THE KUbKO TIMEb
A. X. Grant, Publisher, Sola
Owner and Editor.
Published Every Saturday
$1 Per Month
Advertising Rates.
IBieading matter, per line, per
issue ....$ .26
Ii<Itl advertisements, per line,
issue .20
■ffransient display, per inch, per
issue (minimum charge $1).60
ifintered as second-class matter Au
gust 29th, 1922, at the poatofiice at
*j3V>kotiia, Alaska, under the Act of
IMarch 2, 1819.
Takotna, Alaska, May 10, 193Q.
iPROHIBITION MUST GO, DE
CLARES REPRESENTATIVE J.
M. BECK OF PENNSYLVANIA
A recent notable address on the
jfnatter of prohibition .was that made
jin the House of Representatives by
Representative Jame M. Reck of
iPennslvania, as follows, as taken
jfrom the Congressional Record:
1 ask indulgent attention to a
1 brief and inadequate discussion to
« one phase of the preliminary report
, of the Wiekersha mlaw enforcement
.commission. I retsrict my discussion
-.to the opening paragraphs of the
preliminary report, wmch are titled
•“Scope and Size of the Problem.’’ -
«do so because this portiop goes to the
a very fundamentals of the great con
ltroversy.
Unfortunately it is expressed .in
• somewhat sryptic phrases, as though
ithe learned commissioners were con
-sciously walking on very thin ice. 1
.doubt whether the American people
jhave yet fully realized the signiti
.cance and prophetic character of the
j inevitable implications of this portion
«of the report.
To .many this preliminary explana
tion of the commission may be as en
igmatic as the Uelp...an Oracle, but
jif the prohibition leaders had caught
iits full significance they would have
.rent their garments, sat themselves
.down in sackcloth or ashes, qr possi
jbly have had resort to the wine
•which, on high Scriptural authority,
‘“gladdens the troubled heart of man.”
•The collective experience of the past
iand the time-honored traditions of |
;the English-speaking people consti- j
itute a damning indictment of the
.Eightenth Amendment. . . .it
•should be a matter to the wets and of
apprehension to the drys that this
iCommission, composed of able and
ilearned men, will at some appropriate
ttime pass fro mthe mere incidentals
.of the great controversy and discuss
.the very heart of the problem. , , .. |
|L shall venture to explain the real
•significance of their pointed allusions
fttLifche ancient traditions and experi
ences (Of the English-speaking race
;aad their .application to the present
2mtuation.
The profoundest intellect of an
ftiquity, Aristotle, said two thousand
;years ago that, if a constitution—by
Which he meant the aggregate of the
jlayrs prescribed by the state—conflict
•with what he called the “ethos,"
fdunely, the spirit ur genius of a peo
ple, the result of the conflict would
inot be uncertain, for the laws have
jno fasting vitality save in the spirit
iOf a people. We must distinguish
this ethos,” or spirit, of a people
fro mthe mere results of the polling
booth, or fluctuating votes in legis- j
lative assemblies, for these only reg
ister jthe temporary opinions of fleet*
ing majorities.
If this be true, then it is especially
true-of a race of individualists who
tmr* aoyer been disposed to place
MKm the brow of King Demos a
eyrasen which they had taken from au- (
tocratic kings. Hence the significance
of the phrase in the report, “We must
note the attitude of the pioneer to
ward such things.” We are still a
race of pioneers. It is true that we
have cleared a continent of its onre
virgin forests, but the American peo
ple did something far greater than
that. They cleared the mind of Amer
ica from the obsession of past ages
that a state had an unlimited and di
vine power to regulate inall respects
the conduct of the individual. A race
of individualists does not defy the
state. It refuses to believe that the
oil of anointing, that once was sup
posed to sanctify the head of the
monarch and clothe his utterances
and acts with infallibility, has now
fallen upon the multitudinous tongue
of the majority. , .
