American Agriculturist, May 24, 1924 _ 493 
Wet or Dry, There’s Plenty of Kick 
What Our People Think About Enforcing The Law 
S OME of our readers certainly feel strongly 
on this subject! Our ears still burn 
from comments we’ve heard—or read— 
and each side has gathered many choice 
adjectives for the other. In fact we would all 
get farther in working out a solution for this great 
problem if both sides would be fairer. 
Here’s a sample of the rabid wet: 
“My wife, brother, father and myself are all 
against prohibition. This would be a wonderful 
world to live in if it weren’t for the nosey busy- 
bodies. What business is it of anybody’s if a 
person enjoys a glass of beer with his meals after 
working hard all day? I presume that 
God Almighty made this world for all of 
us to live in, not only for a few narrow¬ 
minded cranks. To hear the likes of 
some talk, one would think that after 
passing the Eighteenth Amendment 
the nation would be cured of all her 
ills. I take it that if God Almighty 
wanted to have this world perfect He 
would have made it so without the 
help of blamed cranks. I for one 
can’t see whereby any farmer has 
gained by prohibition. 
“If there is less crime now, why do 
they want more judges to warm the 
benches? Why not do away with some 
of them and take some of the burden 
off the backs of the taxpayers. If you 
like government by graft and crooked¬ 
ness, you have it now. Where there 
were only three or five places selling 
liquor before prohibition in this vil¬ 
lage, there are now 50 or 60. The only 
ones that are making money are the 
grafting office-holders and bootleggers. 
“To hear prohibitionists talk one 
would think that the country had gone 
to the dogs through drink, which 
wasn’t the fact. There was only one 
or two per cent, that you could call 
drunkards. 
“Here’s hoping that they wipe the 
Eighteenth Amendment off the slate.” 
E. B., New York. 
* * * 
Another N. Y. farmer sends the ball 
back pretty strongly: 
“It is not evidence that a law is 
bad, because many are careless regard¬ 
ing its enforcement; or because wicked 
men disobey the law. 
“The people in our town who say 
conditions are worse since the Eigh¬ 
teenth Amendment was passed are the 
people who won’t turn their hand to 
have the law enforced. And if a 
Federal Agent for the enforcement of the 
law were to ask them for evidence, they 
could not or would not tell him anything positive 
that would lead to the conviction of a lawbreaker. 
“I am reminded of the pioneer John, who, with 
his wife Lucy, cleared a little patch in the woods 
and built a cabin. Boards were scarce so they 
made a ladder to use instead of stairs. 
“One day while John was holding the baby on 
his knee, and Lucy was hoeing in the garden, a 
bear came out of the woods and John dropped the 
baby, ran up the ladder and pulled the ladder up. 
Lucy dropped the hoe and seized an ax and as 
she approached the bear John yelled, “ Quit that 
Lucy, you’ll only make him madder!” But Lucy 
did not try to regulate the bear by trying to cut 
off one of his legs, she struck him on the head and 
she was not satisfied by merely stunning him. 
She made sure he was dead. 
"The baby enjoyed personal liberty, John en¬ 
joyed self-preservation. Lucy enjoyed fighting 
lor her baby’s defence. 
‘Some personal liberty advocates that I have 
known have been in great need of protection 
such as the Eighteenth Amendment gives. Not 
By A. A. READERS 
for their sake alone but more for their children’s 
sake. 
“ I am seventy-three years old and know some¬ 
thing of the history of the families of men who 
were advocates of personal liberty and it is from 
these families our criminals come, aside from the 
foreigners. 
“Looking at H. K. Y.’s letter in an issue of 
American Agriculturist I am led to ask ‘Does 
he know the difference between constitutional 
law and statutory law?’ I voted the prohibition 
ticket for president forty-two years ago last 
November and see no reason for changing yet.”— 
C. P. R., Pa. 
• * * * 
A Connecticut woman calls the amendment “ a 
vicious and enslaving law.” 
“ The liberty and freedom so dear to the hearts 
of American people have been forever destroyed 
by this band of Fanatics, and there is no telling 
what they will seek to cram down our throats in 
the future. 
“They have turned this beautiful country into 
a Paradise for Bootleggers and hold-up men, and 
created high salaried jobs for people who never did 
an honest day’s work in their lives and we are taxed 
to pay them.”—E. B. 
* * * 
On the other hand we hear much about the 
opposition of labor to prohibition; also that sol¬ 
diers of the late war resented the passage of the 
law. Here are two letters which give the other 
side: 
“ I am a day laborer, a carpenter by trade, but 
have opportunity to read your publication, and 
am interested in the letters written you concerning 
the Eighteenth Amendment. I am vehemently 
for the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead 
Act, or more drastic penalties equal to the crime 
of making citizens woozy, wobbly and woeful and 
make some money thereby. 
“Since July, 1920, I have walked a large part 
of the distance from Michigan to California, 
California to Canada Line, Seattle Wash., to 
Washington, D. C., stopping to work in many 
different places, and have not seen a dead-drunk 
or a tearful fist-bruised woman toiling 
oyer a washtub to support ragged 
children. 
“I think ‘dries’ everywhere, when 
wets broach the subject, ought to 
state that they are Dry and why. 
Wets are willing to talk more soph¬ 
istry and half truths about the busi¬ 
ness, but are often ashamed to do so 
after the sickening truth has been 
stated. 
“My observation is that prohibition 
is a great success in spite of lying, 
lawless enemies. 
“Prohibition is the only right and 
lasting solution of the liquor question. 
Let us always vote for it and so secure 
the blessings of liberty' and safety and 
prosperity to ourselves and our pos¬ 
terity.”—J. A. C., Maryland. 
* * * 
The ex-soldier says: 
“I have noticed the letters in the 
A. A. for some time for and against 
prohibition and I wish to add my word 
for it. The first reason is because our 
late President was for it, another is 
that when I was called to the colors 
they would not sell booze to me: Why ? 
because they wanted true and steady 
hands. 
“We all know what old King Al¬ 
cohol will do. The saloons have gone 
and in their places are bakeries or 
something that is useful to human life, 
let them go; may they never return; 
and we will say as Lincoln did, ‘ Let us 
stand for the right as we see the right.’ ” 
—L. I. B., New York. 
* * * 
Another farmer from New York de¬ 
fends the working out of the present 
law: ( 
“I have read with much interest the 
answers to your questions on prohibi¬ 
tion. and have tried to analyze those 
answers fairly and have reached this 
conclusion that those persons who are against the 
Eighteenth Amendment are so invariably because 
they like a little booze, and not to better the 
country. 
“One person in a recent issue says we have no 
prohibition. Is that true? I was an inspector in 
one of the large State penal institutions of New 
York for some years before prohibition came into 
effect and for some years after. The institution 
has a large stone quarry and conducts a large 
crushing plant. Before the days of prohibition 
there were enough convicts to operate the plant 
and furnish two gangs on the highway. Since 
prohibition, there have hardly ever been convicts 
enough to operate the crushing plant. They now 
hire outside labor most of the time and have 
none for highway gangs. 
“ I believe that a large part of the honest-minded 
men and women of our land will say there is less 
crime, less suffering and want, and less drunken¬ 
ness than in the time of the open bar. Yours for 
prohibition and for law enforcement.”—C. L. H., 
New York. 
WILL SOMEONE KINDLY TELL US— 
Why we pick this kind of men to make our laws— 
And then hire this kind to break them 
Copyrishted 1924 by the New York Tribune, Inc. Darling in the New York Tribune. 
.- 
