Hearing by Committee on Federal Relations
Hearing by Committee on Federal Relations
Senator Cambria presiding and Caplan; Miss Ceo Clerk; House Chm Mr. Stahle and 10 other members of the committee.
Hearing to order 2:10 PM
Chairman: I’d like to welcome everyone to Joint Standing Committee on Federal Relations’ public hearing this Wednesday, April 15, 1931. The Committee thinks that since most of the bills are similar in character, and all pertain to the same subject matter, that if we allow 1 hour for the proponents, and one hour for the opponents, that sufficient time will have been given to cover all the issues. We will first hear those on HB 201, An Act Concerning a Petition to Congress of United States to Submit to the Several States an Amendment to Constitution Concerning Eighteenth Amendment.[PG 1]
Mr. Baldwin (Stratford):This substitute bill provides that the Legislature by an act shall submit to the Federal Congress a proposed form of amendment to the 18th Amendment to the Federal Constitution…that reads as follows: “Article 20. Article 18 of the amendment to this Constitution is hearby repealed. The power to regulate or to prohibit the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors is reserved to the several states. The Congress shall have the power to regulate the sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors in interstate commerce in a manner not to abridge or deny the powers herein reserved to the states. “
We all know we have this problem. I am not going to spend any time discussing it. It is the greatest problem that has confronted the U.S. since slavery. And in many particulars it is much like slavery. It has its economic side, and has its moral and religious side as well. And people are divided on it. [PG 2]
I may say that I am honestly of the opinion that when Conn. Failed to ratify the (18th amendment), it looked further than the states who did. I think this matter should have been left to the states and the states alone to provide for it.[PG 4]
Chairman: Anyone else want to speak specifically to this bill No 201- in favor?
Bacon: I wish to report we are emphatically in favor of this bill, especially in that feature of it which calls for referendum….We stand firm on a self-evident principle that laws regulating private conduct always have failed and always will fail unless they have behind them the support of public opinion. It is our opinion that not only has this amendment not got this opinion but in the vast areas of our country sentiment is overwhelmingly against it. This is a matter is dispute but we believe everyone, no matter what his opinion may be, should welcome a referendum which would let us know what the facts are since all intelligent notices must rest on a knowledge of those facts and that is the only way to test it- have a special election and let the citizens say yes or no to this question, free from all other entanglements with other issues….[PG 5]
Now don’t you see therefore that the fundamental issue is what is the public sentiment in regard to this prohibition. Is it overwhelmingly for or against it? Therefore it seems to us that we ought to all welcome a direct referendum in this matter. I would like to call upon one or two persons who would like to say a word on this bill.[PG 7]
Robinson, Jr: Spinoza wrote 250 years ago “a law which can be broke without harm to one’s neighbors is a laughing stock”. Gentlemen, the question goes far deeper than a matter of personal interest. The Crusaders have seen the gaft and corruption and above all hypocrisy the 18th Amendment has brought, and it threatening to undermine our very government. It is a question of soundness in sentiment and honesty in government and that is the reason we are here. We see no reason why the people of this state should not be given the privilege of voting on the most serious and most outstanding question before the people today, and for that reason the Crusaders of Stamford and also Bridgeport are heartily in favor of the Baldwin bill. [PG 8-9]
Unknown name (?): ..why are we not entitled to have a vote taken on it? If the drys oppose this measure, how can they fairly do it? If the referendum shows a dry result, than no kick- and if it shows a wet result surely they are not going to attempt by a dry measure to control a wet majority?[PG 10]
Many people claim to be dry and still are not. This bill places on the American people an injustice. The American Federation of Labor is opposed to it and we are here asking for the repeal and right of referendum. If the majority is in favor of it we will have to abide by it. We never had a chance to speak for ourselves. [PG 11]
Jewett: In all government there is something that ought to be preserved and some things to be destroyed. The 18th amendment ought to be destroyed. Mr. Lincoln issued a proclamation declaring no more slavery in these United States. Yet this 18th amendment is a form of slavery, and I maintain no man shall dictate to me what I shall eat, drink or what party I shall put my activities to as it is not the province of any man to dictate to another as to his personal rights, and I wish to register in favor of all these bills. [PG 13-14]
Campbell: …In the last analysis it was the saloon which prompted the people of these United States to seek a reform of relief in the Constitutional amendment. That amendment was passed in an ordinary manner and has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the U.S. It may not have been a perfect remedy but evidentially a requisite number of people of the U.S. deemed it as effectual as any that could be devised. Its enemies never intended that it should succeed, and they still seek to discourage its friends by advertising its failures, but it still remains the fixed and supreme law of the land, and in the judgment of such men as the late ex-pres. Taft it will continue to remain. It is inconceivable that the Government of the U.S. should wholly fail to enforce this part of it precisely as the other parts of the government are sustained by the government. At present it is better than it was and in the future it is expected to improve. It will never be perfect….[PG 15]
The 18th amendment was intended to exterminate an institution that had fed and fattened intemperance, and had become a menace to national life. ..Temperance is a matter of training and education…Loyalty to these traditions means that we should stand firm against these attacks of the 18th amendment….Therefore it remains in the minds of thoughtful people a serious question as to what would happen to this country in case the amendment, or any of it, were repealed.[PG 16]
Harmon (Salvation Army):Commander Booth ask me to express again her opinion on this subject and to read to you today some excerpts from a paper which she recently prepared for a prohibition meeting. Commander Booth declares that the statement that the young American is drinking more than ever before is libel upon American youth….She says in the U.S. we recognize now that prohibition is law and as members of the Salvation Army we propose its further observance…[the opinion] of our force is that conditions are better on account of prohibition. [PG 17-18]
Sarah S. Walden, wife of the Dean of Yale University: I am appearing here on behalf of the Womens’ Law Enforcement Committee of Connecticut. We are opposed to all measures or anything like them and we wish to bring reason to you… Since 1927 when the prohibition bureau was created, all the evidence is favorable to a much better prohibition enforcement in the U.S. and I am sure we have ample evidence of the needs of that stiffening up in Connecticut. We are opposed to any of these substitutions for prohibition because we feel that all of them eventually lead back to the door of the saloon. We are opposed to any vote of the people because we feel certain we have not only an uninformed, but largely misguided public to deal with and that the customary channels are closed to evidence on prohibition. We know only too well what we should be up against as to the motives that would be employed by some of our opponents to stampede the voters by a regular deluge of unfounded propaganda, although of course we will do so it a referendum is put forward by this part. We therefore ask you to report these bills unfavorably. [PG 18-19]
Borkham:The State Grange has always stood for home and up-building of character, and we cannot see anything in these bills that would help along these lines…I want to tell you the 10 Commandments are 34oo years old and nobody would be foolish enough to stand up and say the great majority were not in favor of them. People that are here asking for this resolution have never made plea for observance of the law. I claim that if the 18th amendment is not practical neither are the Ten Commandments….we should be glad to obey laws, to live on a higher ground rather than being dragged down. Would there be less drinking if the barriers were destroyed- would there be more? The State Grange is opposed to these measure as are our 12 organizations…[PG 20]
Hersey:I oppose these bills…I know the purpose of the 18th amendment. It tends to stop my friend from drinking. The object is the object of the Emancipation Proclamation- not only does it free slaved but it abolishes a system under which slaves were made. The object of all this legislation and prohibition was to make it very much less probable that boys and girls would become habitual drunkards and in that respect is it most absolutely satisfying….The 18th amendment has made it more difficult [for liquor] to enter the human body. ..Perhaps it is unfortunately better than the saloon was at its very best. I hope you will report unfavorably on these bills. [PG 20-21]
Lewis, WCTU of New London: Representing nearly 4000 Connecticut young people who have pledged themselves to support the 18th amendment. I consequently feel that the thinking youth, the young people who are going to be the leaders of the state, are opposed to anything that will weaken the 18th amendment….Young people are naturally idealistic. They want to leave it a better civilization that they came into. The liquor question as done more to drag down civilization than anything else. We think the 18th amendment is the best thing to abolish the liquor traffic…We are facing a fight. We are not afraid...I am [firmly] convinced that the majority of thinking young people in this state are opposed to any action whatsoever that will weaken or repeal the 18th amendment, and therefore request that the committee report unfavorably on these bills.[PG 21-22]
Maurer, Central Church, New Haven: I think it is high time that some plain things were said about the 18th amendment. We know the things they have told us. They intend to blacken the administration every time they get a chance. President Hoover has said if there was ever a doubt as to the 18th amendment he proposes to enforce it and the enforcement of the 18th amendment is becoming more and more effective every month. In fact that is one of the troubles, it is becoming too effective. It is becoming so effective that personal habits are becoming hampered and embarrassed. I am one of those who believe it is the duty of the citizen, involving his loyalty, to aid an administration rather than to hamper and destroy, especially by submitting a law like this- therefore we are opposed to the bill. [PG 25-26]
White: In the provision of this law it is contended that prohibition shall be returned to the states for their own individual action. This is a matter for expert government. This state is creating more experts to know what to do….Any legislation which Connecticut can make would make her objectionable to her neighbors or her neighbors to herself, and it is perfect nonsense to say Connecticut can decide this matter for herself. We owe our loyalty only to the U.S. Let me beg of you not to do anything so shortsighted as to offer to the Congress of the U.S. a statement as to what the public of the little state of Connecticut had to say about prohibition. [PG 28]
Baldwin: Mr. Chairman we did not use our full hour but the opponents have used theirs…May we still have the balance of our time? [PG 29]
Chairman: It is customary to hear the proponents and then the opponents and usually the proponents are given a chance for rebuttal. We will here you. [PG 29]
Bacon:I don’t agree…that people cannot be trusted, and I am at utter disagreement that the same attitude is taken with the 10 Commandments as of the 18th amendment. I say that is utterly false…If this amendment read Congress is given the power to regulate the liquor enforcement then the public opinion could attack it. Thrust a direct blow at the republican form of government. This issue all hinges on what the sentiment is. You can go just as far as public sentiment will support and it is important for us to see how far that is and I see no objection to it. [PG 33]
Chairman: The hearing is closed.