Evening Star Newspaper, November 22, 1932, Page 12

Page views left: 0

You have reached the hourly page view limit. Unlock higher limit to our entire archive!

Subscribers enjoy higher page view limit, downloads, and exclusive features.

Text content (automatically generated)

A-12 BRAK L $6.75 B s Oare Resally ‘TLow “‘Better Brakes for Less” 303 N ST. N.W. DE. 5483 2000000 f Get Ready for ‘Christmas i Celebrations with and NEW ELECTRIC < MUDDIMAN ¢ 911G St. Nat'l 0140-2622 RELIN! EELS OLDSMOBILE GENERAL BRAKE SERVICE r0000009 : EXTRA PLUGS FIXTURES Close Saturdays 1:00 P.M. Mortgage Loans When you consider that your investment will earn % continuously and that your principal has behind it a mortgage on im- proved Washington real estate of conservative ap- P ment you can ap- te the satisfaction from an_investment in our 6% First Mortgages. May be purchased in amounts from $250 up. B. F. SAUL CO. National 2100 925 15th St. N.W. Here's what BUS TRAVEL MONTH RETURN PRIVILEGE @ EXCURSION RATES @ MOST MODERN BUSES @ HEALTHFUL HEAT @ THE ONLY NATION-WIDE SERVICE No wonder it's the world’s most popular travel-way! The dollars you'll save on November trips will be most welcome for and you're sure Christmas spending . . . — of a prompt, pleasant journey. Pl excursion rates and schedules. ROUND TRIP FARES Philadelphia . 85.25 Pittsburgh, .. 10.50 Boston. . Petersburg. . 5.90 Suffolk. . 7.50 t. Louis...30.00 Union Bus Depot 1336 New York Ave. N.W. Phone: Metropolitan 1512 Blue Ridge Lines ‘Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis R. R. 12th St. & New York Ave. N.W. Phone: National 0836 ' nnugggnen Gnngfiouwo fores | amendment, Representative James M. | ures considered by the eoming Congtess. | Radio Forum, sponsored by The Star| | and broadcast over a Nation-wide net- | the time for action has arrived.” | tent” and the imposition of “a reason- | ing it into effect is not so clear. | formall -|'ment. under the commerce clause of EARLY BEER AGTION FORECAST BY BECK Representative, in Radio Forum Address, for Modi- fication First. . Declaring modification of the Vol- stead law should not await the slow process of repealing the eighteenth Beck, Republican, of Pennsylvania, pre- dicted last night that legalization of beer of non-intoxicating alcoholic con- tent probably will be among first meas- The forecast was made in a radio address on “The Constitution and Pro- hibition Reform,” given in the National | work of the National Broadcasting Co. “The will of the American people must be respected,” Mr. Beck said “The time for discussion is past and Course Advocated. The course advocated by the wet| leader is modification of the Volstead | law “by excluding from its operaticn | malted liquors of a small alcoholic con- able tax upon the commodity in relief of the public treasury.” ‘The “cold reality should be recog- nized by all” he stated, that the| eighteenth amendment cannot be re- | pealed or modified if 13 States refuse to approve the proposal. It is by no | means certain, he said, that all States would approve ‘“naked repeal’—one without a guarantee against ‘recog- nized abuses of the liquor traffic and the return of the saloon.” Text of Address. Representative Beck's address follow: When Congress reconvenes on the first Nonday of December, it will be at once confronted with the question, how and when it can effectively and speedily carry into effect the impera- tive mandate of the American people to repeal the eighteenth amendment and modify the Volstead law. The mandate to restore to the States their former right of local self-govern- ment is clear, but the method of carry- The cold reality should be recognized by all, that the eighteenth amendment can- not be repealed or modified unless the Legislatures or conventions of 36 States ratify some specific proposal. ‘The refusal of 13 States, or even their inaction, can defeat repeal. While i is now probable that 36 States will favor repeal in principal, it is by no means certain that all would ratify a naked repeal of the eighteenth amend- ment. If the repealing amendment is submitted in that form, the possibility must be reckoned with that at least 13 States may reject or refuse to ratify the amendment and will only ratify one, which contains some guarantee against the return of the saloon. President Hoover had this hard real- ity in mind when, in his speech of acceptance, he argued that in restor- ing the right of local self-government to the States, the Federal Government, should by constitutional fiat guarantee against the return of the saloon, either in wet or dry States. At the time he made this suggestion I reluctantly ex- pressed my dissent to