State

July 15, 1933 THE STATE Page Seven // And I Am Against Repeal // AND if you are inclined to be dry in your views, you will derive equal satis¬ faction from reading Mr. Dickey's piece on this page. He is well known to the reading public of North Caro¬ lina, and, in addition, has contributed numerous articles to publications of national circulation. THE STATE presents both sides of the repeal ques¬ tion; you can form your own opinion. ASSERTS CHAS. H. DICKEY I HAVEN’T heard a new argument for the return of legalize**! liquor in five years. You’re not reading a new one on the opposite page now. It’s the same old line you’ve been getting all along. It is amazing with what unanimity the wets hurl at you the same standard¬ ized arguments from one end of this county to the other. It never varies. They reel it off like a phonograph rec¬ ord — their canned, standardized line. Hear them in Rear Grass or in New York and you hear the identical same thing. On Pullmans and in lobbies they never vary it. The ‘‘big boys” have phrased it and the rest of them have swallowed it whole. It goes something like this: “You can’t legislate morals." “You can’t take away a people’s freedom." “More liquor is consumed today then when we had the open saloon.” “If you’ll give us legal liquor it will 1m- taken out of the homes" (as though the wets were really inter¬ ested in taking it out of anybody’s home). “Taxes are crushing us to death — let’s bring back liquor for revenue.” “Prohibition doesn’t prohibit” (ns though they wanted it to). And so it goes — piped nut with parrot-like pre¬ cision. And some of them reel off their argu¬ ments utterly oblivious that they have swallowed the wet, paid propaganda so ably financed by the liquor interests of the country — swallowed it hook, line, sinker and all, without knowing they’ve swallowed it. And on the other hand, some of the wets who perfectly under¬ stand where their line came from tacitly assume that some of the drvs are boobs enough to swallow it, too — without knowing that they're swallowing the highly financed and never-ceasing paid advertisements of the liquor interests. And, some of them have. One freely admits that prohibition hasn’t thor¬ oughly prohibited ; that morals can’t be legislated ; that tin- country needs revenue. One admits, also, that the dry forces of the country have, until re¬ cently, sat down and fold- 141 their hands ami gone to sleep because they had certain legislation passed. But there are some things one can't admit. One can’t admit that mon- liquor is consumed now than in the days of the open saloon ; that there is any¬ thing good to be said for liquor; that revenue may be- paramountod above every moral and humanitarian consid¬ eration; or that all the evils of recent years are traceable to the “noble ex¬ periment.” One of the amazing things thrown off by the wets is the unspeakable audac¬ ity with which they lay every modern- day evil at the door of prohibition’s reign. To hear the average wet argu¬ ment you’d believe, if you were dumb enough to believe it, that every present evil under the sun has come upon us because the dry forces of this country have dared to throttle the liquor inter¬ ests. This they seem always to imply, and to expect the rest of us to be gulli¬ ble enough to swallow their foundation¬ less arguments. In a government such as ours, it may 1m- admitted that the people, if they choose, have a governmental right to legalized liquor. J ustice Holmes thinks that the people of a democracy have the right to play the fool now and then if they want to do it. But on the other band, it must likewise be admitted that the drys have the right to oppose the legalization of liquor — the same right the wets may employ— that is, the gov¬ ernmental right. And this we intend to go on doing. The “revenue” argument has been, possibly, the most telling argument tin- wets have advanced. They know they can’t defend liquor; so they have been wise enough to resort to another course. They’ve masterfully decided to tickle us under our financial short ribs by squawk¬ ing about high taxes, and asking us to fill the government’s coffers with taxes on liquor. And with that thrust they’ve hit a soft spot in the American make-up. But T dare to submit that legalizing an evil for the sake of revenue is one of the most dangerous things the American people could ever endorse. The logic of it is cumulative. The reasoning of it is progressive. And with the same line of approach, you can justify a “red- light district” on every Main Street in North Carolina, a gambling joint in every corner of the state and the com¬ plete abandonment of every moral prin¬ ciple if, and only, it will bring in revenue. That argument will not stand the test before a people who regard anything as of higher value than money. Reve¬ nue? Yes; but what price revenue? Lcgnliz»-d liquor? At what price, in¬ deed ? There are any number of us who will never vote to crucify our state upon a cross of revenuo ! An editorial writer in this state said the other day, “It would be a very fine thing if we sat down quietly, while there is still time, and figure out just what is going to come next, if the Eighteenth Amendment goes out.” And right he is. For what is to come, we don’t know. Wo only know that we would be placing ourselves, our homes and our interests in the hands of the liquor peo¬ ple of this country. And wo are afraid to do that. Terribly afraid ! For some¬ thing seems to tell us that those men who would sell us short for revenue, might not make wholesome guardians for our interests. And so, I appeal to reason. T do not appeal to passion, to prejudice, to re¬ ligious bigotry or to party fanaticism. 1 merely appeal to the reason — to tin- better judgment — of the men and women of North Carolina. I submit that no man can produce a sound, unshakable argument for the consumption of liquor. A man tried it the other day on me, and I knocked him out with this: “You have three fine sons,” I said. “Answer me yes or no — would you want either of them to sell liquor or to consume it ?" “No,” he quickly admitted, adding “There’s really no argument for it.” The editorial writer was correct. Right now is the time to do some think¬ ing while we may. And many people are going to do a lot of thinking before they walk up to tin? polls and turn over (Continued on page eight)