xt7g7940sf5h_2 https://nyx.uky.edu/dips/xt7g7940sf5h/data/mets.xml https://nyx.uky.edu/dips/xt7g7940sf5h/data/57m2.dao.xml Des Cognets, Russell 19181957 1.35 Cubic Feet 3 boxes archival material 57m2 English University of Kentucky The physical rights to the materials in this collection are held by the University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Russell Des Cognets papers Prohibition -- United States. World War, 1914-1918 -- France. Political letter writing Kentucky -- Lexington. New Deal, 1933-1939. 18th Amendment Repeal pamphlets, satirical cartoons text 18th Amendment Repeal pamphlets, satirical cartoons 2016 1933 1929-1933 section false xt7g7940sf5h_2 xt7g7940sf5h M ET H O D S


of a
and '





 ; . , 7 I
C H I c A G o ,
january 20, 1933.
My dear Mrs. Mason:

1 You request me to endeavor to state in simple English (as distinguished
i from phraseology ordinarily used by eminent counsel in discussing con—
i stitutional questions) such difference, if any, as I find between the con-

clusions reached by the Honorable A. Mitchell Palmer in his two briefs
on the subject of “Ratification of Constitutional Amendments by Conven—
tions’7 and the conclusions reached by the Honorable James M. Beck on
i the same subject in his speech in the House of Representatives on December
7, 1932.
Although it seems like “painting the lily” to attempt to add anything to,
- or subtract anything from the language of these two distinguished statesmen
I and students of the Constitution, nevertheless because you request it, I am
E glad to try to comply with your wishes.
‘ I.
I Just a few words to get rid of anything superfluous.
l Article V of the Constitution of the United States provides that whenever
I two-thirds of the Congress * * * shall propose amendments * * *,
I such amendments shall be valid * * * as part of the Constitution when
I ‘ ratified.
(a) By Legislatures of three—fourths of the several States, or if Con—
I , gress so decides.
1 (b) By Conventions in three—fourths of the States.
i For the purposes of this letter we may briefly dismiss the consideration
of ratification by Legislatures. Every amendment to the Constitution

. which has been adopted up to the present time has been referred to and
l adopted by State Legislatures. The machinery for proposing amendments
3 to Legislatures for rejection or acceptance has long since been established.
‘ In the matter, however, of the Eighteenth Amendment, large groups of
3 citizens insist that if Congress should propose an amendment repealing the

Eighteenth Amendment, such proposal should be referred not to Legisla-
tures of the several States, but to Conventions in the several States.

I There may be many reasons for this insistence, but two will suffice:

‘ First: It is a well known fact that members of State Legislatures are

I elected upon many different issues: that if the acceptance of a proposed

I 3

. ‘ u
I ‘ " ‘

 repeal should be referred to Legislatures, the question of such acceptance
would be only one of the many questions which the voters would have in
mind when they voted upon the candidates for the Legislature. It is the
belief of thoughtful patriotic citizens that the questions involved in the
repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment are so far—reaching and have such an
important bearing upon the social and economic life of the nation that when
citizens ballot upon that issue, that should be the only issue which should
have any consideration.

Second: It is likewise the belief of thoughtful, patriotic citizens that this [(3
all—important subject should be considered by Conventions in the several ‘
States, the delegates to which are elected by a plurality vote of all the is
people of the State voting at the election, rather than by delegates elected 7
from gerrymandered districts; that this is the only way by which the people
of the United States can really vote upon the issue presented by the proposed

Both of the great political parties in their national Conventions recognized
the cogency of this reasoning and pledged themselves to the policy of having
the proposed amendment repealing the Eighteenth Amendment referred to
Conventions in the States rather than to Legislatures of the States.

Assuming that the Congress will keep these pledges, the “mechanics" of
calling and regulating such Conventions become extraordinarily important.

The following questions immediately present themselves:
(a) Who shall call the Conventions, the Congress or the State Legisla—
‘ tures?

(b) Who shall determine when such Conventions shall be held, the Con-
gress or the Legislatures?

(6) Who shall determine where such Conventions are to be held in the .
several States, the Congress or the Legislatures? D

(d) Who shall determine how the candidates in favor of the adoption , .
of the proposed amendment, or vice versa, shall be nominated in the several I -
States, the Congress or the Legislatures?

(6) Who shall determine whether such candidates shall be elected by a
plurality vote of the electors of an entire State or from gerrymandered dis—
tricts, the Congress or the Legislatures?

(I) Who shall defray the expenses, the Congress or the Legislatures?

