our Constitution and of our people, against the colossal fraud which the advocates of this prohibition Amendment would commit in the name of temperance.

"The leader of the prohibition advocates in this House pretends to represent the religious people of this country as a sort of new John the Baptist preparing the way for compulsory constitutional reformation.

"He preaches a doctrine of moral coercion in the home and incidentally advocates the construction of a thousand battleships for defense against a host of enemies who are the figment of his own. brilliant imagination. The mythical Don Quixote has a fitting successor in the present hero of the prohibitionists: Capt. Hobson has traveled the Chautauqua routes of the country, fighting windmills with windy oratory, finding a Samuriai warrior in every inoffensive Japanese servant in America and a great destroyer in every beer bottle that decorates a German laborer's dinner table. He wants to take upon his shoulders the task of Hercules and do what no mortal man has done since time began. In his brief life he would reform the habits and customs which began with Genesis, came down through the history of the sons of Abraham, the records of the children of Israel, and the Acts of the Apostles. He is willing to reform the teachings of the Scripture and prohibit the turning of anything into wine. And he is determined to accomplish this thing, not by teaching, not by persuasion, not by moral reformation, but by amendment of that greatest secular document in history, the Constitution of the United States. Capt. Hobson fails to realize, however, that his American people cannot be coerced even by the supreme law of the land. They may be taught, but they cannot be forced.

"I am a doctor of medicine by profession. The Hobson Resolution begins with the statement that 'Exact scientific research has demonstrated that alcohol is a narcotic poison.' As a physician I state that this is either a play on words or an outright misstatement. In either event it is misleading, and flies in the face of medical practice and physiological science."

Mr. Gallivan, of Massachusetts, said: "Prohibition has been an utter failure wherever it has been put into practice. It cuts off revenue and leads to all sorts of dishonesty and hypocrisy. Prohibition can never be enforced by law. Dispassionate investigators of the liquor problem have, almost without exception, pronounced prohibition no solution for it.

"Those who conceived this remedy for the drink evil were unquestionably sincere, and there are doubtless some among them who are sincere today. They are honest, but, in many instances, so also were persecutors under the Spanish Inquisition."

Mr. Morgan, of Louisiana, said: "It certainly occurs to me that the Hobson Resolution, which contemplates the removal of the internal-revenue license, and at the same time legalizes the manufacture of spirituous liquors, is not in the interest of temperance, but, on the contrary, I verily believe that it will appallingly increase the consumption and dissemination of liquor, and this belief would make it rather difficult for me to subscribe to the Hobson Resolution, even if I were inclined to favor nation-wide prohibition.'

Mr. Hobson supported his Resolution by attacking what he calls the Liquor Trust from every conceivable side. He denied that alcohol has any food value; claimed that it was a habit forming drug, which undermines the will power; estimated that there are 5,000,000 heavy drinkers and drunkards in America; stated that liquor is the deadly enemy of labor and capital; is the chief cause of industrial accidents; the chief cause of crime, pauperism and insanity; that it corrupts elections; creates a menacing degenerate vote; grips the throat of government; degenerates the character; and brings about disease and untimely death. The moderate drinker, he claimed, shortens his days by one-third; the heavy drinker shortens his days. by two-thirds. 'Alcohol,' he states, 'carries down to a premature grave every day more than 2,000 American souls.' It is more destructive than war, pestilence and famine. It is a blight upon children and the 'millstone of degeneracy.'

"After my first investigations as to the truth about alcohol," he said, "I introduced the results of my labors and put them in the Congressional Record in a speech called the 'Great Destroyer' and proceeded to send this speech systematically to the youth of America. I estimate that I have sent out about 2,500,000 copies and have sent out more than a million and a half individual letters to the youth on