such a rigid and inelastic provision in the Constitution. It seemed to me to perpetuate the fundamental evils of the present sys- tem, which gives the Federal Govern- ment police powers in a matter pecu- liarly of State regulation. While thus disagreeing with the President’s suggestion in detail, it seemed to me that he was right in principle, that the reasonable wets and drys must co-operate to proj an amendment, which, without sacrificing any fundamental principle, would yet insure its acceptance by the requisite -number of States. I had this spirit of reasonableness in mind when I drafied the Beck-Linthicum repealing amend- mend, for that amendment provided that -the Federal Government, in pro- tecting the dry States from violation of their -laws. should not only have the existing powers of the Federal Govern- the Constitution, but a further reser- vaslon of plenary power to pass any legislation that was necessary tl to protect the dry States. If it be desirable, in restoring the power of regulation to the States, that the Federal Government should make impossible the return of the saloon, then it would be wiser to add to the Beck- Linthicum amendment & reserved power in Congress to pass any legislation necessary to prevent the return of the saloon. Congress could then from time to time, and in the light of experience, determine whether to exercise the power, and to what extent. This seems to me preferable to an arbitrary and inelastic flat of the Constitution, that THE EVENING STAR, WASHINGTON, D. C., TUESDAY, OVEMBER 22, 1932. there should be no return of the saloon. Such a guarantee would not add to the dignity of the Constitution, but, ténds to “suckle fools and chronicle . small Such a constitutional guarantee would be as generally evaded as s the eighteenth amendment. If the States regain their right to authorize the use of alcoholic beverages, then one of two results seems inevitable. If there is to be no open legalized saloon, strictly regu- | lated by law, then there will inevitably the unauthorized underground speakeasy. A saloon, which the law permits and regulates under strict po- lice surveillance, is better then a speak- easy (only a saloon under-a different name), and which, being forbidden and ;mder cover, operates in violation of all | aws. I recognize the evils that were in- herent in the saloon, but when the| States are authorized to regulate the traffic within their own borders I be- lieve that ft would be better to await the test of expericnce and then de- termine what legal safeguards sh-uld | be thrown about the traffic. Each State can best adapt such regulation to | its own peculiar conditions. It may be | possible and desirable to prohibit a saloon in Kansas and yet neither prac- tical or even desirable in New York City. | liquors for beverage purposes.” I recognize the possibility that some of | the States might be very lax in such | regulation and therefore Tegarded as a | debatable question whether a repealing | amendment should not reerve the right | to Congress, in the light of experience, | to determine from time to time whether | the retail distribution of alcohslic bev- | erages through the “so-called saloon | shall be permitted or forbidden, and, | if permitted, under what circumstances. Even the word “saloon” requires defini- | tion not possible in a constitutional | amendment. This concession might dis- | arm the hostility of dry States, which | may be more than 13 in number, which | would oppose a naked repeal. Let us avold the fatal mistake of another rigid | constitutional provision and rely upon‘ legislation, to use Washington's phrase, based upon “time and habit.” - Requires Action at Once. The mandate of the American people further requires that, pending the long process of repeal, immediate relief be | granted by a modification of the Vol- stead law, so far as that is now pra | ticable under the eighteenth amend- | ment. Congress, either in the short| session, or certainly in the next Con- | gress, will unquestionably be confronted with this legislative problem, and the limits of its authority are therefore of | immediate and profound concern. | The first section of the eighteenth | amendment forbids “the manufacture, | Daylight killed romance - because of her PIMPLY SKIN AREpwafnid of daytime's evealing glare? Do pimples, blackheads or large pores rake you flinch before the appraising glance of every man you meet? Don’t allow poor complexion to kill your chances! Ordinary face creams and lotions cannot help you. But with the right medical treatment, an exqui- site, alluring skin can soon be yours. tors prescribe this treatment— nursesuseitthemselves. It's