“THE FEAR FOR THEE, MY COUNTRY”
THE Prohibitionists contend, when we who are but human suggest that
the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act should be changed, that
the law is the law; and now that these are part of our statutes, they
are there to stay, that they must not be tampered with or altered in
any way; that it is up to every good American to accept them, not to
complain, not to make any utterance which would be apt to disturb the
sweet peace these laws are intended to bring to us.
They forget that it is they themselves who saw fit to change our laws.
Are they bad Americans because they did so? When the shoe is on the
other foot.... But the analogy is so obvious that there can scarcely be
any necessity of arguing the matter.
I have written, in a previous chapter, about a few of the laws which
are disobeyed. Am I a bad American, a poor sport, for instance, because
I refuse to believe in capital punishment? It is the law of my State
that a man found guilty of murder in the first degree must go to
the electric chair. Called to serve upon a criminal jury, I plainly
say that I do not believe in capital punishment. I am excused. My
conscientious scruples are taken into consideration. I imagine that
only a small percentage of us believe in sending a man to his death,
even for so serious a crime as murder; yet the statute abides. We
continue to send men to the gallows, or the chair--though some States
have been wise enough to abolish the barbarous habit.
I have conscientious scruples about trying a man for violation
of the Volstead Act; for it would hardly be possible for me to
convict a fellow citizen who had been spied upon by a detective in
a bathing-suit, as I read not long ago that one man had been. I am
against the manner in which evidence is obtained; and I would distrust,
even under oath, statements of witnesses who hired themselves to the
Government as plain-clothes men to visit beaches and bathing pavilions
in order to discover some unlucky devil in the act of taking a nip from
a pint bottle after he was shivering from his plunge in the ocean.
There is a human element in such a case. I may be too emotional for
perfect jury service. Granted. But that is something beyond my control.
I cannot change my temperament. I loath the spectacle of one part of
the population striving to discover something evil in the other part.
It seems unnecessary to me. Peeping Toms are a far greater menace
than the people peeped at. I do not feel morally bound to respect a
law which so many respectable fellow citizens likewise disrespect. I
think stupid legislation is an abomination; that the world would be a
happier place were it not for censorship of morals and manners. I think
that most people instinctively know the difference between right and
wrong, and that, through education, they can be made to understand and
see all those little differences and shades which sometimes confound us.
There are divorce laws upon our Statutes which millions of people
violently and bitterly oppose. Is a good Roman Catholic a bad American
citizen because his conscience refuses to let him condone the rulings
of our Courts in divorce trials?
On April 24, 1922, in St. Mary’s Protestant Episcopal Church, Emmerton,
Maryland, a sermon was preached by the Reverend W. A. Crawford-Frost on
the subject of “Obeying a Disreputable Law.”
The minister took as his text the verses from Esther 1:7 and 8: “And
they gave them drink in vessels of gold, (the vessels being diverse one
from another,) and royal wine in abundance, according to the state of
the king. And the drinking was according to the law; none did compel:
for so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house, that
they should do according to every man’s pleasure.”
He said in part:
“Recently President Harding and Secretary Hughes have made pathetic
appeals to the people of America to respect the law. That such
a request should have been considered necessary is itself a sad
commentary on the state of affairs existing in our republic. There
is a difference between obedience and respect. All good citizens
are called upon to obey the laws, whether they respect a particular
law or not; but they are not called upon to respect a law that is
not respectable.
“There are disreputable laws just as there are disreputable men.
“When is a man properly looked upon as disreputable? That depends
on the time and place and the people who do the looking, but in
most ages and countries there are some things that the universal
conscience of man holds to be not respectable. Thus lying, robbing,
cruelty and blasphemy are disreputable, and a man who lies, robs,
is cruel and blasphemes is a disreputable man.
“Accordingly, if a law can be shown to lie, to rob, to be cruel,
and to blaspheme God, it is a disreputable law and does not deserve
respect, though all good citizens should obey it until it is
repealed.
