lenge the citizens of Massachusetts to this proposition: Are you going to persistently support two rum parties in Massachusetts? Because they were both rum parties, the Democratic Party avowedly and the Republican Party on the side.

We went into that campaign and two days before election a reporter came to me and he said, "Shaw, the thing is over." They thought I had the balance of power previous to that and that the Republican Governor who was usually elected hands down would not be elected, that David Walsh would be reelected Governor of Massachusetts. This was on Sunday night and election was on Tuesday. This reporter said, "Shaw, the jig is up." He said that the deal had been made, not between Sam McCall-he said this is Massachusetts and it has never been denied-he said the deal was not made with Sam McCall; he did not know anything about that; but it was with his managers, with the managers of his campaign, that the saloon keepers of Boston were to transfer enough Democratic votes from David I. Walsh to Sam McCall, and Sam McCall was elected by less than 4,000 majority, the smallest majority by which a governor was ever elected in Massachusetts-the smallest Democratic majority. The statement was made in the Boston Press, a Democratic paper, that that was true, on Wednesday morning, that the record showed that enough normal Democratic votes in Boston wards had been transferred to the Republicans to elect McCall and defeat Walsh. That is the case with legislators and statesmen and politicans everywhere when they had the saloon. They knew no party loyalty; they simply knew that the Republicans, if elected, would take care of them.

Mr. PERLMAN. How many votes did you get?

Mr. SHAW. Nineteen thousand six hundred and forty votes, the biggest ever cast for a candidate on the prohibition ticket. Mr. PERLMAN. What did Governor McCall get?

Mr. SHAW. I do not know, but it was over 100,000 and Walsh got. about the same. But, Mr. Chairman, the influence of the saloon on politics was such that I was told on the authority of David I. Walsh's brother and David I. Walsh is a gentleman, and he played the game straight; he was in favor of the licensed saloon traffic, and he let it be known that he was. But I have it on a report that came not from his brother to me, but through another party that David I. Walsh was so utterly disgusted with the attitude of the saloon people and the liquor class bringing pressure to bear on politicians that he was going to go out of politics. And, further, Mr. Eugene Noble Foss was made a prohibitionist be cause of the insistent demands of the liquor interests of Massachusetts upon the governor for appointments and control of legislation and other things.

So, of course, these men disclaim that they want the saloon. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask where they are going to sell 2.75 per cent beer and light wines. That they have not told us yet. Åre they going to sell it in the grocery stores? Well, when Massachusetts would license saloons she would not license grocery stores to sell liquor. Now, are you going to license the grocery stores and let them sell 2.75 per cent beer? Are you going to sell it at the soda fountains where women and children go to buy soft drinks and candy and all the other things? Where are you going to sell it? I would

like to ask these gentlemen, and I think it is a pertinent question and one for your committee to consider, where are they going to sell it? The rich man has his club and can get the light wines with 10 per cent and 15 per cent alcohol in them. The rich man can get it in his club, whereas the poor man who wants to get his beer, he has not any club, and where is he going to get his beer? Is there going to be no place where he is going to be sold 2.75 per cent beer? Well, the place where 2.75 per cent beer is sold is a saloon, no matter what you call it, to all intents and purposes. Mr. Chairman, I think that the members of this committee know that fact, that where that beverage is sold, there is the saloon.

But here is the question for you to consider. If Congress decides that 2.75 per cent is not intoxicating, how are you going to control the sale of it? Why can not it be sold anywhere. You do not attempt to control the sale of water except to have it pure, or milk except to have it pure, except to know that it is not adulterated. You do not say who shall or shall not sell water or milk. Well, if you put 2.75 per cent beer on a par with water and milk, that it is not intoxicating and it is perfectly right for the people to have, how are you going to control the sale of it? You can not control it. You will start the biggest class war that this country has ever seen if you carry out the determination of the proponents of these bills, that they want 2.75 per cent beer but no saloon, or else you will wipe out every club that is in existence among the rich in our cities and in our towns.

