WET v. DRY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 19008, 8 May 1924, Page 5

WET v. DRY

THE BUTLER CONTROVERSY A NEW TURN. Received May 7, 8.10 p.m. NEW YORK, May 6. The controversy regarding Dr. Butler’s speech, attacking Prohibition, has developed a new turn, it being suggested that Dr. Butler may be angling for nomination for the Vice-Presidency. While this motive has been authoritatively denied, observers point out that President Coolidge, who is considered a Prohibitionist, might benefit by having as a running mate an eminent citizen who is liberal on Prohibition matters. This would be especially valuable if the Democratic Convention should offer consolation to the so-called “wets.” Meantime the extent of the popular feeling on the question may be judged from Dr. Butler’s receipt of over 10,000 communicafiqns. One politician, angered by Dr. Butler’s stand on the Prohibition question, announced that he was withdrawing his two sons from Columbia University. A local Methodist ministerial association, representing nearly 200 ministers, adopted a resolution censuring Dr. Butler, saying: We protest against his attitude regarding Prohibition, which is not the right kind of patriotic example to set before thousands of young men and women training for citizenship in Columbia University. The resolution further requested the trustees to dismiss Dr. Butler. The trustees, however, unanimously refused to do so. [An unexpected debate on Prohibition between Dr. Butler, president of Columbia University, and President Brooks, of the University of Missouri, who were both guests at a dinner in New York, caused great disorder among the guests, who, despite the toastmaster’s “Please!” rose to their feet applauding and cheering the disputants. President Butler declared that Prohibition was not enforced, because it could not be enforced, and he attacked the clergy who supported the activities of the Anti-Saloon League, adding: “The bootlegger alone is satisfied with the present situation. What we need is liquor police, similar to those in Quebec, who would pour into the Treasury annually five hundred million dollars that we are now giving to the bootleggers. We are down in the valley of darkness, of lawlessness, and contempt for order. The situation demands courage, intelligence, and reason. I have faith in the American people’s ability to correct it.”]