“To call upon the people of America to respect a law that is not
respectable is fundamentally dishonest, for it breaks down the
distinction between what is respectable and what is disreputable
and calls upon us to admire and look up to that which we should
despise and abhor.
“Now I will give you reasons why I consider that the Volstead
Act lies, robs, is cruel and blasphemes God. It may be that my
arguments are not sound, but they appear to me to be so, and all
that a man can do is to go according to his conscience and his
common sense.
“It seems to me that it is a lie to say that all beverages
containing more than one half of one per cent of alcohol are
intoxicating. No man’s stomach can hold enough of a drink
containing twice that proportion of alcohol to become inebriated
thereby. It is a physical impossibility. He would have to absorb at
least a gallon at one time to do it....
“The Volstead Act robbed thousands of men whose capital was
invested in what they considered to be an honorable industry and
one that promoted the health and happiness of mankind on the whole,
even though five per cent injured themselves by it.
“It robbed them by taking away their property from them without
compensation. It robbed their employees of their living by throwing
them out of work. It robbed the taxpayers, who now have to pay out
of their own pockets by compulsion the billions of dollars that
were formerly spent cheerfully and voluntarily by the users of
alcoholic beverages.
“The Volstead Act is cruel to invalids who under it cannot afford
to get the proper alcoholic beverages needed to preserve their
lives. I could quote scores of the highest medical authorities to
prove this, but only have space for a few:
“Dr. Paul Bartholow, of the Jefferson Medical College: ‘Beer, ale
and porter are much and justly esteemed as stomach tonics and
restoratives in chronic, wasting diseases. Alcohol is an important
remedy in the various forms of pulmonary phthisis. In convalescents
from acute diseases there can be no difference of opinion as to the
great value of wine as a restorative.’
“Dr. Samuel C. L. Potter, of the Cooper Medical College, San
Francisco: ‘In anemia and chlorosis good red wines are almost
indispensable. It is an absolute necessity in the treatment of
lobar pneumonia. In fevers, alcohol is often most serviceable.’
“Dr. Frederick C. Shattuc, of Harvard University: ‘In typhoid
fever if the heart shows undue weakness I consider it a grave
error in judgment to withhold alcohol. The danger of forming the
alcohol habit is practically _nil_ in the subjects of acute general
infection. They are more likely to acquire a distaste than a liking
for it.’
“Dr. Daniel M. Hoyte, formerly of the University of Pennsylvania:
‘Alcohol has long been used to abort a cold. The patient takes
a hot bath, and after getting into bed drinks a hot lemonade
containing one or two ounces of whiskey. This produces diaphoresis
and aids in the elimination of the toxins.’
“Dr. Binford Throne, writing in _Forschheimer’s Therapeusis_: ‘All
cases of diphtheria have more or less myocarditis, and all should
be given stimulants from the first. The best is good whiskey or
brandy.’
“Dr. Charles P. Woodruff, Surgeon in the United States Army in the
Philippines, wrote in the _New York Medical Journal_, December
17th, 1904, as follows:
“‘In 1902 I obtained a mass of data on the physical condition
and drinking habits of a regiment of infantry which had about
three years in the Philippines. I must confess to being somewhat
disconcerted and disheartened at first by the total; the excessive
drinkers were far healthier than the abstainers, only one half as
many were sent home sick and one sixth as many of them died. I had
hoped to prove the opposite.... The damage done to these young
men by occasional sprees is not so great as the damage done by
the climate to the abstainers. What a lot of misstatements have
we received from our teachers, text books, and authorities!’ He
concludes:
“‘I suppose some medical editors would advise hiding these figures
on the ground that they would be an advantage to the whiskey
dealers who buy Kansas corn from Prohibition farmers. They would no
doubt rather see our soldiers die than let them know that a drink
of wine at meals might save their lives.’
“In his report he had stated that approximately 11 per cent of the
abstainers died, while about 3½ per cent of the moderate, and less
than 2 per cent of the excessive, died. About 15 per cent of the
abstainers were invalided home, about 9 per cent or 10 per cent of
the moderate, and about 8 per cent of the excessive drinkers.
“And yet in the light of stupendous facts like these the Volstead
Act is passed, hampering physicians in their work of mercy and
making it sometimes impossible for them to give the remedies that
God intended to prevent suffering and preserve human life. Could
diabolical cruelty go further than that?
“To torture an invalid is as devilish as it is to burn a well man
at a stake.
“More. It is a thousand times worse because it is so much more
widely spread. Hundreds of invalids are being tortured all over the
United States to-day for every white man that ever was burned at
the stake by the Indians.
“Every loyal member of the Protestant Episcopal Church should hold
that the Volstead Act is a blasphemy against God. Jews, Unitarians
and others who do not consider that Jesus was God, are entitled
to hold different views from us regarding the religious aspect of
this Act, but for us there is no escape. We believe that Jesus was
God, and we believe that He made wine at Cana and that He ordered
it to be drunk publicly in His memory for all time to come. Our
Church has declared that unfermented grape juice is not wine and
should not be used for it in the Sacrament of Holy Communion. A
law to say that wine containing more than one half of one per cent
alcohol should not be allowed to be made and carried about freely
from place to place, implies that Jesus did wrong in making it and
ordering it to be used publicly by Christians. If He did wrong, He
was not God. Therefore, the Volstead Act from the standpoint of our
Church, blasphemes God.
“Every true Churchman, consequently, should despise and abhor the
Volstead Act as lying, robbing, cruel and blaspheming and unworthy
of respect, although it must be obeyed by all good citizens till
it can be repealed. We give it obedience, but not respect.
“‘But,’ some will say, ‘if this is so, why should we obey such a
law? Would it not be better to rebel against it, to flout it openly
and take the consequences?’ It is unjust. It is tyrannical. It is
un-American. It is due to a combination of religious and universal
ignorance of physiology. It is the result of active political
propaganda carried on by money of persons who are financially
interested in prohibiting alcoholic beverages. The weapons used
have been trickery, deception, falsification of statistics,
lobbying, slander and abuse. It has been forced on legislators
by intimidation of the grossest kind. Good men have been afraid
to oppose it, for fear of being called ‘boozers,’ ‘bootleggers,’
lawbreakers,’ and other opprobrious epithets. It was smuggled in as
a war measure when our young men were overseas, and later on was
made more and more stringent, till it far surpassed in tyranny any
thought entertained by its supporters in the beginning. Why should
we obey such a law? Would it not be more American to treat this
piece of iniquity as our forefathers treated the Stamp Act?
“No. It is our duty to obey it. We could not repeal the Stamp Act,
and we can repeal this. In the case of the tyranny of George III
there was no legal redress. All that freedom-loving men could do
was to rebel. That tyranny was forced on us from the outside. This
we have allowed to be imposed on us in our supineness by tyrants in
our own household. The two cases are not similar. We must obey the
Volstead Act till we can repeal or amend it....
“Bolingbroke declared, ‘Liberty is to the collective body what
health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can
be tasted by man; without liberty no happiness can be enjoyed by
society.’
“I refuse to be silent when I see America, the hope of mankind,
likely to be bound hand and foot by the tyranny of ignorance and
religious fanaticism....
“The maxim of John Philpot Curran, ‘Eternal vigilance is the price
of liberty,’ was never needed in America more than it is at this
moment. This is no time for patriots to be silent.
“According to Burke, the people never give up their liberties but
under some delusion. In this case the delusion is that they are
following Christ while they are really following Mahomet, the
anti-Christ. That delusion must be exposed until everybody sees it
clearly.
“We must not forget what Colton said: ‘Liberty will not descend
to a people. A people must raise themselves to liberty; it is a
blessing that must be earned to be enjoyed.’
“How can this be done? Listen to Savonarola: ‘Do you wish to be
free? Then above all things love God. Love one another and love the
common weal; then you will have liberty.’
“It is all right to regulate drinking by law, provided it is the
right kind of a law.
“The extraordinary thing about our text is that it shows the legal
regulation of drinking to be no new thing, for it existed in the
time of Queen Esther, 510 B.C., or just 2432 years ago, because our
text says ‘and the drinking was according to the law.’
“But the law allowed all the liberty that was right and proper. It
says: ‘None could compel; for the king had appointed to all the
officers of his house that they should do according to every man’s
pleasure.’
“It was a joyful and festive occasion, like the wedding at Cana,
and Ahasuerus then, as did Jesus later on, recognizes that the
proper use of wine would Promote happiness and health and that the
guests present would be trusted not to abuse it.
“But though laws regulating drinking may be necessary to well
ordered society, these laws must be equitable and sensible,
regulation, according to the scriptures, not prohibition. The
drinking should be ‘according to the law.’ One great trouble about
the Volstead Act is that the drinking goes on just the same but it
is not ‘according to the law,’ and instead of getting pure liquors
people are being poisoned by the thousands all over the country.
“Would it not be better to follow the Bible and have the liquor
drunk according to the law?
“This can only be done by modifying the law so as to make it
conform with the Bible. If the law is dishonest, cruel or unjust,
we must vote to change it if we love God, and love our neighbor and
love the common weal. We must either repeal it altogether or amend
it, so as to make it honest, kindly and fair, so that we may have
law and liberty at the same time.
“And Americans will do it. In the immortal words of Daniel Webster:
‘If the true spark of religious and civil liberty be kindled, it
will burn. Human agency cannot extinguish it. Like the earth’s
central fire, it may be smothered for a time; the ocean may
overwhelm it; mountains may press it down; but its inherent and
unconquerable force will heave both the ocean and the land, and at
some time or other, in some place or other, it will break out and
flame up to heaven.’”
This is powerful language which strikes at the very root of things, but
Dr. Crawford-Frost is not the only fearless clergyman who has spoken
his mind on this all-absorbing question. Archbishop Glennon, of St.
Louis, has scored the Eighteenth Amendment. In an interview given at
Atlantic City in August, 1922, he bravely said:
“The Constitution has been considerably weakened by the addition of
the Eighteenth Amendment, for the Prohibition clause limits rights,
while the rest of the Constitution grants rights. Matters referring
to alcohol and drugs should be left to the police courts of the
various cities and states.”
When he was asked if he thought Prohibition a benefit to the country,
he said:
“For those who drink too much, yes.”
The Most Reverend James Duhig, D.D., Archbishop of Brisbane, Australia,
interviewed in New York, in the late summer of 1922, deplored the
dry law. He admitted that he had not observed any drunken men in the
streets of the metropolis, but that fact, he said, was beside the
issue, because it was the principle of Prohibition with which he took
issue. He said:
“In Australia they are against Prohibition. I myself have written
strongly against it, and all that I have been able to learn of the
results of it in the United States has only served to confirm my
belief that Australia has taken the right view.
“Australia was amazed at America going dry. You cannot make men
sober by an act of Parliament. What we need is a reasonable control
of the liquor trade, not its total abolition. Extremes are always
dangerous, and I consider Prohibition an extreme course.”
In the State of Nebraska recently an attempt was made to put through
the legislation many autocratic laws. People were not to be allowed to
speak a foreign language, and certain restrictions were to be placed
on the wearing of religious garb, etc. A visitor to that State, George
A. Schreiner, of South Africa, deprecated such legislation, and stated
that “laws of intolerance defeat their own ends.” It is interesting to
see the reactions on those who come to our country for the first time.
Mr. Schreiner expressed himself wisely when he said:
“It all reminds me of the attempt recently made in Japan to put a
law on the statutes against bad thoughts. Of course, that was very
absurd and still, in a way, it was a very honestly meant piece of
legislation. The author of the bill wanted to get at the root of
what he considered an evil--a danger to Japan. Elsewhere and in
your own State the same thing has been attempted by being aimed at,
as it were. I feel that a great deal of intolerance has been born
of the War, but we ought to be fair even with Jupiter and Mars.
Much is blamed on the War, when, in reality, the War served simply
as an excuse to waken latent passions in man.”
_The Outlook_, which is certainly a sane periodical, whose editorial
integrity cannot be doubted, sees a menace in too much legislation.
Only confusion and distrust can result when the people are confronted
with a mass of judicial arguments and interpretations of those
arguments. In a sensible editorial recently, entitled “Why Not
‘Limitation of Legislation’?” the editors spoke their minds thus:
“This harassed old world needs ‘limitation of legislation’ as well
as ‘limitation of armaments.’ Statutes, laws, and regulations of
all sorts make each year confusion worse confounded. It has been
asserted that every person in the United States, unwittingly, in
99 cases out of 100, violates every day some Federal State or
local law or regulation; perhaps the honest judge himself in going
from his home to the court room where he hands down every day
his judgments of justice breaks some minor regulation, for which
offense a policeman, if he were nearby and had studied his book of
regulations carefully enough, could place the eminent judge under
arrest.
“A leading authority on American police administration recently
estimated that the average policeman, to enforce the city
ordinances, State laws, and Congressional enactments, committed in
whole or in part to his charge, must have a working knowledge of
at least 16,000 statutes. This fact was pointed out in a recent
speech in Washington by James A. Emery before the American Cotton
Manufacturers’ Association.
“Why not a Congress sometime which would subtract 500 useless or
foolish or annoying laws from the statute-books, instead of adding
500 laws to those same bulky volumes? Such a Congress might earn
recognition as the greatest the world had yet seen.
“In one of our State legislators a few years ago an extreme
illustration occurred of the desire of a member to have his name
attached to some piece of legislation. This particular member was
sent to the Legislature from a more or less rural district. He
introduced a bill providing that a bounty of five dollars be paid
by the State for the hide of every loup-cervier (the Canada lynx or
wild cat) killed in the Commonwealth. Most of the members did not
know what a loup-cervier was and had to consult the dictionary, or
some other member who had beaten them to the dictionary, to find
out what this particular animal (popularly known in some places
as Lucy Vee) was. The legislator who desired to have his name go
down in history as the author of an addition to the laws of the
State is said to have traded his vote on practically every other
piece of legislation which came up at that session for votes on his
pet measure, which was passed. The State pays as much as twenty or
thirty dollars some years for the animals killed on which this bill
offered a bounty!
“If there is one place above all others where there is pride of
authorship, it is in the halls of America’s State and National
capitols; and, as in the field of belles-lettres, there is plenty
of plagiarism. Similar bills also are frequently introduced by a
half dozen or more members, each hoping his may be the one which
will stick and bear the mark of fame.
“The United States ‘easily holds first place in the manufacture
of statutory law,’ declared Mr. Emery in his speech. ‘A single
Congress,’ he added, ‘usually receives some 20,000 bills. Many of
the States consider not less than 1000. During the year 1921, 42
legislatures were in session. Judging from past years, Congress and
the States annually enact an average of 14,000 statutes. The State
and National legislation of a single year recently required more
than 40,000 pages of official print.’
“Certainly, it is time for a Congress on limitation of legislation.”
The same paper has this to say, editorially, on “The Achilles Heel of
Prohibition”:
“National Prohibition has not been long on trial. The final effect
of the fundamental change in our Constitution involved in the
enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment has not been, and cannot be,
yet determined. All the evidence which we have seen, however, tends
to show that the nation is better off materially and physically
under Prohibition than under the system which permitted the
sale of intoxicating beverages. Benefits to be derived from the
elimination of the drink traffic did not wait upon our National
experiment for demonstration. They have been obvious for centuries
in the experience of peoples from whom alcohol has been barred by
religious authority. There remains, however, a very serious problem
confronting the defenders and advocates of national prohibition.
It is the problem of maintaining the respect for law and order and
that mental habit of ready acceptance of legal enactments which is
one of the strongest bulwarks of applied democracy.
