Ij WHAT “WETS” AND “DRYS” THESE DAYS, j
ARE TELLING EACH OTHER IN HALLS OF CON
GRESS ABOUT PROHIBITION AND ENFORCEMENT j
%
(Speech of Hon.. William D* .Up
shaw, of Georgia, in the House of
Representatives, March 4, .1926, in
support of prohibition.)
Mr. UpshaWi. Mr. Chairman and ■
gentlemen. on the 22d day of Febru
ary, a day that , should always be
given over to the contemplation of
everything that makes for the en
nobling of our youth and- the building
•>f American citizenship, the Nation's
Capital witnessedLon one hand a city
wide celebration of Washington’s
birthday by patriotic and civic organ
izations and even in tempos of wor
ship, calling attention to everything,
that was wholesome and inspiring in
Washington’s life, and achievements—
while oin the other hand the friends
of liquor hnd the .enemies of constitu
tional prohibition held their conven
tion for the express purpose of npur-:
ing outlawed beer and liquor all over
the American.flag.
And on the following morning thei
•’rant pages of both Washington Hel
pers carried over against each other
the great speech of President Coolidge
before the uational. convention of ed
ucators, portraying Washington as a
great, patriotic, moral, and spiritual
force in founding and building this
Nation—and then that travesty and
tragedy in one, the stor yof the cee
bration of the “wets,” who were ad
dressed by. Senator Edge, of New
Jersey, as “Fellow Nuilificationists,”
and who, under the leadership of Hon..
John Philip Hill, listened in gloating
glee to Washington's recipe for mak
ing beer, written away back in 1757,
before the realization of his future
responsible leadership had dawned
upon him.
Such a miserable performance was.
in, keeping with the recent efforts of
a certain literary, cormorant who.
tried to prove Washington habitually
profane, in face, of his deeply reli
gious Farewell Address, which we
reverently heard read in this Hall on
his birthday, and his withering re
buke of profanity in the army,, which
I had the honor of reading here at
the close, of that .eventful day. Such
•■fforts to throw mud on the polished
shaft of Washington’s immortal
name and imperishable fame make us
think of that big, black vulture that
hovers over an unclean carcass in pre.
ference to food, that • is clean, and.
pure.
And behold the (.climax ofoi this
shameful procedure by the publica
tion on the front page of the Wash
ington Post, on Tuesday, of ja... fac
simile of this recipe in Washington’s
own hand. Such a. publication, hacked
by the prestige of Washington’s name,
appearing on the front page of the
supposed mouthpiece of the Adminis
tration, as read at that wet banquet
by the gentleman from. Maryland. (Mr.
Hill), can have nothing, but a hurtful
effect upon the. homes and the .youth
of America. I agree with Mr. Blan
ton, of Texas, that, regardless of its
authorship, this publication is a clear
violation of the law, and the offend
ing paper ought to be prosecuted.
Let me say this to the “nullifica
fcionists” who are. trying, to use the
name of Washington to boost their
unholy cause, when Washington wrote
that beer recipe it was not against
the law. But we know enough about
this heroic and immortal, man, as re
vealed by his glorious achievements
and enjoined in his Farewell Address
concerning obedience to law, that if
he. were living, now he would not vio
late the amended Constitution of the
Nation he helped to establish. The
Candies f
|:
y
P
i
r
r
I -
Fruits
Soft Drinks
A Place td< Meet
Your Friends
i
r
i
Proprietor
man who called on the army to put
down the “rum rebellion” in Pennsyl
vania would not conspire with a boot- J
legger to trample the Constitution;
defy the flag, and if necessary he!
would call out both th< army and the
navy to put down this modern “rum
rebellion" at home and sink every
pirate liquor ship to the bottom of
the sea. (Applouse.)
In a close juxtaposition to this un
patriotic Washington's birthday per- \
formance was the radio speech of
Senator Edwards, of New Jersey, who
followed up his charge in his recent j
Wilmington speech that the Anti-Sa
loon League and its supporters are
“conscienceless hypocrites and fa-:
natics,” and that Wayne It. Wheeler, j
hhief counsel and legislative superin-j
tendent of the League, is an “arch
traitor to freedom.” The papers thus)
reported him, but he says now he soft
ened his actual speech. Hut, of course,
he still thinks what he first wrote.
With such a monstrous statement
against decent, sober. God-fearing,
patriotic litizens already in his “wet”
soul and system, I ani glad it came
but somehow outside the Senate!