Now, again, these measures are deceitful and dishonest because the real proponents of them are not appearing before you and before the public. Down in my State the association for hamstringing the prohibition amendment, or some such organization as that, I do not remember the long name of it, but that is what it means the association for hamstringing the eighteenth amendment-Mr. L. A. Coolidge, who is one of our candidates for Senator-oh, if he ever comes before our legislators and the mothers and sisters of Massachusetts get after him there will not be enough left of him to make a dishrag, for the women of the species are more deadly than the male when it comes to that question. But L. A. Coolidge is a cultured Christian gentleman. I am sorry he bears that name because it reflects on our President, and whenever you hear that Coolidge of Massachusetts says anything, you want to find out whether it is Calvin or the other Coolidge who is running for Senator.

Then we have Ralph Kram. I received an invitation to contribute money to that association down in Massachusetts and they gave me a list of directors and prominent men who were in it. Here is Ralph Kram who builds cathedrals and does church architecture, and he was there standing for the modification of the Volstead law for hamstringing this eighteenth amendment. And recently Nicholas Murray Butler has expressed himself on the question. Õh, gentlemen, I am speaking to the point now, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me, a moment. The chair was trying to attract your attention and suggest that this discussion is not germane to the subject, and the discussion of these individuals is far afield from anything we have before us. Now, please confine yourself to the subject matter.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I say that the presentation of the 2.75 per cent bills here is deceitful and dishonest because you do not see the men that are really back of them. You see the clean hands of

these cultured Christian gentlemen like Mr. Coolidge, like Mr. Kram, like Mr. Butler, like Mr. Gompers-by the way, I have all respect for Mr. Gompers, but he represents the labor business, back in the days of the saloon when they met in saloons. Now they are meeting around banquet tables and they are owning banks now instead of supporting saloons. They are building a labor temple down here now. When Mr. Gompers came into the work they could have held their meetings in one of the saloons but now they have to have a separate temple for them. When you see the clean white hands of these men, I want you to see holding them like cat's paws the gripping and bloody hands of the bootleggers and rum runners who have not hesitated to murder in cold blood twothirds of the Government officials who are trying to enforce the law and uphold the sanctity of our laws and of our Constitution, and yet they have murdered them in cold blood while they were in the discharge of their duty. Those are the men that are back of this and we need to see them.

I say that these measures before us are deceitful and dishonest, because they will not insure the enforcement of law. But I plead with you gentlemen, in behalf of these millions of young people to whom I gave the best part of my life. I am not interested in thé rum-soaked alcoholics who they say will drink gasoline if they can not get anything else, and they are the product of the saloon and the legalized liquor traffic. I am not interested in them. They have gone too far. They will get liquor if they have to make it, as I have seen men make it, out of a glass of ginger ale and Cayenne pepper, and then they drink it down to get the bite.

But, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I am interested in the millions of boys and girls, the future citizens of America. If appetite in them that will give you another generation that will demand of the bootlegger and the rum runner his 60 per cent or 70 per cent liquor, because when you have started the appetite you have got to increasingly feed it; you can not control it, and the only safety for those that I represent before this committee to-day is in having every temptation of that kind absolutely kept away from our boys and girls.

you give them 2.75 per cent beer you will create

Oh, I know they publish the facts that some of our high-school boys carry bottles in their hip pockets. But, gentlemen of the committee, you know that that is news. You do not believe that the average high-school boy goes to parties with a bottle in his hip pocket. I know they do not, from my experience with them. I know there are some that do. As the bishop very well said, they are dare-devils. They want to do anything that you tell them they ought not to do. Let the father tell them that they must not go to a place and they will go there to show that they can defy the father's authority. And so they will do this, and it is a strange thing that is news.

Why, gentlemen, you might sit here for a week and listen to this kind of testimony that I am giving and you will never get it on the front page of the metropolitan papers. But if this gentleman here will step down here instead of asking me questions and slap my face, this evening you would find it on the front page of every metropolitan newspaper in the United States, because he had done the unusual 102389-247-SER 39, PT 1- -30

thing, and therefore it was news. Now, gentlemen, do not be afraid of all these newspaper reports about law breaking and all that. Of course, they are breaking the law, but the thing is given prominence in our papers because it is news. That means that it is not the ordinary average everyday occurrence. It is the thing that is rather strange and different, and so, Mr. Chairman, I want to register my disapproval of these bills and express the hope that you members of the committee will report against them.

I appeal to you on behalf of the boys and girls of America, if you have got them in your home, ask yourself first of all, Will I begin to give them a 2.75 per cent that is not intoxicating, innocuous, and ought not to do any harm, will I begin to give it to them?" If you can honestly say no, then don't put temptation in they way of millions of other boys in this broad land of ours.