Noxzema, the snow-white, healing, greaseless medicated cream. It corrects the cause of disiguring plackheads, pimples, large pores, eruptions. Skin faults ended quickly Noxzema’s penetrating medication reaches deep down to the bottom of the pores—thoroughly purges away all clogging, germ-breeding, poison- ous matter. Then, with the pores pure and fresh, Noxzema's soothing balms and gentle astringents beal, soften, refine the irritated, coarsened skin texture. Noxzema's huling.dkindneu an make even the most badly blemished skin far clearer, smoother, finer—in only 8 hours—overnight! Small wonder that over 6,000,000 women use Nox- zema regularly for rea/ complexion health and beauty. Start on this “miracle” beauty treat- ment tenight. Apply Noxzema after removing make-up, Tomorrow you'll be thrilled to see definite improve- ment. Then use Noxzema nightly and alsobefore powdering. Soon your skin will radiate the priceless beauty of health. Get a small, inexpensive jar of Noxzema at any drug or dept. store. sale, or distribution of intoxicating This section is not self-executing, nor does it contain any express mandate that 1t shall be executed. What it does pro- "vide in section two is that the “Con- gress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this ar- ticle by appropriate legislation.” These | words “chall have power” have a clear | and recognized meaning in constitu- | tional la: They confer an authority | to legislate, but they invest in Congress | a political discreticn as to whether the | power shall be exercised. This view is confirmed by the use of the qualifying | adjective “appropriate.” Manifestly, | the Congress is to determine what is appropriate enforcing legislation. Thus, | a political discretion is given to Con- | gress to determine whether they will pass laws to enforce prohibition, and, if so, to what extent and by what method. Whenever the Constitution imposes | an imperative duty on Congress to act, it uses the words that “Congress shall” do so and so, and in that event any failure of Congress to pass the legisla- tion is a palpable violation of the Con- stitution. For example: The Constitu- tion says that every 10 years there shall be a new enumeration of the in- habitants of the United States, and that political representation shall be apportioned every 10 years in accord- ance with such enumeration. If Con- gress neglects to provide for such a census and to reapportion representa- tion in accordance therewith, it vio- lates a solemn mandate, and its action is essentially revolutionary. But when —to take another {llustration—the | Constitution says that Congress shall have power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, the method of such regulation, or whether it shall be regu- lated at all, rests in the political discre- tion of Congress. For nearly a century Congress refused to exercise this power of regulation and no one called it nul- | lification. Congress Has Discretion. It follows from the apt language of the eighteenth amendment that Con- gress is empowered to enforce the pro- | hibition section, but the method of its exercise is within its discretion, and | this view is strengthened by the pe- culiar and unprecedented provision that the Congress and the several States “shall have concurrent power to | enforce” the provision. While at one | time this peculiar phraseology was | something of a mystery, it now seems | clear thet the draftsmen of the eight- centh amendment felt that Congress much subject to the eighteenth amend- ment as the Federal Government, and yet 39 of the 48 States have made no appropriation to enforce the eighteenth amendment, and a large number have either affirmatively refused to pass, or have repealed existing enforcing legisla- tion. No one calls this nullification. Their discretionary right to leave the difficult task of enforcement to the Fed- eral Government is no greater than is the right of the Federal Government to eave the question of enforcement to and if the eighteenth amendment be not repealed, the com- ing policy of the Federal Government may be to say to the States that the | eighteenth amendment was ratified by them and for their benefit. and if they | want to enforce it, they must do so. I do not know who the draftsmen of | the eighteenth amendment were, but | they were good lawyers and very capable men. They wanted to forbid | forever, in this country, even the use of alcoholic beverages. Why then did they only give to Congress the power to enforce the prohibition, without im- posing upon it an imperative mandate to do s0? They knew that there were two uses of alcoholic beverages, which could not be prohibited