Chamber, for if spoken there I would j
have been estopped by certain man
dator yamenities from saying what I
think; but as th<sse outrageous utter j
ances were made outside the Senate I !
can say what I “gentlemanly please” j
about them, my only trouble being
that of the old farmer who lost all his
apples while his wagon went up the
hill. The mischievous boy who had
lifted the wagon gate so the apples
would roll out asked: “Why don’t you
cuss, mister?” And the old farmer,
scratching his head, replied: “Be
cause I can’t do the subject jestis.”
I simply cannot find language to
express my condemnation of such a
groundless and outrageous charge
,against the sober, patriotic masses of
Americans who believe in and practice
prohibition, and their trusted leader,
Wayne B. Wheeler, whose chief crime
in the eyes of the “wets” is the fact
that he has given himself unselfishly
since his college days to a truceless
warfare against the liquor traffic—
first legal, now illegal. Wayne B.
Wheeler is human, and here and there
he may have made mistakes of judg
ment, but 1 think 1 have never known
a man in such a responsible, trying
..position to make so few mistakes. And
one thing is certain—with the merci
less searchlight of his liquor critics
thrown on him for more than thirty
years, they have never been able to
find one crooked step he has ever
taken or one fleck upon his name.
And yet this New Jersey Senator
who boasted that he was elected on a
platform “as wet as the Atlantic
Ocean,” spreads the newsaper charge
all over America that “Wayne B.
Wheeler is an archtraitor to free-.
dom.’
Such raw, wretched language from (
a “wet” United States Senator con-1
cerning a man who is fighting valiant- j
ly for the sobriety of American youth '
reflects no honor upon the. august j
hody to which he belongs; hut the
[chief tragedy in such language from
a Member of the United States Sen
I ate is the fact that it seeks to break
| the power of the forces of righteous
ness and gives encouragement to a
j mongrel mass and mess of rum sell
' ers, lawbreakers, and liars who would
I rather see Wayne B. Wheeler de
l-throned, perhaps, than ay other man
j in America.
j This outrageous language eoncern
j ing our “dry” leader, who is as clean
| as he is keen, and as knightly as a
[ woman’s ideal, is only another illus
tration of the fact that whether a
man drinks liquor or whether he
' “thinks” liquor, it warps his reason
' and annihilates his loyalty to all that
is highest and best.
The speech of the gentleman from
' Massachusetts (Mr. Tinkham) yester
day is a case in point.
In all that pitiful compilation of in
dictments against our prohibition
' law—its essence and its operations—
there was a superabundance of free
advice concerning the “fanaticism”
and “insincerity” of prohibitionists.
And one Roman Gatholic prelate
whose name I did not catch as the
gentleman from M assachusetts began
’ to read, ran thoroughly amuck with
. the sweeping and unqualified declara
tion that “prohibitionists habitually
: practice misrepresentation.”
I confess to a hasty display of tern
4 per and a worthy expression of right
i eous indignation for which I can find
- no word of apology after the cooling
processes of a good night’s sleep. The
. truth is, since I have had time to cool
off, I am hotter than ever. My first
impulse as 1 heard the statement read
was to say, “That is a miserable lie,”
and now in the clear light of a new
day I am fortified in the conviction
that such a charge against prohibi
tionists is stupidly and inexcusably
false. Some generous and conserva
tive colleague rushed to me after ad
journment and urged me to withdraw
the language, but as the trusted rep
resentative of actual millions of sober,
God-fearing Americans, I would feel
, like a- coward if I were to fail tr»
brand such an indictment of my faith
ful comrades, both men and women,
as miserably and palpably untrue.
“But,” said another honored colleague,
“you surely don’t want to say that
about the statement of a cardinal.” I
answered, “Let the cardinal withdraw
the foolish and cruel charge that the
great army of, white ribbon women
and men with whom I have trained
for a generation are habitual law
breakers and liars. Whether it is a
Cabinet officer, a United States Sen
ator, a Methodist bishop, a Baptist
evangelist, a Presbyterian doctor of
divinity, the Archbishop of Canter
bury, or the Pope of Home, I don’t
propose to allow any man to declare,
without my indignant protest, that
the stalwart, God-fearing men and
praying handmaidens of God who
fought for prohibition, on their knees
as well as at the ballot box, are given
to the “habitual practice of misrepre
sentation.” In other words, these wet
leaders say that my dry comrades are
hypocrites and liars, and I answer
tradueers high and low, “You are an
other.”
This unwarranted indictment from
this Homan t’atholic dignitary strikes
at the treasured faith and practice of
many of his own people. There are
thousands of sober, sincere Catholics
in my home city of Atlanta and all
over America who believe in prohibi
tion, who voted for prohibition, apd
who practice what they preach.
