OCTOBER 15, 1914 



A, L Moot 



OUE HOME 



Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good 

 pleasure to give you the kingdom. — Luke 12:32. 



Be ye not therefore anxious, saying. What shall 

 we eat? or What shall we drink? or Wherewithal 

 shall we be clothed? For after all these things do 

 the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly Father knoweth 

 that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye 

 first his kingdom, and his righteousness ; and all 

 these things shall be added unto you. Be not there- 

 fore anxious for the morrow ; for the morrow will 

 be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day is 

 the evil thereof. — Matt. 6:31,34. 



In our last issue, page 787, I replied 

 briefly to the Plain Dealer's editorial sug- 

 gesting that the State of Virginia would 

 lose $700,000 revenue by votin^^ dry. Since 

 then, while reading the sixth chapter of 

 Matthew I was impressed with the thought 

 that God's promises cover the matter of 

 revenue as well as food, clothicq, etc. Sup- 

 pose we read the 31st verse this way : 

 " Therefore take no thought spying. What 

 shall we eat? or What shall we drink? or 

 Wherewithal shall we be clothed?" Can 

 we not oonsistentlv add to the above, " Or 

 how shall revenue be secured"? Then right 

 after the 31st verse we read, '' For after all 

 these things do the Gentiles seek." Is not 

 this indeed true at the present time now as 

 well as ages ago? Then we read, "For your 

 heavenly Father knoweth ye have need of 

 all these things." Then comes that grand 

 text and promise that has been a beacon 

 light to me since I began reading it with 

 emphasis to the boys in our Medina jail 

 over forty years ago : " But se«)k ye first the 

 kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and 

 all these things shall be add?d unto you." 

 Does not this promise, dear frit-tids, include 

 revenue as well as evei-y thing else? While 

 the above thought was in mina, the follow- 

 ing letter came to hand : 



POSTOFFICE DEPARTMENT, 

 DivLSiON or Railway Mail Service, 



OFFICE OF CHIEF CLERK. 



Mr. A. I. Root: — Attached you will find a clipping 

 taken from the editorial page of the Cleveland Plain 

 Dealer of September 30. Could you give us a talk 

 on this subject in the October 15th edition of Glean- 

 ings ? I think it would do a lot of good among 

 those of our fraternity in helping them to decide this 

 question. 



I have been a subscriber to Gleanings for about 

 seven years, and a reader of the paper since 1890, 

 having used my father's copy. Your records will 

 show that he first began taking the paper in 1883. 



I am also a reader of the Plain Dealer, and my 

 personal opinion is that this paper is on the oppo- 

 site side of this question, as witnessed by the adver- 

 tisements they carry. 



Cleveland, 0., Sept. 30. R. W. Cobb. 



Our readers will notice from the above 

 that this letter comes from a railway mail 

 clerk, and the expression in th'- letter, "our 

 fraternity," probably refers io the clerks 



in the mail service — a class of men as 

 bright and clean, as a rule, as can probably 

 be found in Ohio or any other State, for 

 that matter. In accordance with the re- 

 quest of the writer I am going to take space 

 (o give the editorial from the Plain Dealer 

 complete. Here it is: 



THE WET AND DRY AMENDMENTS. 



Pour amendments to the State constitution come 

 before the voters of Ohio in November. All have been 

 initiated by petition ; the legislature has passed 

 judgment on no one of them. 



The sharpest contest comes over the so-called 

 " wet " and " dry " amendments, one of which would 

 abolish county local option — whatever else it might 

 do ; the other would add Ohio to the ten States which 

 already have statutory prohibition. It is narrowly 

 conceivable that both these conflicting amendments 

 might receive an affirmative vote in November. In 

 all probability, however, one of jhe two will be 

 rejected; both of them may be defeated. 



Practically speaking, each voter must decide 

 whether he will support the "wet" or the "dry" 

 amendment, or vote against them both. It is a ques- 

 tion confronting every elector in Ohio which he must 

 decide between now and Nov. 3. 



Let us see what the two amendments would ac- 

 complish if written into the basic law of the State. 

 The "wet" amendment reads as follows: 



" No law shall be passed or be in effect prohibit- 

 ing the sale, furnishing, or giving away of intoxi- 

 cating liquors operating in a sub-division of the 

 State upon a vote of the electors thereof or upon 

 any other contingency which has force, within ter- 

 ritory larger than a municipal corporation or a 

 township outside of municipal corporations therein. 



" All laws in contravention of the foregoing are 

 hereby repealed. Nor shall any law be passed pro- 

 hibiting the sale, furnishing, or giving away of 

 intoxicating liquors throughout the State at large." 



Obviously, the amendment is vague in meaning. 

 Attorney General Hogan says it would accomplish 

 one thing; lawyers of equal ability declare it would 

 accomplish that one thing and much besides. In 

 case this provision were adopted, it would probably 

 take a high-court decision to determine how sweeping 

 its effects would be. 



The "dry" amendment is in these words: 



"The sale, manufacture for sale, and importation 

 for sale of intoxicating, liquor as a beverage is here- 

 by prohibited. The general assembly shall provide 

 for the enforcement of this provision, and enact laws 

 with adequate penalties for the violation thereof." 



A schedule attached to this amendment provides 

 for its taking effect one year and six months after 

 the election at which it is adopted. 



This " dry " amendment evidently has the advan- 

 tage of clearness. One who votes for it may know 

 precisely what he is approving, so far as the text of 

 a proposal foretells the condition it would bring 

 about. 



What, then, shall the voter do — vote " wet " or 

 "dry" or against both amendments? 



Ohio definitely adopted the license plan for con- 

 trolling the liquor business two years ago. The plan 

 itself has been in complete operation less than one 

 year. It starts with large promise of good results, 

 but the time has been too short to justify either a 

 sweeping approval or disapproval. 



" Wets " and " drys " in the convention of 1912 

 compromised their differences and voted to submit 

 the license amendment to the people. The proposal 

 bore the name of a " dry " delegate. In the consti- 