without a pro- found and destructive reaction. They | recognized that the two great religions of our Western world, the Jewish and the Christian, each use wine in the | most sacred of their ceremonial rites, | and that there were times when an alcoholic beverage was useful for medicinal purposes. Paradox Is Apparent. Fanatics as they were, they could not | bring themselves to include in the| first section of the eighteenth amend- ment an exception in behalf of liquors for sacramental purposes, or for medi- cinal uses. Such a course would have brought too palpably to the minds of | the American people the monstrous | paradox, that a commodity, which had | been lawfully used for countless cen- turies, was to be forbidden as something inherently wicked and criminal, and vet its use was tolerated in the most sacred rites of the church, and for the | beneficent purpose of alleviating human | suffering. This compelled those clever drafts- | men to leave to Congress a political dis- | cretion as to the extent of enforcement and what exceptions should be made to | prevent the policy of prohibition from | becoming intolerable, and Congress promptly acted upon this interpreta- tion of the eighteenth amendment by permitting, in the Volstead law, the | use of wines for sacramental purposes, | out a futile enterprise. use of alcoholic liquors for beverage purposes makes it clear that Congress has a political discretion, for which its members are solely responsible to their constituents, to determine to what ex- tent, if any, the Federal Government will enforce the prohibition of the eighteenth amendment. ness of this conclusion can be tesied by the fact that no competent thin . would contend that the judiciary couil compel the Congress to pass enforcing legislation, if it refused to do so. Having thys clearly in mind a politi- cal discretion, it remains to apply it to the concrete problems that will con- front Congress, but before doing so, one further power, which is fundamental, must also be recognized. The eight- eenth amendment cannot be enforced by the Federal Government without ap- propriations. The power over the purse—one of the most ancient rights of the English speaking race—is vested by the Constitution in Congress. The eighteenth amendment does not im- pose any duty on Congress to appro- priate money for such enforcement, if it has reached the conclusion from past | experience that enforcement is im- practicable and that such expenditures of public funds would be wasted. Con- gress might pass & law that a certain bridge should be erected across a river, but if a subsequent Congress reached the conclusion that it was impracti- cable to erect the bridge at that point, the House of Representatives without awaliting a repeal of the law, would be fully within its constitutional rights to refuse to appropriate money to carry ‘This being so, 218 members of the House of Repre- sentatives can end the futile experi- | ment of Federal enforcement by refus- ing to waste further money in its at- tempted enforcement. It has for many years refused to appropriate money to enforce the fifteenth amendment. Huge Sums Spent. For 12 years we have spent huns dreds of millions of dollars to enforce the eighteenth amendment, and have indicted over 500,000 citizens, and the law today is more widely violated than ever. This beihg so, Congress has the undoubted right to say that the further expenditure of monies, especially in view of the probable repeal of the eighteenth amendment and the present condition of the Treasury, is a waste of money. As previously stated, the States, which have a like power and duty, have taken this position, and the Federal Gov- ernment has no less a right. Superficial thinkers have called this nullification. It is not. It is the exercise of a dis- might not exercise its power to enforce, | and, in a very limited way, the use of | cretionary power as to public expendi- tures, expressly vested in Congress by | matter, for it is the consistent dispo- | and therefore preferred to reserve in | the States a like power. They were as | hard liquors “for ~medicinal purposes. | This unchallenged exception from the the Constitution itself and those who ‘The swr-d-| use the word nullification are plainly ignorant of the great political traci- tions of the English speaking race, which makes this power over the purse the greatest of legislative powers. ‘The legalization of beer, of a non- intexicating alcoholic content, will probably be among the first legislative measures to be considered in the com- ing Congress. arises whether there is power in Con- gress to determine what is, and what | is not, an