(g) Finally, if it is determined that the original power with respect to
each, every and all of the matters contained in the foregoing questions is
vested in Congress, as distinguished from the several State Legislatures,
may Congress delegate any part of the power to the several State Legisla-

It is to the discussion of these questions that Mr. Palmer and Mr. Beck
have addressed themselves. They both recognize that the language of


 Article V of the Constitution with respect to the adoption or rejection of
proposed amendments in Conventions of the several States, is not so clear
as it might be and requires interpretation. In endeavoring to interpret it,
they both resort to proceedings preceding and relating to the original ‘
adoption of the Constitution and to decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States in cognate or related cases.
It would be indelicate for me to attempt, nor shall I attempt to express
'P in words other than those they have used themselves, the views of these
‘ two distinguished gentlemen. I shall only attempt to give you my under-
t.) standing of their respective views.
‘ As I understand Mr. Palmer’s views, he bases them on the fundamental
premise that the Constitution of the United States was established by the
“people of the several States acting as sovereigns.” Mr. Palmer supports
this premise by many Supreme Court decisions.

As I understand Mr. Beck’s views, he thinks that the Constitution was
the result of a compact between the several States and was not created by
the “people of the several States acting as sovereigns.” I do not find in
my study of Mr. Beck’s able speech any supporting judicial authority, al-
though his reasoning upon the subject is interesting.

Having established the proposition that the Constitution was adopted by
the “people acting as sovereigns,” Mr. Palmer then develops the proposition
and reaches the conclusion that when Conventions are convened in the
several States to accept or reject an amendment to the Constitution, such
Conventions are performing a Federal function, as distinguished from a
State function, and because they are exercising a Federal function such
Conventions not only may be but must be initiated by and fundamentally
controlled by Congressional, as distinguished from State, legislation. To
support this conclusion Mr. Palmer cites apposite decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States.

I) I am not at all sure that I understand from Mr. Beck’s speech what he
In thinks the procedure should be in the event Congress decides to refer a
‘ proposed amendment to Conventions. However, it seems to me that the
necessary inference from his speech is that he thinks in such event that all
of the machinery for convening and conducting a Convention in any State
would have to be created by the Legislature of that State. He appears to
at least partially rely for some of the conclusions reached by him, not upon
the language which the Supreme Court has in fact used, but rather upon the

language which he suggests it might have used but did not use.

As an illustration: In the Congressional Record for December 7, 1932,
we find the following on page 1117 (Mr. Beck speaking said) :

“I want every Member (of the House) to hear it, because the whole
argument of Mr. Palmer is pyramided upon this expression (Quoting from
a Supreme Court decision as follows):


 “ ‘But the function of a State legislature in ratifying a proposed
amendment to the Federal Constitution, like the function of Congress
in proposing the amendment, is a Federal function derived from the
Federal Constitution, and it transcends any limitations sought to be
imposed by the people of a State.’ ”

(Continuing in his own language, Mr. Beck says) :

“The Constitution undoubtedly gave the authority to the State legisla— ~ 7
ture to ratify or reject a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court '
calls that a ‘Federal function.‘ I respectfully suggest it would be far more I
accurate to say it is a ‘constitutional function.’ ’7 .:

Returning again to Mr. Palmer:

Having established to his satisfaction that if the proposed amendment
is referred for adoption by the Congress to Conventions in the States, the
power to initiate and regulate the holding of such Convention is not only
vested in, but must initially be exercised by Congress, Mr. Palmer addresses
himself to a consideration of the question:

May any part of such power be delegated?

He reaches the conclusion that it can.

Here again he supports his conclusion by apt reference to a decision of
the Supreme Court of the United States. Upon this subject his brief speaks
for itself. He says: V

i “The only power which the Congress need exercise under such a plan
would be to fix the time of holding the election, the limits of time thereafter
in which the Conventions should convene, and the general principle for
the nomination of candidates and the presentation of the issue to the people
including the election of the delegates to the Conventions by statewide
plurality vote; the Congress should also pay the expenses in connection
with the full exercise of this Federal function. All other powers in con-
nection therewith would be exercised by State authorities.” _

I am not at all sure that I understand Mr. Beck’s views upon the ques- ,
tion of Congressional delegation of power. However, it seems to me that -
it must necessarily follow from his argument that it is his opinion that if I ‘
and when Congress proposes an amendment and refers it to Conventions in
the several States, Congress will then have performed its sole and only
duty; that thereafter the Legislature in each State may call the Convention
for that particular State and provide all of the machinery with respect to
it: that there may not even be a Convention in such State if a gerry-
mandered Legislature says “no”; and that this would follow even though
the majority of the people in the State wanted a Convention and wanted
the Eighteenth Amendment repealed.

