Home and State (Dallas, Tex.), Vol. 23, No. 8, Ed. 1 Tuesday, August 1, 1922 Page: 3 of 6
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: The Home and State and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
PAGE THREE
HOME AND STATE
AUGUST, 1922.
1
ticn, 1,526.
CITY OF BOSTON*.
—
BEER NULLIFIED THE PROHIBITION LAW.
will intoxicate.”
is capable of being drunk in such quantities as to pro-
udge Faris, above referred to, continuing, said:
“The
THREE—Home and State
beer?”
vote for the manufacture and sale of wine and beer.
No Only his word, but his acts as well, show whose candidate
TO LEGALIZE BEER AND WINE MEANS TO
DESTROY THE 18TH AMENDMENT.
report said:
“The ale and beer law is a veil that covers much that is vile, and
it is one that is difficult for the officers to lift or see through; and,
FORCES OF CLEAN GOVERNMENT MUST
ORGANIZE.
FORMER GOVERNOR W. P. HOBBY FOR
EARLE MAYFIELD.
NOT A REPEAL OF THE AMENDMENT BUT UNDERMIN-
ING THE CONSTITUTION PROPOSED.
Any increase in the alcoholic contents of the permitted beverages
will hinder the enforcement of the prohibition laws. Beer and wine
beer is intoxicating because it is a fact known to every man
common understanding that what is generally known as lager beer
The District Attorney of the Western District wrote:
“I believe wherever beer is sold, strong liquors are also sold.”
The District Atorney of Worchester County wrote:
“The exemption of beer affords a cover under which to sell spirit-
the Eighteenth Amendment “forbids the use of beer as a
beverage.” Will you vote to send a man to the United
States Senate who will swear to uphold the Constitution
the use of beer as a beverage.'
The voters of Texas will note that Judge Faris said that
/
duce intoxication.”
United States District Court, St. Louis, Judge Faris recent-
ly, speaking of beer, said:
“In other words, since the adoption of the Eighteenth
Amendment, the privilege is no longer to be governed
by the state of mind of him who drinks it, for, since it is
an intoxicating liquor its use is forbidden by a law
passed by Congress, under the power conferred by that
amendment.”
EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT FORBIDS BEER
On July 29th former Governor Hobby announced for Mr. May-
field in a statement from which we quote:
“The election of Hon. Earle B. Mayfield to the United States
Senate would be in keeping with the progress of Democracy and the
forward march of Texas. On the other hand, the election of Jas. E.
Ferguson would be a backward step.
“Regardless of very irritating issues that have found a way into
political contests this year, I sincerely hope that the Democrats or
Texas will not set the pace for repudiating what has been done in re-
cent years and that is what the election of Mr. Ferguson would mean.
It is no time to send a word of discouragemtnt to the Democrats
throughout the nation. Even when there is cause for many of the
best citizens of Texas to feel provoked because an irrelevant issue,
which defeated many good men for office, it is no time to be led into
the wilderness.”
These are sane words and every patriot will heed them.
he is.
When it was disclosed that he had borrowed while governor the
mm of $156'000 from Texas brewers, nobody doubted his position,
md he is'equally frank now to tell the people he stands for the man-
ufacture and sale of wine and beer.
That is the issue. All other considerations are of minor import
or fictitious.
For United States Senator, Earle B. Mayfield.
e
“While it is the sole duty of the force to execute the laws, I
may be permitted to say that the authority now given for the sale of
ale embarrasses and hinders the force in their attempts to prosecute
for the sale of liquors forbidden by law.”
The Judge of the Police Court of Springfield said!
“I think licensing the sale of ale and beer much increases the
difficulty of enforcing the prohibitory law.”
RESULTS.
The result of Massachusett’s yielding to the brewers,
Records show committed to city prison, Boston, 1867, 1,427;
committed to city prison, Boston, 1870, 12,862. A difference in favor
of prohibition 2,433.
This record could be indefinitely extended but for lack of space.
BOOTLEGGING IN BEER SALOONS.
If wine and beer was legalized they would de depots for bootleg-
ging all kinds of liquor, moonshine, Hill & Hill and all the rest.
After Massachusetts legalized the sale of beer in December of
that year the Chief of Police of Boston reported out of 2,584 places in
Boston where beer alone was licensed to be sold, only 17 places were
found that did not have stronger drinks also for sale.
In October of the same year the Chief Constable of Massachusetts
said:
“Not exceeding 5 per cent of the retail dealers who pretend to
sell ale, porter, strong beer and lager beer confine or limit their
trade to malt liquors only. The service of the search warrant almost
invariably discloses the fact that the lager beer saloons, so-called,
keep and sell more or less distilled liquors.”