“We do not doubt for a minute that the majority of the people of
the United States are in favor of national prohibition. Even in
great cities where the liquor interests have had their stronghold
we suspect that the number of men and women who would vote for
national prohibition, were it put to the popular test, is much
larger than the ‘wets’ are willing to admit. We say this in order
that this editorial may not be considered as an argument for the
repeal of prohibition amendment by those who are working for such
ends upon premises which we regard as distinctly unsound.
“To say that there is a majority in favor of the amendment does
not imply that there is not a large and active minority in favor
of its repeal. The greatest problem confronting advocates of
national prohibition lies in the fact that this large minority has
not accepted the amendment with that good faith and willing spirit
which we have grown to look upon as characteristic of the spirit of
the losers in our political controversies. There have been great
changes in our government prior to the enactment of the Prohibition
Amendment, but almost invariably these changes, once effected,
have been acquiesced in by their most ardent opponents. We are
not speaking of individual violators, but of the public attitude
towards the law.
“One of the strongest denunciations of those who have failed to
acquiesce in the Eighteenth Amendment was recently voiced by Judge
Ben B. Lindsay, of Colorado, in a statement to the press. Judge
Lindsay said:
“‘Is the Eighteenth Amendment going to be enforced? At the present
time it is not being enforced with any degree of success, but has
raised up a trail of evils in its wake which are as bad, if not
worse, than those it sought to avoid.
“‘So far the great majority of prosecutions have been against the
poor and uninfluential people who are victims of the tremendous
temptations afforded by the example of the rich.
“‘Just what do I mean? I mean that the wealthy and more favored
class in this country must accept a responsibility which is now
being ignored. They must be willing to give up their pleasures and
abide by the law intended for the good of all. So far they have not
set the example.
“‘The theaters, jokesters, and parodists are encouraged in making
a mockery of the Constitution of the United States. When a rich or
influential citizen fills his cellars with smuggled liquor and the
police are called off, in nearly every case the “conspiracy of the
rich” is immediately set in motion. What is this “conspiracy”?
“‘It consists of their influence in reaching officials and
suppressing newspaper publicity concerning themselves. So long as
some of these officials and some newspapers are lending themselves
to this “conspiracy,” they are creating class prejudice. An example
of this occurred in our city within the past week. A friend of one
of our most influential newspapers became involved in a bootlegging
case and was successful in suppressing all mention of it in that
particular paper which pretends to be against this evil.
“‘The greatest need in this country to-day is to abolish “special
privileges,” and the new “special privilege” which the Eighteenth
Amendment has created is the right of the rich to have their booze
while the same right is denied to the poor.’
“Judge Lindsay has laid his finger upon a moral danger which exists
in the widespread levity towards an important section of our
National Constitution. The same menace was singled out for warning
by Prohibition Commissioner Haynes when he recently said: ‘One of
the greatest dangers now confronting the Republic is that we may
lose our vision of the sanctity and majesty of the law.’
“How shall we guard ourselves against this menace? The protection
cannot be found merely in increased activity of the enforcement
officials. It cannot be wholly met by the vigilance of the police.
It is a moral danger, and it must be met with moral weapons.
“If we turn to the States which experimented with prohibition
prior to the enactment of the National Amendment, we shall find
precedent an uncertain guide to an understanding of the situation
which confronts us. Maine, which has the longest record under
prohibition, has almost the poorest record in maintaining respect
for its prohibition laws. Kansas, on the other hand, after a
generation of disturbance and conflict, settled down to obedience
to the law backed by a wholesome and widespread public opinion.
“Will the Nation follow the precedence of Maine or of Kansas?
The determination of this all-important fact depends on the sum
total of the attitude of our individual citizens towards the
maintenance of our fundamental law. It is the right of any one to
work for the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment if he or she so
desires, but it is the bounden duty of every one to see that so
long as the Eighteenth Amendment is part of our Constitution it is
accorded that respect upon which the whole structure of democratic
government rests.”
But here we get right back to where we started. Citizens cannot be
_forced_ to respect a law for which, inwardly, they have a great
contempt. Even a spiritual energy cannot be brought to bear, I fear,
which is strong enough to bring about this desirable end. The youth
of our land, at least in our great cities, laugh at the Eighteenth
Amendment--which means that they will laugh at other laws, and finally
express nothing but derision for the Government.