The preliminary report further em
phasizes its meaning by n most sig
nificant analogy. It says: “The Whig
tradition of a ‘right of revolution’;
the lonception o fnatural rights, clas
sical in oour polity; the democratic
tradition of individual participation
in sovereignty.”
What does this allusion to jthe great
Whig tradition mean? The word
Whig first became associated with
the liberal tendencies of the free yeo
men of England before the revolution
Of 1688. James II, an arbitrary mon
arch, believeed that it was his divine
right ,to impose his ideas of morality
upon individuals and to enforce his
mandates; he sent out his Lord Chief
Justice Jeffreys on what was known
as the “tUoody Assizes.” Within four
weeks Jeffreys had tried and convict
e dover twelve hundred men and wo
men, and even children.
Of course, this is not a record for
efficiency, as compared with our gov
ernment in the matter of prohibition,
for last year, according to the report
o four able Attorney General, there
were terminated 56,455 criminal
prosecutions under the Volstead law.
Jeffreys, therefore, only converted
free Englishmen into criminals at
the rate of three hundred a week,
whereas our benign government is
indicting the American people at the
rate of one thousan da week.
However, the analogy of the Whig
tradition may refer to the use of the
name in American politics, and this
suggests an analogy of profound in
terest and significance. The Whig
party, from 1830 to I860, waas a
great party. It had such leaders as
Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. Its
weakness was its disposition to ad
just questions of profound morality
in the spirit of compromise and sur
render. . . _. j
The result is a sinister omen for
the .Republican party, even in this
day of its great power. The Whig
party perished and the Republican
party came into being. I say it with
regret, hut 1 say it as a necessary
warning, that the Republican party
cannot longer acord to sell its soul to
the fanatical drys, and if it does, and
thus becomes the party of prohibi
tion, it may have a like fate The
party did not emancipate the slave to
put the white man in the chains of
an intolerant policy. . . . The Re
publican party cannot hold forever a
large number of self-respecting men
and women to whom the intolerance
of prohibition is a moral affront. It
can not forever be half wet and half
dry.
No one who knows me will chal
lenge my deep reverence for the Con
stitution. 1 have given much of the
best energies of my life to its defense.
If 1 have rendered to my day and
generation any service, it has been in;
calling attention, by pen and words,'
to a noble compact of government
which, 1 fear, is more respected than
read.
We are constantly reminded by the
fanatical drys that to question the
wisdom of the Eighteenth Amend
ment is a challenge to the Constitu
tion itself. I deny it. They, would
not think so if the conditions were re
versed. Suppose—and it is a fanciful
proposition—that the Eighteenth
.amendment road tfeat t$e. manufac
ture and use of alcoholic beverage*
should be encouraged and that eveor
citizen was commanded by itts terms
to drink an alcoholic beverageonee a
day. Would the fanatical drys, in
that event, have the same feeling a*
| to the sanctity of the Constitution
and its infallible wisdopn? Would
they not argue, ast he wets now ar
gue, that such an amendment goes
j yond the fair province of govern
ment ?
Certainly, the leaders of prohibi
tion showed scant repect for the Con
stitution when they wrote this ille
gitimate amendment into that noble
instrument and thus destroyed its
perfect symmetry and .turned a wise
compact of government into a mere
police code. ...
The preliminary report goes on to
say, “We must, not forget the many
historical examples of large-scale
public diregard of laws in ou rpast.”
The report might have added, in the
past of the whole human race, for the
political progress <yf civilization has
always been marked by revolts
against unjust and oppressive laws,
and it is ignilicant that, in the long
run, the pirit of the individual has
been triumphant.
Edmund Burke onle said that you
could not indict a people; he might
' have gone farther and said yon can
not indict a substantial portion of
the people. The fact that, after ten
years of enforcement, with the ex
penditure off hundreds of millions of
dollars and a ghastly sacrifice o£
many lives, the prohibition law .is
still largely unenforced damns it be
yond any defense, and the only rem
edy suggested by the .gentleman from
New jersey (Representative Fort)
proves its futility.
The great argument for prohibition
was the injury to the home from ex
cessive drinking, and our colleague
well said, “There is a .man who does
not know, even the moderate drinker,
that his use of liquor never added
anything to the happiness of his fam
ily or the comfort «f his hame,” -and
yet our esteemed celiaeague, as .a last
attempt to enforce the unenforceable,
would make every home a potential
brewerv or wine press.
if a law have any .reasonable, justi
fication, or is even within the reason
able province of government, then
the American people are .as loyal '.to
it as any other people, hut they re
fuse to believe that a law is either in
fallible or omnipotent. They know
better. To the American the Jaw is
but the reasoned adjustment of hu
man relations and its true sanctity is
largely in Be reasonableness and not
in the fiat of tthe state.
An increasing number of .American
people who once believed .firmly in
prohibition, no longer believe in .it
after the practical test of ten years.
They have seen some disadvantages
in the policy. One li the effect of this (
McGrath
Pool Hail
Fresh Fruits
Candies
Tobaccos
Pipes
Cigarettes
Soft Drinks
Cigarette Holders
FRANK LANGE
policy lapdni the zaomi liber of the'
AaMrioan, people.
What eceet, thehfi, ‘has prohibition,
hadgpapM» American people7 That!
itihaaTPotincreased.their respect for'
law, .Which, ia. the vital] .-spirit Of any
gowmmt,. amt he -conceded, hut it
is of hr greater eeasequence that
prohibition, baa orffanized our coun- j
try upon.a vast mole of collective hy-j
poerip and, like .a cancer, this spirit
of' rtnaihlr dealing n eating .away the1
moral fiber nff the American people.
The more, jrou -try. to enforce it, the
gnatar.;theapi<ead of topodriay. The
pqpooad addition to the Volstead Jaw
will bane adilittleeffecta? putting a,
mustard plaster .on . a xancer. iilfcwill
not cure the cancer-^it.will cfply in
tensity its..activity* and cause it to.
spread more rapidly tbnodgh the bqdy i
pallgic,. Jhtan thair pianaerforefath
ers the American people inherited a
spirit of siaeeriUy, liu now we wit-1
nes a general hypocrisy .and double- ■
dealiag, ahilehiare fut destroying the I
character 6f> oar official life and even ,
our morale.
We vanare told Mat prohibition
would empty the jtfUs, .and we have
juat aated millions tobuild more Fed
eral ymaoav to accommodate the j
thnnsaartmwhuL are being striven there J
by the law, many <of whom might
have been useful citizens. I refuse >to
believe that any sys.em that indicts
a American citizens a week
in our Federal courts, and in many
cases destroys their self-respect, is
of any real advantage to the develop
ment of American manhood.
The shadows of life are fast length
ening with me and i may never live
to see e day when the.Eighteenth
Amendment is formally. repealed,
fortunately, the American people are
not so impotent /that they . .cannot
undo this gigantic fqlly. without first
securing the consent of tbm&fonbUis
.of the states. To make a famdaL ad
dition to the , Constitution,.,-anchaw
sent is nehessgry,, bht thus tnfdrde
mant of apy.Jlause of the.Cossti&u
v .(.Continued from Pagh.2.)
»Ar* you. a Kuske' TiaeaanbaiMbdr ?
WJtar. net?___
j . Frank J. Gnskyy
j
V.
Takotna iPool iHall
Fjr^sh Emits
Tobaccos
Apples
vs
Caddies ' SoftSMftks
Cigars 'Ogarets
Oranges
Charlie(DlHalloran
mt
MaxSimel :
H Pioneer j
f* Trader
' »ATiSN :•/* nirmr.miAMijHm
Miner*’, ProgpectorsT and
TFrapjscrs’ Supplies