Remember the law legalized the sale of beer only, but the Dis-
trict Attorney of Essex wrote:
“According to the evidence which I have, beer shops, where
nothing stronger is kept or sold are as scare as men entirely without
sin.”
SALOON OR NO SALOON.
»Jim Ferguson is saying that he is opposed to the saloon,
but'wants to permit the sale of beer and wine. If beer and
wine is sold, the place where it is sold will be a saloon.
When we had saloons, 95 per cent of the liquor traffic con-
sisted of beer and wine. Until 200 years ago distilled liquors
were not known. For 6,000 years debauchery was produced
by beer and wine. Legalize the sale of beer and wine and
the open saloon will return.
FERGUSON WOULD DEBAUCH THE AMERICAN HOME
But Jim Ferguson advocates the sale of beer and wine
in “unbroken packages” not to be consumed at the place
of sale. He hopes thereby to convince the public that he
will do away with the saloon. If it is not drunk on the?
Again the same court said (O’Connell vs. State) :
that may be drunk, it would be absurd to recognize that otaoft
“In light of common knowledge as to the amount of
beer that may be drunk, it would be absurd to recognize
Judge Newton Morse of Middlesex County said:
“I voted in the' Legislature in 1869 and 70 for the beer law, as I
of believed it in the interest of temperance and the Republican party.
With the experience of the last two years, I shall this year vote
against the beer law in the same interest.”
The Police Commissioners of the State in their First Annual
wines and beer when young, and as the appetite grows the desire for
stronger drink is developed. If we turn loose upon the country
light wines and beer, the greatest victory ever achieved for helpless
women and children would be thrown to the winds.”
THE WOMEN OF TEXAS ARE FOR MAYFIELD
FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE.
The Supreme Court of Georgia (Cripe vs. State) said:
“The court will take judicial cognizance of the fact that lager
liquors would have to take place beyond any police super-
vision or control, for the police are not allowed to interfere
with the “man’s castle,” (the home). Such a law would
drive the traffic into all sorts of haunts and debauch the
home to an extent never possible under the saloon system.
In the days of the saloon laws were passed to prevent such
debauchery of the home and made it illegal in some States
to sell it unless consumed on the premises.
and then vote to give the people the privilege of selling would destroy the Eighteenth Amendment s N at; a p .
Director. He organized the forces for the enforcement of the Eigh-
teenth Amendment. He knows its difficulties as none others do.
He says:
“We might as well give up the whole thing and let it go by the
board if we are to have wines and beer. Soft drink establishments
are troublesome enough today, but change them to wine and beer
emporiums, and no power on earth could enforce the law or limit
the alcoholic content.”
FROM THE HOUSTON POST.
The men and women of Texas who stand for the Eighteenth
Amendment, for honesty in the public service, for the prestige that
Texas has enjoyed in the United States Senate through the servcies
of great statesmen since 1845, must not remain indifferent to the
present campaign.
There is throughout the United, States a strongly organized
heavily financed movement to nullify the Eighteenth Amendment,
by permitting the manufacture and sale of wine and beer.
There being no possibility of repealing the Eighteenth' Amend-
ment outright, because in order to compass it would require the ap-
proval by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States of a repeal-
ing amendment, the liquor traffic is making a supreme effort to de-
stroy the Volstead law.
The men and vomen of Texas do not have to be told what an
orgy of rottenness and corruption would disgrace this State if the
liquor traffic were permitted to return.
They must not forget the shame and disgrace of the days when
a governor of Texas left his office and went to the brewers and bor-
rowed $156,000.
Whether the right-thinking men and women of Texas are willing
to go backward will depend upon the interest the yshow in the
pending senatorial contest.
It is no time for indifference; no time to be disgruntled over petty
or fictitious issues; no time to sulk over disappointments.
The real issue is before them, and a test of their citizenship and
their Christianity is inevitable.
It is no time for false confidence, either. In the primary of Au-
gust 26 there will be few local candidates to stimulate the interest
and friendship of men and women, and there will be a greatly
reduced vote ,as there always is in second primaries.
The call is for organization in every precinct and county of the
men and women who stand against the return of the liquor traffic,
and their’determination to vote on August 26.
The liquor interests will pour hundreds of thousands of dollars
into this State to get out their full strength and to corrupt the elec-
tion wherever that is possible. The liquor interests have never
failed to do this in the past, and they are going to fail to do so now.
The liquor interests are trying to screen their purposes in this
State by stressing an issue that is wholly fictitious, for it does not
exist. Whatever may be in the so-called Klan issue can be attended
to by the people of Texas, if it should require attention at all, but the
question the people are now called upon to decide is, Will they send
to’ th?.Senate the liquor traffic’s candidate who has pledged himself
SUBMARINING THE EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT place where sold it will be taken W^the home and tonroftne
uous liquors.”
The Judge of the Police Court at Chelsea wrote:
“About every beer saloon is a rum-shop.”
The Judge of the Police Court at Worchester wrote:
“In saloons where the sale of beer is permitted by law, there |
named percentage spirituous liquors can easily be obtained.”
- • - ■ The Judge of the Police Court of Springfield wrote:
“All sorts of spirituous and intoxicating liquors are sold under
cover of such license.” (Referring to the beer license.)
hereby prohibited.”
The reader will observe that the Amendment forbids traffic in
“Intoxicating Liquors” of any kind “for beverage purposes.
THE REAL ISSUE.
The question before the voters of Texas is: Will you .
vote to send a man to the United States Senate or to Con-
gress pledged to violate the above provision of the Federal 1
Constitution? If so, how can you claim to be an American
citizen? I
FORMER PRESIDENT WILLIAM H. TAFT
An anti, in the Chicago Tribune, July 26th, 1920, said . (
“I am not in favor of amending the V olstead Act in respect to the
amount of permissible alcohol in beverages. I am not in favor of al-
lowing light wines anr beer to be sold under the Eighteenth Amend-
ment. I believe it would defeat the purpose of the amendment No
such distinction as that between wines and beei, on the one hand,
and spiritous liquors, on the other, is practicable as a police measure.
.... Any such loophole as light wines and beer would make the
amendment a laughing stock.”
THE VOLSTEAD ACT TOO DRASTIC?
The complaint is made that the Volstead Act is too drastic
that it is “absurd;” that it “violates the constitution,” etc.
Before the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment many States
had adopted amendments to their constitution prohibiting the
liquor traffic and the language of each of these in practically the same
as the Eighteenth Amendment.
Under those State amendments 14 States passed laws to forbid
the sale of beer and wine whether they had any alcohol in them or |
not. These States are the following:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Dakota and Wash-
Twenty-two have passed laws forbidding the sale of any beer or
wine that has more than one-half of 1 per cent alcohol. These States
are the following:
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia
and Wyoming. ,, ,
The States of New Hampshire, South Carolina and Texas allow
the sale of beer of 1 per cent alcoholic content.
The reader will see that the Volstead Act compared with the
various State Acts is not drastic nor absurd, but reasonable.
WHY THE THE VOLSTEAD ACT MADE THE PERCENT-
AGE OF ALCOHOL ALLOWED IN BEVERIDGES TO
BE NOT MORE THAN ONE-HALF OF 1 PER CENT.
This low percentage in alcohol was necessary in order
to make the act of the Eighteenth Amendment effective.
— -THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Through Judge Brandies, an anti, in the Rupert vs. Caffey (251 U.
._____________x _ under its protection, every vile compound that ever poisoned the
that a beer containing as much as four per cent alcohol human system may be sold almost with impunity.”
- - • - - • - • * ■' . The Chief Constable of Massachusetts in his Annual Report said:
The Prohibition Amendment reads:
“Section 1. One year after the ratification of this article
the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating li-
quors within, the imporation thereof into, or the exporta-
tion thereof from the United States, and all territories sub-
ject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is
(wine was not included) and legalizing beer, was to bring
prohibition into such contempt that, in disgust, the whole
law against liquor was repealed and the State turned over
Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act both forbid ^*22 rEhisese KES? the campaisn to
the use of beer as a beverage. * I ___ _________
THE W. C. T. U. FOR MAYFIELD.
Under date of August 1st Mrs. Claude De Van Watts of Austin,
State President of the W. C. T. U., sent a letter to all W. C. T. U.
i members, from which we quote in part:
“Mr. Mayfield is irrevocably committeed to prohibition, the
18th Amendment, the Volstead law and moer stringent prohibition
legislation. He cannot turn back, nor will he try. My plea to you
for our beloved cause is to mobilize your forces and work unceasing-
ly until August 26th for Mr. Mayfield, the prohibition candidate for
the United States Senate. The Christian women of this State must
win this battle.”
HOUSTON W. C. T. U. FOR MAYFIELD.
On Friday, August 4th, the W. C. T. U. of Houston, Houston
Heights and Woodland Heights, passed resolutions as follows:
“Whereas the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union always
stood, will always stand for total abstinence for the individual and
for the annihiltiongjof the liquor traffic in both the State and Nation.
Therefore, Be it resolved, That the Houston W. C. T. U. and the
Woodland Heights W. C. T. U. and the Houston Heights W. C. T,
U. organize in defense of the 18th Amendment, that we enter our
prayerful, earnest protest against the election to the United States
Senate of James E. Ferguson, who now, and always, has been a
friend of the brewing interests and who is running on a light wine
and beer platform.
to
i ARE YOU A DEMOCRAT?
Texas democracy backed Wm. G. McAdoo for President twe |
The good women of Texas cannot stand Jim Ferguson. A
woman never forgets. They remember how, when they sought an
influence with Mr. Ferguson as Governor of the State, Mr. Fer-
guson repided: “Damn the women.” This insult to the good
womanhood of Texas stares Mr. Ferguson in the face wherever he
turns.
S. 264) said:
“For the legislation and decisions of the highest courts of nearly
all of the States establish that it is deemed impossible to effectively
enforce either prohibitory laws or other laws merely regulating the
manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, if liability or inclusion
within the law is made to depend upon the insuable fact whether or
not a particular liquor made or sold is intoxicating. In other words ,
it clearly appears that a liquor.law, to be capable of effective enforce-
ment, must, in the opinion of the legislatures and court’s of several
States, be made to apply either to all liquors of the species enumer- <
ated, like beer, ale or wine, regardless of the presence or degree of
alcoholic content; or, if a more general description is used, such as
distilled, rectified, spiritous, fermented, malt, of brewed liquors, to ।
all liquors within that general description regardless of alcoholic
content; and to such of these liquors as contain a 1 1 T ne
of alcohol; and often several such standards are combined so that
certain specific and generic liquors are altogether forbidden and such
liquors as contain a certain per cent of alcohol.”
SUPREME COURTS SAY BEER IS INTOXICATING
years ago. Wm. G. McAdoo said;
“Prohibition means prevention. It does not mean license in any
form. To permit the sale of light wines and beer is to open a crack
in the door of prevention and once the crack is made the door is
opened wide. It is impossible to administer a light wine and.beer
law in such a manner as to prevent the gravest abuses.
“It is a notorious fact that all drunkards begin by drinking light •
TEXAS LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS FOR EARLE
MAYFIELD.
Mrs. Jessie Daniel Ames, President of the .Texas League of
Women Voters, on Friday, August 4th, issued a statement in oppo-
sition to the candidacy of Jas. E. Ferguson. She said:
“Our ancient enemy, Jas. E. Ferguson, is the issue. A man who
has been found unfit to serve the State as Governor is certainly un-
fit to serve as United States Senator. . . . Mr. Ferguson is as unfit
to represent Texas now as he was in 1917 when he was impeached
for malfeasance in office.
MASSACHUSETT’S EXPERIENCE WITH BEER.
In 1869 the State of Massachusetts was under strict prohibition.
The beer advocates came pleading the privilege of legalizing beer
“so that the laboring man could have his little beer at his evening
meal;” that “this would decrease intoxication because it would stop
the bootleggers.”
In 1870 the Legislature of Massachusetts modified its State pro-
hibition law to allow the sale of beer and wine. After it had been
tested awhile, Judge Robert C. Pittman, of the Superior Court of
Massachusetts, wrote a volume on its effect. . Also the Governor-
General of Canada sent a commission to investigate. The following
extracts are taken from these reports:
AT NEW BEDFORD.
The mayor and city marshal gave the following figures:
Whole number of arrests, 1871 (Prohibition)---------------— 462
Drunkenness---------------------------------------------- 188
Whole number of arrests, 1872 (beer sold)--------------------- 779
Drunkenness---------------------------------------------- 415
Lodges in station, 1871 (Prohibition)------------------------348
Lodges in station, 1872 (beer sold)------------------i--------434
“ ‘This exhibition,’ says the commission, ‘an increase of over 68
per cent in the aggregate number of crimes, over 120 per cen in
cases of drunkenness.’ ”
HOUSE OF CORRECTION.
Number of commitments from New Bedford in 1871 was 93.
Number of commitments from New Bedford in 18/2 was 180.
WORKHOUSE.
Number of commitments from New Bedford in 1871 was 37.
Number of commitments from New Bedford in 1872 was 69.
Or an increase of about 95 per cent.
SUFFOLK.
The records showed committed to Suffolk jain in 1867, 3,736; com-
mitted to Suffolk jail in 1870, 5,262; a difference in favor of prohibi-
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Webb, Atticus. Home and State (Dallas, Tex.), Vol. 23, No. 8, Ed. 1 Tuesday, August 1, 1922, newspaper, August 1, 1922; Dallas, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1586079/m1/3/: accessed June 12, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Texas State Library and Archives Commission.