PROHIBITION REPEAL.

Waikato Times, Volume 113, Issue 18877, 22 February 1933, Page 7

PROHIBITION REPEAL.

ADOPTED BY CONGRESS.

-i ■' • .*U LAST STEP IN VIEW. ~ : v PROPOSAL NOW BEFORE STATES. SOME RESISTANCE ANTICIPATED. United Press Assn.—Eloc. Tel. Copyright. WASHINGTON, Feb. 20. Congress to-day plaoed the responsibility for the repeal of the Eighteenth (Prohibition) .Amendment on the States. The House of Representatives registered the two-thirds vote required to approve of the Blaine resolution already approved by the Senate. The resolution was carried by the House by 289 votes to 121, or 16 more than was necessary for a twothirds majority. Conventions in 36 of the 48 States must now approve the resolution in order to put the new amendment the 21st, into effect. As soon the the outcome was known the quarrel in Congress on the point of how the State Conventions should be called upon to act swung into full light. Now that this vastly important first step toward the repeal of prohibition has been accomplished in this session with a suddenness generally unexpected iby even the strongest proponents of the “wet” cause, America to-day enters upon another crucial stage of the prohibition experiment. That is the action to be taken by the States on repeal and the selection of methods for the reintroduction of the liquor trafflo.

"Dry” Opposition Expected. It is felt that a Federal statute specifying every detail of the creation of procedure at the State Conventions is essential. Efforts will be made to obtain such legislation, but may be delayed until a special session of Congress is held. Also, there is no concealing the fad that the “dry” forces will be back again on their oldest and best-com-manded ground when the new amendment goes to the States for their approval, unless serious deterioration has oocurred within the "dry" organisations of the States.

‘That this is so is strongly denied by such outstanding prohibtion figures as Bishop Cannot and the superintendent of the Anti-Saloon League, Mr F. S. Mcßride. They claim that 50 per cent of the States still approve of prohibition.

The new amendment' may meet with unexpected resistance in various strategic “dry” centres suoh as Texas, Kansas, and North and South Carolina. Other Stales possibly will delay if not seriously endanger the ratification of the change. It has long been claimed by the “dry” organisations that they have found it comparatively easy to manipulate the political control of the State Legislatures which approved the Eighteenth Amendment. The provision for especially chosen State constitutional Conventions contained in the Blaine proposal 'is specifically to forestall similar manipulation. Whether it will be successful or not remains to be seen. Even if the Blaine amendment is approved by the States the liquor question in the United States will hardly be altogether settled. It will really only then be ready for ultimate settlement.

Bootlegging May Continue. As the Individual States under the new amendment will have 'the right to regulate or prohibit the liquor traffic according to their own desire, there is a strong possibility of muoh serious conflict between State laws. However, many States, led notably by New York, have already Invited their most distinguished Jurists and public men to propose systems for the control and regulation of the liquor trafflo. There is bound to be much working at cross purposes. The two principal benefits whloh are expected to flow from the resumption of the authorised liquor business—-namely, the eradication of the lawless elements and the resumption of Government revenues—may not altogether he realised because liquor running between “wet” and “dry,” or between even “wet" States where the -regulation itself Is dissimilar, will allow a continuation to a serious degree, of bootlegging, liquor racketing and large-scale gang control.