American Agriculturist, August 18, 1923 
105 
Both Sides Have Their Say 
On the Prohibition Vote, and That “Say” Makes Good Reading—Be Sure ToVote 
W E are for anything that will 
make the world a happier, better 
place to live, and prohibition cer¬ 
tainly has helped more people 
than any one other thing that man has done. 
When we think of all the crime, misery and 
suffering caused by drink, how can anyone 
wish it back? 
I think the great majority of country 
people are in favor of the Eighteenth Amend¬ 
ment and of having it enforced more rigidly. 
We should not think of just ourselves if we 
do want to drink, but of the best thing for 
the people, especially the children.—J. S., 
Pennsylvania. 
i 
“MENTION SHOULD BE MADE OF CIDER” 
ARE farm people for prohibition? Un- 
fortunately many of them are not. That 
is, not strict prohibition. A. L. T. says: “If 
alcohol is such a terror to mankind, why has 
the Creator made it so plentiful?” Does 
the Creator have anything to do with the 
hidden stills? He also says: “A large ma¬ 
jority of our citizens made outlaws.” Have 
they been made outlaws ? Or were they born 
outlaws, only needing the proper chance to 
develop their tendency? 
A man who is a drunkard now is not a 
law-abiding citizen! And A. L. T. says: 
“Any one can procure the drinks that has 
the price.” And it looks very much like it 
was so; but, shall this continue to be so ? If 
one law can be trampled under and ignored, 
cannot all others if the outlaws so wish it? 
A constitution that passes a law should 
enforce it! And there can be no leniency 
about it. Light wines and beers that are 
intoxicating should not be allowed any more 
than whiskey, and special mention should be 
made of cider. Prohibition law should be 
enforced so strictly no one dare 
furnish any such drinks, and 
then it would probably cease to 
be a snake in the bed!—J. H. G., 
Pennsylvania. 
By A. A. READERS 
“Take heed lest by any means this liberty 
of yours become a stumbling block to them 
that are weak.”—G. F. S., New York. 
ADVOCATES MODIFICATION 
I AM pleased to note that one of my favorite 
periodicals is about to place before its 
readers a fair and impartial vote on this 
question of prohibition. 
I have always been against prohibition, 
because in my opinion it is utterly un-Ameri¬ 
can, against the spirit and letter of the very 
foundations on which the great American na¬ 
tion was built and now rests. The Eighteenth 
Amendment has become (as might easily 
have been foreseen) the plaything of crooks, 
grafters and hypocrites, both in and out of 
the Prohibition Party. 
If there be those who enjoy a glass of beer 
or wine or even liquor in moderation, I say 
“Let them have it.” And to those who would 
abuse this privilege, the law now is ample to 
deal with disorderly persons. And again, 
the immense sums now spent to support 
crooks and grafters would be turned into the 
treasury of the United States and unques¬ 
tionably our taxes would be reduced to a 
great extent.—H. F. K., New Jersey. 
AS AN EMPLOYER VIEWS IT 
AS I send my copies to relatives near my 
XJLfarm in New York State, I do not want to 
mutilate my issue of July 7th by cutting out 
the form on Page 5. But if you care to 
register my opinion and judgment, it is un¬ 
qualifiedly and unreservedly in favor of the 
rigid enforcement of both the Volstead and 
Narcotics Acts. I believe that only in their 
legitimate and intelligent use, under pro¬ 
ENFORCE THE BROOKS LAW 
E NCLOSED find my vote also 
my neighbor’s against the 
Eighteenth Amendment. It is 
positively no good. The Ameri¬ 
can people will never stand for 
such laws. It is five times worse 
since prohibition came in than 
before. 
I am sixty years old and I 
know young boys and girls 
drinking home-brew liquor that 
is not fit to drink, and older 
people that never drank before. 
Then there is the loss of revenue 
that we have to make up some 
other way. Our court calendar 
is crowded full here with liquor 
violators. The cost to enforce it 
must be great. 
In my judgment from what I 
have seen since it came in, it is 
no good, and should be taken oif 
the slate at once; and go back to 
the Brooks Law and enforce it. 
Then our country would be safe. 
—J. A. B., Pennsylvania. 