I thank you for your courtesy. I hope that the fact that the law is broken will not lead you to vote to break it further.

STATEMENT OF MR. EDWIN C. DINWIDDIE

Mr. WHEELER. Now, we have three witnesses, and I believe Mr. Dinwiddie is the first one.

Mr. DINWIDDIE. Mr. Chairman, how much longer does the committee intend to sit?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you ask that for the purpose of using the remainder of the time?

Mr. DINWIDDIE. No, sir, not at all, but I was wondering whether I could not have the courtesy of appearing later or whether I should try to do the best I can now.

Mr. FOSTER. Do you live in the city?

Mr. DINWIDDIE. My headquarters are in the city. I came here to-day to meet some men from out of town and I have been here all day. Will the hearing be continued after to-day, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. I imagine it will.

Mr. DINWIDDIE. If I could come in later, a week or 10 days, I should be very much obliged.

The CHAIRMAN. Just knock at our door and if we are still in session we will hear you.

Mr. DINWIDDIE. Exactly, and I will say a few words now if you will allow me to do it. My name is Edwin C. Dinwiddie, superintendent of the National Temperance Bureau, Federating the International Order of Good Templars, the committee on promotion of temperance legislation in Congress, and the Association in Support of National Prohibition.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the people that I represent, and our people who were instrumental in putting the eighteenth amendment in the Constitution, are opposed to these bills primarily because after prohibition was adopted by the deliberate judgment and action of the American people, it is entitled to a fair test. It has not had a fair test. No law of this character, as the senior Senator from Pennsylvania has very well said and as the Chief Justice of the United States has very well said, no law of this character can have a fair test in so short a period of time.

Mr. O'SULLIVAN. How long a time do you think it is going to be before we are going to definitely determine whether or not it is a

success?

Mr. DINWIDDIE. Of course, I do not undertake to answer that question in years. I do not think anybody would have the hardihood to do that, but I should say that we would have a fair test, possibly, in the same number of years that prohibition has already been in force, if we could have some conditions met. First, if there was an honest attempt on the part of the people on both sides of this question to respect the law; if the officers who are charged with its enforcement would do their duty, or would be fired out of office if they did not do their duty; if the people who are asking for the repeal of the law because it is not enforced would use half as much of the energy that they display along those lines in seeking the enforcement of the law, we would make very great progress, and I think, with some other slight legislation that is necessary, and which I could name, we have already gotten some of it that is effective, in my judgment. I think the rum-running business is going to be very materially curtailed during the next year by the passage of legislation for which you men are responsible in Congress.

Mr. O'SULLIVAN. How much time do you estimate before it is going to be a success?

Mr. DINWIDDIE. Well, I can not say, but I say that with those conditions met and with proper men to enforce the law and the continuation of appropriations for that purpose, and with the sentiment becoming asserted, I think we could make tremendous progress toward that point in the same length of time that it has been operative so far.

Mr. O'SULLIVAN. Would not four years more be sufficient? Mr. DINWIDDIE. I would not commit myself to that, because I want to see first how these conditions are going to be met.

Mr. O'SULLIVAN. Well, I would like to know.

Mr. DINWIDDIE. Well, I would say that when those conditions are met, if we make as great progress over conditions to-day as we have in the four years that have passed over conditions that existed before, speaking by and large now and taking into consideration all the difficulties that we have had and the things that we must admit are true, I will say that we will do very well and we will be able to rest on our oars and go ahead. If we can do as much in those four years as we have done in the past four years over conditions which prohibition was enacted to overcome, I think we will do pretty well, and I will rest the case with the American people whether it has been done well or

not.

Mr. SUMNERS. Is there any general movement or any general effort on the part of organized temperance or prohibition forces to bring home to the people of the States and the several communities the sense of local responsibility for the enforcement of the temperance laws and prohibition laws?

Mr. DINWIDDIE. Unquestionably, Mr. Sumners and gentlemen of the committee.. I have been a very earnest advocate of that proposition and I think it must be done. I do not believe in wishing this proposition over onto the Federal Government. It was not intended at all by the adoption of the eighteenth amendment that the States should relinquish their control and their responsibility with reference