WIIAT “WETS” AND “DtRYS,” THESE DAYS',
ARE TELLING EACH OTHER IN HALLS OF GOK
I
I
GRESS ABOUT PROHIBITION AND ENFORCEMENT |
i
Prohibition and the Bill of Rights—
Wet States Really Dry and Dry
States Really Wet.
Speech of Hon. Anthony J..Griffin,
of New. York, in the House of. Repre
sentatives, March 5/1926:
Mr. Griffin. . Mr. Chairman- and
gentlemen; seven years ago there was
injected into thei organic ilavv . of our
(and a' polic regulation'which,; like a
foreign substance in a human hody,
has induced a continuous ferment an
alogous to disease in the body politic.'
There lan.be’rBO eure-until tire cause
ts removed..!
There may seem to be no prospect
ef removing the eighteenth ' amend
ment, but I confess very candidly that
I tvould IiKel..to.isee:.it repealed. £
would like to see at /eliminated be
cause I believe it w»r introduced into
the Constitution of th<r United States
upon a basically erroneous theory..
Look at vit;tobserve-its phrasing. It
is, in short, a police ordinance put into
the American Constitution’; an instru
ment which 'was fundamentally . in
tended’only! to. create the framework
of government and to’ prescribe the
powers of its members.
I have contended all along that the
eighteenth iamcndment was. thei.first
-amendment to the Constitution of the
United StateH which curtailed human
liberty. / All the other amendments to
the Constitution were intended-to en
large hiimam liberty, to extend- indi
vidual :rightsj but this amendment,, of;
alfc of-those added to the original' in
strument. since -its adoption, is the
only mne which’curtails; diminishes,
and circumscribe* individual liberty.
In my speech km’duly >8, 1919, when
the Volstead- hill was- before the
House, l Summarized the situation in
the foflotviiig'language:
“This amendment is clearly antago
nistic to‘the spirit of the Constitution,
the principles which- governed its cre
ation and guided its gradual.modifies-:
tion for over 130 years. It'has.broken
ground in a new direction, establishes
a new precedent whioh is fraught with
many dangers, and may dead to ef
forts in thri-future to engraft upon
our Constitution' further- trespasses
upon personal: rights. It is aru un-j
happy augury, of the future that we
have abandoned the .wise maxim of
our forefathers: that the Federal gov
ernment may..enlarge but shall not-di
minish individual liberty.”
I know I shall be charged with
being a nuHifieati<>nist, bilt I bdse my
views on strietly philosophic and pa
triotic ground.-i I have arrived at. my
conclusion through is «arefuj study of
thfe origin of >2>ur Government- 5
commend to my eollebgut-a who are
active- in the. agitation.i#ar>7ths" pre
servation of the! prohibition idea a
study of Sh^iduh^teiKtn itHfef eonstitu
tiunal conventions which framed the
organic Jaw of bur land. F urge them
lo read the Federalist and to look into
the. political .philosophy- upon which
<aur Constitution was built:.
This is the point I emphasize, the
i
i
5
McGrath
K
Pool Hall
£
■
r"
£
5
s
€igurs
Tobaccos
Gandies
Fruits
Soft Drinks
i
;
A Place to Meet
Your Friends ,
f
t
Geo. Mutchler
Proprietor
Constitution of the United States was
something new in the. history of free
government. It was a tremendous
benture, undertaken hy broad minded,
able men familiar with the trihula-'
tions of democracies in past ages.
They were seeking a basic law for the
government'of a democracy, and when
they got down to that task they saw
that they must concern themselves
chiefly with fundamentals. First, the
framework—how the country should
be governed; the character and duties
of its executive. Second, its parlia
mentary system, whether it should be
as single chamber or bicameral,! and
you will observe that they were eare
fubin circumscribing and limiting the
powers that should1 be- given to the
Congress, taking care trial trie re
served rights of the people and of the
States were not encroached' upon'.
Third, the judiciary—and that was the
least elaborated of them all, because
they felt that the dangers of free gov
ernment were to be found chiefly in
the possible encroachments of the
legislative and executive branches.
They stuck rigidly to the fundamental
idea that the Constitution should con
tain only a framework of government,
prescribing and limiting wit meticu
lous care the powers that were en
trusted to its particular branches.
They studiously avoided the intro
duction into the instrument of any
thing in the nature of substantive law,
with the result that when the Consti
tution was finally framed and submit
ted to the Colonies a great agitation
ensued throughout the country be
cause they had failed to incorporate
the Bill of Rights.
Great men of the day opposed it.
among them Alexander Hamilton,
Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson.
Hamilton’s opposition was finally
quelled by a more careful study of
,the document, which, indeed, he under
took to defend in the Federalist, along
with Madison.
The sentiment throughout the thir
teen olonies was-that the organic law
of the country should have stipulated
specifically within its confines re
'affirmation of th£ Bill of Rights. A
bill of rights has been characterized
•as a contract between the king and
his people containing the reservation
of rights not surrendered to the
ci'own. Such was tnb Magna Charta
'which was wrested from King John,
an agreement that the subjects should
be secure in their rights, in their lib
erty, and in their property, enumer
ating certain safeguards. So> likewise
was the petition of right drawn from
Charles P in- trie beginning of his
'reign,.only to be later repudiated. But,
mark you, the repudiation did not de
stroy the right. That survived all en
I croachments. Then there was the
declaration of rights, which was as
sented to by the Prince of Orange in
1688, before the people would intrust
him with the crown, for double se
curity it was afterwards put in statute
form as an act of Parliament, com
monly called the Bill of Rights. But
that, in my opinion, did not add one
iota to its value.
The basic covenants securing indi
vidual life, liberty, and property, the
trial by jury, and the other safeguards
of the Bill of Rights were always con
sidered as the fundamental, unwritten
law of England. King John and
Charles I did not violate written laws.
They violated the unwritten, basic
law of the land. In England the un
written law is the constitution, and
that constitution is the Bill of Rights.
Parliament can pass no law in viola
tion of the Bill of Rights.
However, the sentiment for the in -
jection of the Bill of Rights into our
Constitution grew apace;. They Had
the experience of King John and
Charles I before them and they wan' -
ed the “euntract to be in writing,” as
it were: In many of this Colonies,
when; the question was submitted, the
assent of the legislatures of‘'the Col
onies was secured only upon the.prom
ise- and. agreement that the Bill of
Rights would be inserted iri the Con
stitution by the passage of hn amend
ing resolution,: so that it could <bc«ub>
mitted to State legislatures at
tlieir first meeting after Congress had
taken the action. Yet Hamilton took
the view that it was not necessary to
put in the basic law of the land a bill
of rights. His argument upon that
point is worth our consideration to
day, because it displays the remark
able acumen of the man, his wonder
ful wisdom, and his farsightedness in
I foreseeing conseuences.
I want to read you Hamilton’s ar
Igument in the Eighty-fourth Federal
' ist. He said:
“I go further and affirm that bill of
rights, in the sense and to the extent
in which they are contended for, are
not only unnecessary' in tbe proposed
Constitution, but would even be dan
gerous. They would contain various
exceptions to powers not granted, and
on this vesy account would afTorvl a
colorable pretext to claim more than
were granted.”
Now, mark the keenness of this rea
soning:
“For why declare that things shall
not be done which there is no power
to do? Why, for instance; should it
be said that the liberty of the press
shall not be restrained when no power
is given by which restrictions may be
imposed?”
Continuing, he says;
“I will not contend that such a pro
vision. would confer a. regulating
power: but ir is evident that it would
furnish, to- men disposed’ to usurp, a
plausible- pretensce tor- claiming that
power. They might urge with a sem
blance of reason that the Constitution
ought not to be charged-with the ab
surdity of providing against the abuse
of an authority which was not given,,
and that the provision against re
straining the liberty off the press af
forded a clear implication that a
power to prescribe proper regulations
concerning it was intended toilie vest
ed in the National Government. This
may serve as a specimen of the nu
merous handles which would be given
to the doctrine of constructive powers !
by the indulgence of an injudicious
zeal for bill'of rights.” (The Federal
ist, No. LXXXXIV, p. 439, McLean cd„
New York, 1788.)
Notwithstanding Hamilton’s argu
ment, the Bill of Rights was inserted
in the Constitution; Now observe
what has happened. There was noj
amendment introduced' or adopted
which threatened to-eonflVm or jurtify
Hamilton’s feers until we come down
to the eighteenth amendment, the
amendment which embodies in its
terms the features of a sumptuary act
restraining individual liberty and pre
scribing the things that may not enter
into the diet of the people.
The old sumptuary laws of bar
baric days prescribed that the me
chanic had tm keep his place; lie could
not wear broadcloth or silver buckles
on his shoes. Ife he was a carpenter
he had to wear the insignia and ap
parel of his trade. If In- was a shoe
maker he had to adheiv to that. He
had to live within his means and keep
his place—a good thing in itself, but
a had thing when coercei hy law. But
those ideas of medieval days have
passed into the darkness of oblivion.
Civilized men have abandoned them,
and no king or potentate, nor any
government, hy mere majority of
mass, or power, or strength can ever
successfully or for long survive them.
The amendment was carried to the
Supreme Court of the United States
and by a 3 to 2 opinion the amend
ment itself and the Volstead law pred
icated upon it were affirmed and held
valid. But observe the import of this
decision. The Supreme Court sub
stantially holds that a guaranty con
tained in the Bill of Righ can be
superseded, nullified, or repealed.
With this decision as a precedent a
constitutional amendment providing
for the establishment of a State reli
gion would be perfectly valid. If
Hamilton’s advice had been followed
and the Bill of Rights, precious as we
have deemed its guaranties in the
past, had not been added to the Con
stitution, the Supreme Court of the
United States would not have dared
to hold that the fundamental rights
of mankind could be repealed by a
■ constitutional enactment. This is a
power that is not given Congress, to
courts, or to majorities. But by this
decision, freedom of religion, freedom
. of speech, and trial by jury—all are
imperiled.
The object of the Bill of Rights and
of all' of its safeguards was to pre
serve human liberty safe from coer
cion, and to uphold it against the man
dates of kings, as well as from the
danger of oppression by a temporary
majority.
If this precious Bill of Rights had
not been a part of the Constitution it
never would have been held subject to
amendment under the fifth article o
the Constitution. But, as the cas
now stands, the Bill or Rights is par
01 the Constitution and, like the mail
body of the framework, is subject t<
amendment the same as its other pro
visions.
I was in hopes that my friend fron
Georgia would be here today, becaust
I have a few comments to make wit!
respect to his uniform attitude in dis
cussing this subject before the House
I will try to avoid 'deprecatory lan
guage or anything that might provoke
asperity. I am not going to criticise
the man; it is my purpose only to
criticise his ideas. He was very much
flustered yesterday over the charge
that the Anti-Sa’ League or the
prohibitionists v. guilty of misrep
resentations.
(Continued in Next Issue.)
Among the newest inventions in
the phonograph industry is a device to
clarify reproduction in such a manner
that tones formerly lost, or at least
very faint, will be reproduced in all
their purity and clarity. Another is
the use of several radio principles,
and promises a 12-inch record with
sufficient music on it to last 45 min
utes.
Notice to Pay School Tax
To’All Whom This May Concern;
la accord with Chapter 29, Session
Laws of Alaska, 1910, and amendments
thereto, all male persons between the
ages of twenty-one and tiftv years, who
are not "sailors in the United Stales
navy or revenue eotttr service, volun
teer firemen, paupers or insaue per
sons, ”■ hi e required to pay an annual
school lax of live dollars ($5).
Th.is lax is due and payable after the
PROFESSIONAL
Mrs. Jean McLean
Notary Public
Tokotna, Alaska
Du Rand’s j
Cafe and ;
Hotel !
i
Flat City j
f and deduct as herein specified within
■> first Monday in the month of April and
shall he paid bei'ore the fir3t day of
" May, providing you are in the Terri
i tory of Alaska uu said first date; if not,
i the tax is due within thirty days after
vour arrival in Alaska or within ten
days after written or oral demand is
made upon you by the school tax col
lector, Taxes not paid in accordance
I with the foregoing requirements shall
become delinquent, and each person de
linquent shall be subject to a fine of
two dollars.
All persons, firms and corporations
employing labor in Alaska shall fur
nish to collectors a list of all employes
subject to tax, and employers of labor
! as above set out are authorized by pro
I visions of said act to deduct amount of
! the tax from the wages of each em
ployee who is subject thereto. If any
| of such employers shall fail to report
the period designated for payment of
said tax, the saiu employers of labor
| shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and
i subject to a fine of from #50 to •■>00.
All persons subject to, and refusing
or neglecting to pay, said lax, are sub
I ject to a line of •25. or imprisonment iu
I jail for period of one month; and all
. such employers of labor as herein set
out, who neglect or refuse to collect
said tax from employees may be pro
ceeded against and shall pay >h«
amount of each individual tax, and it
further penalty of •25 for each such
tax.
Tax receipts will be furnished by the
tax collectors.
Dated at Takotna. Alaska, this .'list
day of May, 1
J. H. McLEAN,
Duly authorized and qualified
Alaska Territorial Schoel Tax
Collector for Tokotna District.
B. & L Store
McGrath, Alaska
Groceries
Hardware
Miners’ Supplies
of All Kinds
Ladies’ Furnishings
Furs Bought and Sold
Moose Skin Mitts and Boot*
King Island Mnkluks
Baheesh, or Sled Lashing
Voigt's Dog Harness, the very
Best
FRESH GARDEN SEEDS
A. R. Eldridge
I ALASKA RIVERS NAVIGATION I
j COMPANY ;
Operatin'* 1 ight Draught Steamers
i >n the Kuskokwim. !
j i
Capt. Wallace Langley, Manager. I
i i
.. J. H. McLEAN,.
\ i
Fresh Fruits Fresh Vegetables
h
< (
i| Plenty of Nuts
Choice Canned Goods Meats
Fresh Garden Seeds