intoxicating liquor. In pass- ing the Volstead law, Congress, fol- {lowing the precedents of excise legis- {lation, which were designed only for | the purpose of taxation, imposed the | unreasonable limit of less than one- | half of 1 per cent, and the Supreme |Court sustained this definition as | within the political discretion of Con- gress to determine what is “appropri- |ate” enforcing legislation. Thus, it | recognized a discretion in Congress to | define what is, and what is not, intoxi- | cating in fact. The court said: | “It is therefore clear both that Con- | gress might reasonably have considered some legislative definition of intoxicat- | ing liquor to be essential to effective enforcement of prohibition, and also | that the definition provided by the | Volstead act was not an arbitrary | one.” Would Be Unreasonable. A declaration of Congress that brandy or whisky was non-intoxicating in fact, | would be so unreasonable that the Su- | preme Court would hold that a law | which sought to legalize such hard | liquors was invalid. When, however, | the question of beer arises, it is obvious |that it can have an alcoholic content so low as to be non-intoxicating in fact, and also one so high that it is clearly intoxicating. The court will | accept the declaration of Congress as to what alcoholic content is, or is not, intoxicating, unless such declaration were plainly arbitrary or otherwise un- reasonable. from the negative and clearly de- | fensible attitude of providing that no provision of the Volstead law shall apply to any beer of a lesser alcoholic content than a prescribed amount, for | this is simply a failure to enforce, and | beyond judicial review. Indeed, the | Congress could repeal the entire Vol- | stead law and provide a new which would apply solely to distilled liquors. This would exclude all malt liquors from the enforcing statutes. ‘The Supreme Court generally cepts any -assumptions of fact, which lation, and I am confident that such would be its attitude in the present ! sition of the court to facilitate, and The question necessarily | ac- not to obstruct, the will of the the foun than 60 Federal laws, and has done so when constrained by impera- tive necessity. The power of the Foieral Govern- ment, in the presen state of the , to tax beer, does not di upon whether its manufacture is or illegal. It can impose the tax in either event. This the court has ex- pressly decided. While this is so, it seems to me profoundly immoral for a legislative body to tax that wnich it forbids. The plainer and better course is to modify the Volstead law by ex- cluding from its operation maltea liquors of a small alcoholic content and then impose a reasonable tax upon the commodity in rellef of the public treasury. ‘While the ultimate objective must be the repeal of the eighteenth amend- ment, yet the modification of the Vol- stead law should not await the slow process of such repeal. The time for | discussion is rast, and the time for Congress can approach the subject | law, | Congress makes as the basis of legis- | action has arrived. The will of the American people must be respected. 74!2 COLUMBIAN Baltimore, Philadsfphiz, Vew York AIR-CONDITIONED Many travelers prefer our trains be- cause ‘of the reaily tasty meals we serve. Here are added reasons for se- lecting this ‘rain: Attractive Club- Lounge, Cbservation-Sunroom, Parlor cars, Individual Seat coaches, Colonial Diner. Fast, convenient schedule. Rub- ber padsat metal contact point: bsorb vibration and noise. Air ideall: tem- pered and cleaned. No extre fare! Motor Coaches meet all trains at train- side, take you to any one of 13 central New York or Brooklyn points. Lv. Washington . Ar.N.Y. (42 St. D. L. Moonuax, Asst. Gen. Pass. Agent. Woodward Bldg., 15th & H Sta., N.W. District 3300 THE WAR WHOOP “Nature in the Raw”—as por- trayed by N. C. Wyeth... in- spired by the blood-curdling yellsof war-mad savages, whose _ barbaric crueltyheld America’s earlysettlers in a constant state of terror. “Nature in the Raw is SeldomMild”’—andraw tobac- cos have no place in cigarettes L No raw tobaccos in Luckies —that’'s why they’re so mild WE buy the finest, the very finest tobaccos in all the world—but that does not explain why folks everywhere regard Lucky Strike as the mildest ciga- rette. The fact is, we never over- look the truth that “Nature in aging and mellowing, are then given the ‘benefit of that Lucky Strike purifying process, described by the words—*It’s toasted”. That’s why folks in every city, town and hamlet say that Luckies are such mild cigarettes. : the Raw is Seldom Mild”’—so these fine tobaccos, after proper

Other pages from this issue: