"Repeal of Supplementary Prohibition Law Would be Delight to King of Bootleggers"--T. N. Carver Advocates Sanity

I am glad to respond again to an invitation from the CRIMSON to discuss some phase of the prohibition question. There is so much misrepresentation in the daily papers as to bewilder anyone who does not read more than their misleading headlines. Most metropolitan dailies are wet, and are doing all they can to misrepresent the issue. It is well for college students to get their information from something a little more dependable than newspaper headlines.

It is proposed that Massachusetts should repeal the state enforcement law commonly called the Baby Volstead law. It would not be a bad idea for the voters to know exactly what they are voting on.

There is, strictly speaking, on Baby Volstead law in this state. Two separate dry acts have been passed in this state since the Eighteenth Amendment was adopted. Another act embodying the features of the Volstead Act was voted down. The first of these dry acts, passed in 1921, merely forbade the sale and exposure for sale of all intoxicating liquors. It did not forbid the manufacture, importation, or transportation of such liquors. A second and supplementary act was passed later. This later act forbade the manufacture, importation, and transportation of liquors, thus covering what the earlier act had failed to cover.

It is the second of these acts which it is now proposed to repeal. We are not asked to vote on a proposal to repeal the first, which forbids the sale or exposure for sale of all intoxicating liquors. Even if the proposed repeal is carried, that first act will remain in force. It will be as illegal even according to our state law, to sell liquor or expose it for sale as it is now. Anyone who sells liquor in Massachusetts will still be a bootlegger even according to state law.

What is to be accomplished by repealing the supplementary act while leaving the first one in full force? About the only thing which it could possibly accomplish would be to make it easier for bootleggers. It might make liquor more abundant and cheap, but it would still be bootleg liquor. If the proposed repeal had been drafted by the King of the Bootleggers himself, it could scarcely have been more to his liking. If the state should repeal its law forbidding manufacture, importation, and transportation of liquor, state and local police would not feel like interfering with illicit stills, however large, with rumrunners when they land liquor on the coast, or liquor trucks on their way from Canada or the Cape. This would simply make it easier for the bootleggers to get supplies of liquor to sell in defiance of state as well as federal law. They who want to see things made easier for the bootlegger will, of course, vote for repeal. They who do not, should at least think it over.

Several questions should be considered by those who are neither fanatically wet nor fanatically dry. How would the increased sale and consumption of bootleg liquor affect the safety of our highways? Would it tend to increase or to decrease drunken driving?

Another question of the greatest importance is, how would it affect the industries of the state? Competition with the West and the South is pretty severe. A slight advantage on one side or the other may make the difference between success and failure in that competition. Suppose that the West and South should achieve a little more sobriety and therefore a little more dependability on the part of all industrial workers, from the highest to the lowest? Would that give them a little advantage over Massachusetts, or would it give Massachusetts a little advantage over them? They who think that an increase in sobriety, in these days of powerful as well as delicate machinery, is a disadvantage to our industries will, of course, vote for repeal. They who think otherwise should at least hesitate before voting to make bootleg liquor more abundant