American Agriculturist, October 20,1923 
265 
f I 
J 
Each Side Accuses the Other 
But the Final Vote on Prohibition Will Show How Farmers Stand 
I AM enclosing herewith, my vote and 
those of a few of my friends, on the ques¬ 
tion of prohibition, and cannot refrain 
from “saying a few words” on the sub¬ 
ject, although I am not much given to break¬ 
ing out in this way. 
I am absolutely and unalterably opposed 
to the whole prohibition business for several 
reasons. In the first place it was hatched 
and developed in lies, trickery and deceit, and 
put across at a time when the people were 
ready to do anything for the country with¬ 
out stopping to ask questions, when two 
millions of our boys were in France attend¬ 
ing to Uncle Sam’s little scrap, and was 
finally enacted into “law” in a high-handed, 
strong-arm fashion without reference to the 
people. Nobody had a chance to say whether 
they favored it or not; in other words it was 
done much after the fashion of the highway¬ 
man who throttles you while he steals your 
watch. 
Secondly the Government loses many mil¬ 
lions in revenue, while we are paying high 
taxes and everything else to make up the 
deficiency, to say nothing of the immense 
amount of money squandered for “enforce¬ 
ment” and other fake prohibition activities 
which merely waste the people’s money and 
accomplish nothing. 
Prohibition, to my mind, has done more to 
break down, destroy and demoralize than 
appears on the surface, but its effects are 
there, eating deeper and deeper into the 
daily life of the nation. It has broken down 
respect for law, for few respect the Volstead 
act, but rather look upon it as a measure of 
unjustifiable oppression, something to be 
disregarded as much as possible and broken 
when necessary. 
It has destroyed the belief that our laws 
were fair, honest and impartial, for the Vol¬ 
stead act is distinctly a one-sided 
law, favoring the rich man and 
those “in the ring” against 
the rest of the community. The 
fellow with a big bank account 
laughs at prohibition and stocks 
his cellar, while the. poor man 
goes without or pays a ridicu¬ 
lous price for vile stuff not fit for 
consumption, and takes a long 
chance every time he drinks it. 
This is supposed to be a 
country where we pride our¬ 
selves on our sense of fairness 
and the square deal, but, if that 
is so, I do not see how anybody, 
be he churchman or not, drinker 
or dry, can conscientiously up¬ 
hold this iniquitous law. Do 
you suppose for a moment that 
your high officials in Washing¬ 
ton, your legislators, politicians, 
elected or appointed officials 
everywhere and the police, are 
going short? Not a bit of it; 
they are getting all they want 
for nothing, for their influence 
and protection. 
I believe that if the question 
was put before the people, and 
they were given a chance to vote 
upon it, they would come out 
squarely for beer and wine. Yes 
and for whiskey, too, under 
proper Government supervision, 
but there is one big obstacle in 
the way of such a solution of the 
matter, and that is graft; the 
country is flooded with it, and 
from top to bottom—your high 
man in Washington to your little 
bootlegger, the man with a five 
gallon still in his cellar and the 
cop on the beat is “getting it.” 
By A. A. READERS 
I know of a case where a man, who two or 
three years ago had little of this world’s 
goods, to-day can write his check for $50,000 
and has seven autos in the booze business. 
And yet your dry fanatic “points with pride” 
to the wonderful “success” of prohibition. 
It is to laugh! It is to roar! !—F. W. E., 
New York. 
* * * 
Placing Wets In Three Classes 
W HILE not a regular subscriber to your 
paper I try to obtain a copy each week 
afod have been following the “Wet and Dry” 
discussions with considerable interest. 
I am a traveling man and have had an 
excellent opportunity to view this question 
from every angle in many different localities, 
and as 1 note the great change for the better 
in the lives of the families of the average 
laborer and day worker, especially in the 
smaller cities and towns, I am becoming more 
and more a confirmed “Dry.” 