NOT LAWFUL TO KILL OR STEAL 
S EVENTY-FIVE per cent of 
the farmers in this town 
want prohibition. The argument 
that the law is violated is true 
of any of our laws. Killing and 
stealing are not done away with, 
yet who would have it lawful to 
kill or steal? Personal liberty 
is another argument by the 
“wets.” The Apostle Paul says: 
PROHIBITION BALLOT 
OF THE 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST 
Are You for the Strict Enforcement of the 1 [ YES 
18th Amendment as It Now Stands ? | j no 
fessional direction for medical purposes, have 
liquors of any grade, and drugs any proper 
place. 
My judgment has been formed as a con¬ 
siderable employer familiar with both urban 
and rural conditions in many States. I be¬ 
lieve if the general and indiscriminate use 
of liquors and drugs could be stopped the re¬ 
sult, probably not apparent for a genera¬ 
tion, would prove to be the greatest blessing 
the American people have ever enjoyed, or 
ever will.—W. B. Y., New Jersey. 
DANGEROUS FOR AUTOMOBILISTS 
I N this section the farmers are largely in 
favor of prohibition, especially the pros¬ 
perous ones. Since the enforcement of the 
prohibition laws has been left to the Federal 
authorities, the bootleggers and liquor sel¬ 
lers have become very bold in their disregard 
for law, and much to the discomfort and 
danger of those driving automobiles when 
meeting an intoxicated driver at any time.—^ 
L. H. B., New York. 
BETTER FOR THE RACE 
T OPPOSED adding the Eighteenth Amend- 
X ment to the Constitution because I did 
not believe that under our form of govern¬ 
ment it could be made to accomplish its ob¬ 
ject. I believe, however, that it would be 
better for the human race if all the alcoholic 
liquors intended for drinking purposes were 
thrown into the sea, and the knowledge of 
their manufacture become a lost art. It 
would be better for humans, although bad for 
the fish. The Volstead Law has multiplied 
the number of distilleries far beyond what I 
imagined would be the result of the attempt 
to enforce the amendment by suitable 
Prior to this great wholesale 
attempt to make people temper¬ 
ate by law, where there was one 
distillery under strict super- 
pervision, there are perhaps 
ten thousand small stills owned 
by the more lawless element of 
our population, turning out a 
product that is deadly in its ef¬ 
fects on the human anatomy, 
and pays no tax while it collects 
an enormous tax from the con¬ 
sumer.—S. N., New Jersey. 
legislation. 
Are You for a Modification of the 18th |““| yes 
Amendment to Permit Light Wines _ 
and Beer ? j I NO 
Designate your opinion by placing an X in the square opposite Yes or 
No on each question. Sign your name and address. Your name will be 
kept strictly confidential. 
Name . 
Address. 
Why You Should Vote 
Do the American people want prohibition? The Wets emphatically say 
“No” and the Drys are even more emphatically for it. Both sides claim 
a majority. Which is right? What do farm people think about it? The 
opinions of farmers on any problem, if they will express them, go far in 
determining the outcome of a controversy. 
American Agriculturist is taking a vote of farm families on the ques¬ 
tion of prohibition. It is a vital issue and whether you are for it or 
against it, be sure to vote in the spaces above. Mail this ballot to the 
American Agriculturist, 461 Fourth Avenue, New York City. 
Get your friends to vote—More ballots furnished on application 
WIPE IT OFF THE BOOKS 
I AM sorry that I cannot vote 
on either question in your so- 
called “Prohibition Ballot.” 
While I certainly am for the 
strict enforcement of every law 
legally enacted, I will not stultify 
myself by asking for the en¬ 
forcement of a law which has no 
place on the statute books of 
any free and enlightened nation 
of the present day. 
As to the second question. 
The only modification I am for, 
is the wiping off of this amend¬ 
ment forever from the Constitu¬ 
tion. It is not a question of 
whether we shall have liquor or 
not. It is a question of whether 
we shall have liberty or not. I 
object to you or any other un¬ 
authorized person stating that 
the farmers, or 85 or 95 per cent 
of them, or any other per cent, 
are in favor of, or opposed to 
any law. Only the “lunatic 
fringe” on either side of any 
question ever takes “pen in 
hand” to express themselves 
which is why I hated like H—1 
to write this letter.— H. K. H., 
Pennsylvania. 