This concentrated feeling is far more serious than scattered
inebriety. It strikes at the very base and roots of society, and,
once having gained a sure hold on the people, cannot be checked. An
observer who loves America cannot but see in the youth of the land
a total disrespect for order and the old sanctities; a violation of
moral codes, and a failure to establish rectitude in niches of the
heart. There are no convictions, no principles among the young and
growing population. There is no desire to conform, no aspiration for
a betterment of conditions as they are. Instead, there is intolerant
laughter, and one is called an old fogy who attempts to assert that
marriage vows mean something and that girls who drink cocktails in
taxicabs out of thermos bottles are in grave peril.
There is a studious avoidance of responsibility. Yet one should not
be surprised. The example set is none too worthy. It is known that
hypocrisy exists in high places; that inconsistency is a national
trait; that men in office say one thing and do another.
I heard a young man remark not long ago: “Oh, they think it’s wrong,
do they, to drink? Well, how many Congressmen in Washington have
replenished their wine-cellars, do you suppose, since Mr. Volstead
ran this country, eh? I’d like to get affidavits from bootleggers in
Washington, as to just what stock has been laid in.”
That feeling--how can one counteract it? One has no answer for such
a sage youth. Alas! he does some thinking, after all; but our silly
legislation has caused his thoughts to run in a direction from which we
would gladly divert his mind. The fact of the matter is that most of
his elders have thought long and solemnly on these same things.
It is not a pretty topic to consider. We will not face the facts--that
is the trouble with America, as I see it. I know one Assemblyman in
New York State who bravely ran on a wet platform in a dry community,
as a matter of principle. He was weary of lying to himself, and to
his constituents. He said that as long as he kept a wine-cellar, and
deliberately transported some of its contents when it suited him, in
his car, he could not face his friends. He must come out in the open
and accept their blame or their approval. He ran for office with a
clear conscience; but others will not thus declare themselves. Behind
veils of verbiage they discreetly conceal their political faces; alone
with one another, or with you and me, they will speak their true mind
on Prohibition--particularly if their tongues are loosened by one or
two glasses of whiskey.
These are the men who are a danger to the Republic they pretend to
serve. Janus-faces have they. They are all things to all men. The time
will come when, before we go to the polls, we shall know just where
each candidate stands on every issue. There will be no equivocation.
Declarations must be made. Masks must be off.
Of the menace of hypocritical office-holders and senators, Edwin
Markham has spoken eloquently in these ringing lines. They should be
known to us all in these times of shattered dreams and false avowals.
The old established Ship of State could weather the gale if the crew
were honest and remained on deck.
THE FEAR FOR THEE, MY COUNTRY
In storied Venice, where the night repeats
The heaven of stars down all her rippling streets,
Stood the great Bell Tower, fronting seas and skies--
Fronting the ages, drawing all men’s eyes;
Rooted like Teneriffe, aloft and proud,
Taunting the lightning, tearing the flying cloud.
It marked the hours for Venice: all men said
Time cannot reach to bow that lofty head:
Time, that shall touch all else with ruin, must
Forbear to make this shaft confess its dust.
Yet all the while, in secret, without sound,
The fat worms gnawed the timbers underground.
The twisting worm, whose epoch is an hour,
Caverned his way into the mighty tower;
Till suddenly it shook, it swayed, it broke,
And fell in darkening thunder at one stroke.
The strong shaft, with an angel on the crown,
Fell ruining: a thousand years went down!
And so I fear, my country, not the hand
That shall hurl night and whirlwind on the land;
I fear not Titan traitors who shall rise
To stride like Brocken shadows on our skies:
These we can face in open fight, withstand
With reddening rampart and the sworded hand.
I fear the vermin that shall undermine
Senate and citadel and school and shrine;
The Worm of Greed, the fatted Worm of Ease,
And all the crawling progeny of these--
The vermin that shall honeycomb the towers
And walls of State in unsuspecting hours.