Monsignor Cassidy, of Fall River,
Mass., who has fough tliquor anti
liquor shops for 25 years, recently
took sharp issue with Cardinal O'Don
nell in a speech before a Catholic
total abstinence society, declaring
that he was in no sense responsible to
this “wet” cardinal and that he pro
posed to obey his own conscience be
fore God in fighting humanity’s great
est curse.
1 remind you that loyalty to liuor
wipes out all sense of party and na
tional loyalty. Liquor will change a
Republican into a Democrat overnight.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Black of New York. Well, that
is all right.
Mr. Ijpshaw. And worse than all.
from my standpoint, it will change a
Democrat into a “blooming" Repub
lican. Of course that word “bloom
ing” means beautiful. (Laughter.)
Mr. Black of New York. Does the
gentleman refer to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Tinkham) ?
Mr. Upshaw. I will come to him
directly. For instance, in that in
genious compilation yesterday read by
the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Tinkham), in which newspapers
and church dignitaries were called
upon as witnesses against our consti
tutional law, it will be remembered
that all along there were scathing,
references to the Anti-Saloon League:
there were indictments,.if you please,
against organized righteousness, as if
there is anything wrong or culpable
in God-fearing men organizing, not as
churchmen but as citizens, to try to
influence legislation as they see fit.
Our “wet” friends continually rise
up and say “You can not make men
moral "by legislation.” Nobody be
lieves that better than we, but we an
swer that inasmuch as no nation can
live without morality, it is the part of
Government to stain! by the door of
every home and every school and
every church and strike down the
wolves of immorality that are crouch
ing to destroy the children without
whose moral stimulus this Republic
can not live.
Mr. Tinkham will remember that I
stood for his having a square deal,
and he knows that 1 am his personal
friend. He knows mighty well that I
would not harm a hair of his head.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Tinkham. I have not many to
spare. (Laughter.)
Mr. Upshaw. But if he makes him
self the vehicle of outrageous charges
against my crowd and against my
cause he must not complain if a ma
chine gun peppers and punctures his
rotund personality. (laughter.) In
one of these compilations he read
from an archbishop or a cardinal—I
did not get the name, and have not
gotten it yet, so there is nothing per
sonal in it—in which a statement was
i made that prohibitionists habitually
j misrepresent the facts. I am stirred
within me. The Bible says “as much
as lieth within you live peaceably with
all men.” It does not lie within me
to live peaceably with a man who
charges that the great God-fearing
masses of patriotic men and women
who fought for this law through gen
erations, on their knees as well as
through the ballot box, are habitual
prevaricators and liars. (Applause.)
And I said in my haste something
of which I later somewhat tried to re
pent, for I do not love to use harsh
language; but the thing would not
work. You will remember that when
Mr. Tinkham read that outrageous
charge I rose and said, “That state
ment of a Catholic prelate that ‘pro
hibitionists habitually misrepresent’ is
a miserable lie, and 1 will more amply
pay my respects to it tomorrow.” One
of my colleagues rushed up and said,
“You do intend for that to stand, do
you? Would you say the cardinal
told a lie?” Frankly, I did not want
to. But he called me one first. He
began on me first. It reminds me of
an old picture, the first I ever saw in
an almanac, where an old Irish wash
erwoman turned and saw her boy
scratching his head, and she said,
“Mike, Mike, stop scratching your
head!” And Mike grinned and re
plied, “l won’t do it, mother; they
commenced on me first.” I thought
about it during the night, and the
more I tried to cool off the hotter I
got. The utterly inexcusable declara
tion that prohibitionists as a rule
falsify facts might have been expected
from a saloonkeeper or the president
of a brewers' association, but it is a
patriotic and spiritual tragedy com
ing as it does from a religious leader.
But if my startled colleagues still
I insist that I ought to use more tem
[ perate language, I reply that these
wet calumniators of my dry col
leagues are as careless about the
truth as General Sherman was “care
! less about fire" when he marched
through Georgia to the sea. The
truth is, gentlemen, 1 have been lis
tening to this wholesale slush, in Con
gress and in the press every day,
charging “lying hypocrisy" to prohi
bitionists until 1 am mighty ‘‘bloom’
ing” tired of it. Wet leaders claim
the inalienable right to call us all the
bad names and charge us with all the
high crimes in the catalogue and the
decalogue, and then if we reply in
kind they throw up their hands in
holy horror and charge us with ex
treme language. When somebody
says, “You ought not to use such
strong language,” I can only answer
that if some man will invent a lan
guage by which I can express my dis-1
approval of a statement that is ut
terly untrue concerning the decent,;
God-fearing people of thus country,
who believe in prohibition, I will be;
glad to adopt it.
I am reminded of that old Presby- j
| terian preacher who said he always:
i felt like the Lord ought to have in- '•
vented some kind of language by
which a man could express intense
feeling without its being called pro
fanity. (Laughter.) I have never
“cussed" since I was converted and
joined the church, but 1 remember
Talmadge said there were times when
he “did not feel very devotional.” And
I do not feel “very devotional" when i
I remember that on this floor time |
and again, and all over the pages of
the papers of this country, men like
Senator Kdwards in his radio speech
and Senator Edge **i his speech before
the “wet” convention make wholesale
charges of narrowness and insincerity
against the patriotic prohibitionists of
this country. And here on the floor
we have heard over and over again
the Anti-Saloon League charged with
being an illegal organization with un
patriotic purposes.
Now our friends on the other side
say, “You must let us say all of these
mean things we want to, but if you
dare to answer in kind we will charge
jgiu with using intemperate lan
guage.” It makes me think of the
woman who rushed out to a passer-by
who used the sharp end of a pitchfork
on her bull dog when he dashed at the
man. And she said, “Why didn’t you
use the other end on my dog?” and
he answered, “Madam, why didn't
your dog come at me with the other
end?” (Laughter.)
It has been a favorite alibi for
“wet” protagonists who can not de
fend th-eir personal or political opposi
tion by a duly constitutional law, to
point away from their own black
spots of lawlessness to the failure of,
prohibition in the home State of some
well-known dry. But this does not1
get anywhere. It only shows that the
malignant appetites born of the old1
saloon days are still defying the flag i
whose protection they invoked.
Occasionally, on this floor, and fre
quently from the columns of the Bal
timore Evening Sun and other wet
papers, the “Gentleman from Geor
gia is asked to sweep before his own
door. An occasional ebullition on
that line has come from each mem
member of the great wet triumvirate,
Messrs. Tinkham, Gallivan and Hill.
“Yesterday I wired Governor Wal
ker, of Georgia, and Dr. Marvin Wil-,
liams, the brilliant and popular pastor
of Wesley Memorial (Institutional)
Church to send me an estimate of t he j
general prohibition situation in At-.’
lanta and Georgia. Their replies fol -
low :
Atlanta, Ga., March 3, lf*2G.
Hon. W. D. Upshaw,
Washington, D. C.:
Referring to statement as to
drunkenness and crime in Atlanta
and Georgia, the real facts are that
drunkenness has steadily decreased
in all walks of life, save, perhaps,
the wealthy folks in cities. There
is practically no sentiment in Geor
gia for change in the prohibition
laws. An ambitious young lawyer
here announces for light wines and
beer, but he admits that he has no
hope of winning. If any definite
facts are desired, the record shows
that on last Christmas Eve, the day
of greatest relaxation in the South,
there was not a single arrest tor
drunkenness and not one prisoner
confined in the cit yof Brunswick, a
port city. A light wine and beer
bill was introduced in the Georgia
House of Representatives two years
ago. On the following day a reso
lution was introduced in the Senate
deprecating the agitation of the
subject, and this resolution was
passed by unanimous vote.
Clifford Walker, Governor.
Better class of citizens almost
unanimous. Prohibition vast bless
ing morally, financially, and every
way. Proof, we keep sending you
back to Congress. Open barrooms
would bring hell back. (Applause.)
Marvin Williams,
Pastor Wesley Memorial Church,
Atlanta, Ga.
W. T. Hunnicutt,
Presiding Elder.
Whatever crime statistics the wets
may quote against Atlanta, let it be
remembered that Atlanta's moral
standards are so high that we arrest
people down there when they even
smell like they have had a drink of
Baltimore booze. (Laughter.)
But over against every charge from
every wet politician from the big wet
centers, which they seek to use as an
alibi for their own devilment, I offer a
record of wholesale prosperity which,
as Henry Grady used to say, “the
mind of man can neither measure nor
comprehend.”
(Continued in Next Issue.)
Deadlier Than the Male.
“Now, can any one tell me what a
myth is?’ asked the teacher.
A solitary hand was raised and a
voice exclaimed:
“Please, ma’am, it’s a female moth.”
—The Christian Advocate.
| CHARLIE’S j
j LAUNDRY j
McGrath, Alaska
I__ __ I
j
j A Bath in a Real
I Bath Tub
i
| Shoe Repairing
I Sign Writing
Paper Hanging
j j
| Charles Rebhun j
The Handy Man
»
t
i
»
••
J. H. McLEAN..
Fresh Fruits
Fresh Vegetables
Plenty of Nuts
Choice Canned Goods
Meats
Fresh Garden Seeds