Newspaper Page Text
RINGING SPEECH OF A PREACHER-STATESMAN
Dr, H. M.Dußose of Augusta Makes Clinching Argument Before Congressional Committee on Inter-State Liquor Bill.
T is enough to make you gladder
than ever that you belong, heart,
vote, “bag and baggage” to the
anti-bar-room crowd, to read what
our heroes and heroines did to that
Congressional Judiciary Commit
tee at the recent hearing in Wash
ington. Recently we referred ed
itorially to the whirlwind, paralyz-
I
mg speech of Georgia’s “Temperance Torna
do,” Mrs. Mary Harris Armor, Field Organizer
of the W. 0. T. U.
This week we reproduce for our readers the
masterful speech of that preacher-statesman,
Dr. H. M. Du Bose, of Augusta. This great
Methodist'leader realizes that a preacher—the
right kind of a preacher, must prove himself
a citizen of the kingdom of men as well as the
Kingdom of God.
His great speech against the inter-state ship
ment of liquor into territory, ought
to be studied by every voter, Congressman and
Senator until decent patriotism and Common
fairness shall prevail, and our National Gov
ernment shall cease its unblushing complicity
in debauchery and crime. But listen to Dr.
Du Bose on the Sheppard-Kenyon Bill:
The following speech was made to the house
judiciary committee on the Kenyon-Sheppard
interstate liquor bill by Rev. H. M. Du Bose of
Augusta, on January 31st, at Washington:
Gentlemen: The request for a favorable con
sideration of the legislation now pending rec
ommendation by this honorable committee is
not, as your petitioners feel, an ordinary sub
mission, either as to the volume of testimony
or the urgency and importance of the object to
be attained.
It involves the moral, social and commer
cial wellbeing of millions of people, constitut
ing the entirety of at least eight of the sover
eign states of this Union, with large districts
of all the others; so that, in the aggregate, a
majority of all the people of the republic is
to be affected by the legislation asked for.
And, sirs, it has come to your petitioners,
as citizens of the states most directly interested
in the enactment of this legislation that we
may speak with great frankness and earnest
ness our wishes and convictions touching the
action of both this honorable committee and
the congress in finally disposing of this meas
ure.
We are made happy to feel that our national
law-makers do not consider themselves merely
as public servants, discharging a stewarship
whose only reward is a stipend and continued
political favor, but as those who have accepted
a trust whose measure is as wide as the hopes
and aspirations of the people they represent;
as those who have imbibed the Roman spirit
of that far time when “to be a Roman was
greater than to be a king.”
Indeed, sirs, we are coming to you in the be
lief and hope that your sense of philanthropy
and human graciousness is only equalled by
your sense of personal honor and your purpose
to maintain inviolate the constitution and laws
in which our liberties are grounded.
And sirs, your petitioners are firmly settled
in the conviction that the legislation asked for
in this interstate liquor bill makes appeal to
both the precedents of law and the standards
of human nobleness.
Disclaiming, therefore, any purpose to as
sume the role of pedagogue, or even of legal
instructor to the law-makers of the nation, . I
beg that of your clemency you will hear me in
a few matters which bear upon both the legal
and philanthropic aspects of this bill, and il
luminate. the way to its favorable recommenda
tion.
And, first, permit me to affirm it as my un
derstanding that the Federal government was
established and exists for the purpose of pro
tecting the people of the different states from
foreign invasion and foreign oppression, as also
The Golden Age for March 7, 1912.
to secure them in the enjoyment of their nat
ural and acquired rights.
Since the question of foreign invasion and
oppression is not directly involved in the mat
ter of this bill, it may be dismissed as irrele
vant —though I dare not fail to say that the in
terstate shipment of liquor into prohibition
states takes on the essential quality of an in
vasion, and is a distinct aggression and oppres
sion from an extraneous source.
But I shall content myself here with asking
the question: “What are the natural rights of
the people of prohibition states which are
sought to be protected by this anti-liquor ship
ment bill?”
A very venerable document —older than all
our constitutions, older than the Union itself —
declares that it was, and is, the inalienable right
of the people of all the states to engage in the
pursuit of liberty and happiness.
Gentlemen, in the exercise of this right, the
people of certain states of this Union have pro
hibited the manufacture and sale of intoxicat
ing liquors, rightly esteeming that to be a bar
to liberty and happiness which easily and con
stantly produces drunkenness, debauchery and
crime.
Congress Has The Right.
But what has happened, gentlemen, in these
states? Why, the policy of the Federal govern
ment in permitting the interstate shipment of
liquors into these states has rendered abortive,
to a large extent, their prohibition laws, and,
accordingly, has destroyed, or helps to destroy,
their higher ideals of liberty and happiness.
But I now appeal to the acquired rights of
the people of these states which are sought
to be protected in the pending legislation.