Naturally I have heard innumerable argu¬ 
ments and discussions on this question during 
twelve years on the road, but never yet have 
I sat and listened to a “Wet” advocate, whom, 
after some subsequent conversation, could 
not be easily placed in one of the three follow¬ 
ing classes; viz:— 
First.— He who actually has a liquor 
appetite—the steady old day-by-day whiskey 
drinker who would gladly sacrifice the happi¬ 
ness of all the rest of the world, if need be, 
could he but bring back the “good old days” 
with the ten-cent liquor and the nickel quart 
of beer at the corner saloon. To such as 
he, we need give but a passing thought. 
He’s too yellow and tofo poor a sport for 
any important place in to-day’s world. 
Second.— He who is (or was) financially 
interested in the liquor traffic and would 
move heaven and earth, were that possible, to 
again direct that stream of easy money to his 
own pocket—it being “gall and wormwood” 
to him to see Mr. Average Man spending 
this same money on his own family, on hjs 
own home, or perchance in the purchase of 
the new car. Him we may dismiss with no 
regret. He represents nothing but the lowest 
form of swinish degeneracy, and has no 
ethical place in the councils of decent human¬ 
ity to-day. ♦ 
Third.— (And by far the most numerous.) 
He whom we hear talking loudly in the hotel 
lobby, in the smoking-room of the sleeper, or 
to an interested audience at the country 
store. He tells us how much more liquor is 
now being consumed than “before Volstead.” 
How many rich bootleggers he personally 
knows. How many preachers and church- 
workers, senators and judges, farmers and 
others of his personal acquaintance, who have 
now absolutely all the liquor they want. How 
many otherwise (and still might have been) 
good clean young girls and boys he has 
known who have gone to the devil “all on 
account of Volstead.” ’Sawful gentlemen, 
believe me, and if we don’t “rise in our 
wrath”—“assert our right to personal liber¬ 
ty” and—“repeal this horrible law that now 
afflicts honorable men” and “which menaces 
the very foundation of our national life”— 
“we are bound for the Tlemnition Bow 
Wows’ ” and so on ad infinitum nauseatum. 
But here is the joker with this fellow—try 
‘to pin him down to concrete definite cases and 
he is not there. Much of it is mere repetition 
of something he heard someone say they 
“heard.” 
But as for the farmers being wet—they 
are not, absolutely not. My association is 
largely with the farmer and his 
family and I assure you I am 
right. In all his history, as a 
class, the farmer has always 
stood for the decent things in 
life and he’s right there on this 
question too. With him, of 
course, there-stand all honestly 
decent, clean-minded Christian 
women everywhere.—J. C. M., 
New York. 
* * * 
Says Prohibition Is a Farce 
HERE seems to be a mis¬ 
taken idea that farmers as 
a whole are prohibitionists. If 
the truth could be known, I be¬ 
lieve that you would find that it 
is not so. The idea no doubt is 
fostered by the fact that our 
agricultural press, such as your 
paper, the local papers circulat¬ 
ing among farmers are without 
exception, as far as I have read 
them, all for prohibition. One 
is inclined to wonder how much 
of this local press propaganda is 
paid for. 
I am one who up to prohibition 
times, enjoyed the luxury of an 
occasional glass of wine: I would 
even this noontime have enjoyed 
a glass of beer with my dinner. 
But my desire for these luxuries 
did not cause me to stock up as 
many people did, so I have to do 
without or bootleg it, which I 
decline to do. It does seem to 
me that it is about time the 
American people woke up to this 
damnable encroachment on the 
liberties of the common people 
(Continued on page 268) 
PROHIBITION BALLOT 
OF THE 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST 
Are You for the Strict Enforcement of the 
18th Amendment as It Now Stands ? 
Are You for a Modification of the 18th 
Amendment to Permit Light Wines 
and Beer ? 
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 ... 
A ddress .*. 
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 fanners 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 