With the coming of victory over their im
perial enemy and the successful establishment
of their claim of independence, the original
states acquired certain rights. These were ex
pressed and consolidated in a document not
now extant —the Articles of Confederation, es
tablished in 1777.
I am fully aware, sirs, that these articles are
no longer the law of the land, but the light
which shines out of that ancient document is
still, like the red rays of the sun, both healing
and illuminative. The ninth article of that
primitive charter provided that the states
might “prohibit the exportation or importation
of any species of goods or commodities what
soever.”
This privilege conceded to, or retained by,
the states was clearly grounded in moral con
siderations. It was for the protection of the
states against encroachments, or against inva
sive influences calculated to disturb the moral
or industrial order of the people.
Perhaps the wish of some of the states, even
at that time, to prevent the importation of Af
rican slaves was at the bottom of the constitu
tional provision. But whether this was true
or not, it shows how completely a moral ideal
dominated the minds of the early American
constitution-makers. It anticipated the need
expressed in the pending bill.
But, if it be contended that a citation from
the Articles of Federation is an appeal to an
archaism in constitutional precedents, I cite
the fact that the third division of the tenth
section of the constitution of 1787 provides that
a state may, with the consent of congress, lay
imposts and duties upon importations or expor
tations for the purpose of maintaining its in
spection laws.
We Protect Red Indians.
I do not know how often this right has been
invoked by the states, but the proviso clearly
indicates the legitimacy of the direction to
ward which this bill looks. It is a precedent.
With the consent of congress expressed in
the passage of this bill, the laws of the several
states, which prohibit the importation of intox
icating liquors would become valid and effec
tive, and the letter and spirit of the constitu
tion would be met.
But to further strengthen this position, I
appeal to the third division of the eighth sec
tion of the constitution wherein the congress
is empowered to “regulate commerce with for
eign nations, amongst the several states, and
with the Indian tribes.”
It is thus seen that the regulation of com
merce with foreign nations, amongst the states,
and with the Indian tribes is involved in one
potency.
Under this provision the congress has pro
hibited the sale and dispensing of intoxicating
liquors amongst the Indian tribes. In all can
dor, I ask: “Are not the people of the sover
eign commonwealths of America entitled to as
much consideration as are the red Indians upon
the bad lands of the West? If congress has the
power, unasked, to enact prohibitory legisla
tion in the moral interest of savage Indians, has
it not power to legislate in the moral interest
of Anglo-Saxon majorities, especially where the
wish of those majorities is made as plain as it
has been in this case?
And, gentlemen, I beg you to consider the
vast multitudes of blacks represented by your
petitioners. In“ some cases they constitute a
majority of the populations, and are as truly
entitled to an unasked protection as are the In
dians upon our national reservations. Indeed,
the negro purlieus of our Southern cities are
as to all moral needs the same as our Indian
corrals. Let our law-makers ponder this.
But I must not miss the supreme opportunity
of arguing this request from the viewpoint of
the reciprocal authority and responsibility of
the Federal and the state governments in deal
ing with matters of this character.
It is not to be denied that the liberties of the
American people were by the fathers commit
ted to the protection of the Federal government
and the state administrations as a joint trust.
Justice Demands It.
It is not less true that the protection of the
health and public morals of the people were
committed to the same joint administration.
Wherever, in either the older or the newer con
stitution, a special reservation of rights was
made to the state, to be exercised on the con
sent of congress, that reservation was made in
the interest of public morals or public health
and safety.
But we are content to let this whole question
rest in the abstract constitutional right of con
gress to regulate interstate commerce. Divorce
from the bill all claims of state rights, and the
issue is still a perfectly simple one. The con
gress has unquestioned power to pass this bill,
and the time has come when the moral sense of
the people demands it of their national repre
sentatives.
Sirs, I contend that the clothing of congress
with legislative powers was not a mere legal
investment —a charge to defend the letter of our
written constitution —but it was a commission
to blaze the way to those lofty ideals of thought
and action of which the constitution is a lumi
nous and living prophecy.
In this purview of legislative power, the mem
bers of our national legislature are called to be
high priests of the widest gospel of human sym
pathy and helpfulness. The gift of sorrow
and sympathy is, indeed, the very genius of just
legislation. Nor is the true law-maker less a
seer than a statesman. Such were Gladstone
and John Bright, and such were Patrick Hen
ry, Jefferson, Roger Sherman and Henry Clay.
Gentlemen, our prayer is that, in your delib
erations in this matter you may be led by a pil
lar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.
4* 4* 4*
GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY FOR AMBI
TIOUS SCHOOL BOYS AND GIRLS WHO
MEAN BUSINESS. WRITE THE GOLDEN
AGE ABOUT OUR GREAT VACATION
SCHOLARSHIP OFFER.
7