Although you have only asked me to try to point out such difference, if
any, as I found in the views of Mr. Palmer and Mr. Beck, I cannot avoid .
in conclusion an expression of the following personal opinion:

 In my judgment, the consequences which would result from the adoption
of one or the other of these two views (if I have correctly stated them)
differ widely and are very far-reaching.
If Mr. Palmer’s position is sound, it would seem that then there would
be perfect uniformity in the proceedings of the several States. The Con-
ventions in the several States would synchronize precisely as to rules, regu-
,, lations and—what is far more important—the delegates so elected to such
'_ Conventions by a plurality vote would voice the sentiments of the entire
people upon a subject which ought to be and thus would be divested of all
political influence.
On the other hand, if the Legislature of each State should have the power
to call 21 Convention or not, just as it pleased, and to regulate such Con—
vention, if called, it would seem that inextricable confusion would result
with respect to all of the details which are so important in connection with
so grave a matter as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Each State would have a different kind of Convention; the candidates
would be nominated in different ways; the delegates to it would be elected
under different rules, and thus the “Convention method” of amendment to
which both great political parties pledged themselves would fail to ac-
complish the desired results.
. If I can be of any further service to you in the premises, please do not

hesitate to call upon me.

Faithfully yours,
Mrs. William B. Mason,
Chairman for the District of Columbia
Women’s Organization for National

_ Prohibition Reform,

Washington, D. C.

' . RMS:GH
. _, ‘w

l .

The President
of the
Association Against the Prohibiton
For the Year
Association Against the Prohibition Amendment
National Press Building
Washington, D. C.



The Repeal Planks 5
Mr. Rockefeller Speaks.......................... 6
The Voters’ Mandate............................ 7
State Referenda................................. 8
Congressional Reaction.......................... 12
The House Vote 13
The Pending Senate Resolution................... 13
SenatorBorah’s View 14
Why Ratification by Conventions?............... 15
Clear Cut Resolution Demanded.................. 15
Literary Digest Poll 16
Development of Program........................ 17
Cooperation Not Dictation....................... 18
United Repeal Council........................... 18
‘ Reorganization.................................. 19
State Commissions.............................. 20
Fight Not Yet Won 20
Underworld Opposes Repeal..................... 21
Overconfidence Dangerous....................... 22
, OurDutyasCitizens............................ 22


 l ,

 . Members of the Executive Committee,
- Directors, Members and Friends of
The Association Against the Prohibition Amendment:

The year 1932 marked the most definite progress that has been made
toward repeal since the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment, though
its events represented merely a cumulative sequence following upon the
work of education and preparation that had been going on for a number
of years prior thereto.

Very real antecedent advancement had been evidenced in numerous
directions, in none more strikingly than in various elections wherein the
issue of repeal was brought to the front and where candidates endorsing
repeal were chosen to represent important constituencies in the national

. Congress.

It was evident at the beginning of 1932, indeed it had been evident
to thoughtful men for months beforehand, that some declaration on pro-
posals for prohibition reform must be made by the two major political
parties in their national conventions. Even with such justified anticipa—
tion, however, it is doubtful whether the most optimistic dared to hope
that expressions of policy so far—reaching and so important in their effect
possibly could be secured.

When the Republican convention was held the Committee on Resolu-
tions divided on the prohibition issue. One group headed by administra-
tion spokesmen offered a plank which was contradictory in its provisions,
which was difficult to interpret and which sought to continue the domina—
tion of the federal government by imposing constitutional limitations with
respect to this important social question. Another group, represented by
Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, Senator Hiram Bingham, former Senator
James W. Wadsworth, Jr., and others, attempted to have their party
recommend submission to the voters of a straight repeal resolution. The
first plank prevailed by a close vote after a hard fight. The assertion was
made widely that except for administration pressure the convention would
have adopted the more direct and forceful expression. Leading news-

- paper correspondents reported that only through the votes of delegates
holding positions under or otherwise affiliated with the Hoover adminis-
tration was the Bingham plank defeated.


However that may be, it is probable that except for the fact that in
its expression the Republican platform went much further than had
seemed possible a few months before, the Democratic plank on the subject

' of prohibition would not have been so far—reaching and so definite as it
proved to be. Fortunately, responsive to the demand for unequivocal

 repeal, the Democratic convention by an overwhelming vote adopted a
pledge which not only placed that party on record in behalf of the sub-
mission of a repeal resolution without qualification, to be acted upon by
conventions in the several states, but which even recorded the attitude
of the party as favorable to the ratification of such a resolution.

The Democratic platform said:

“We advocate the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. To effect such
repeal we demand that the Congress immediately propose a Constitutional
Amendment to truly representative conventions in the States called to act ,
solely on that proposal; we urge the enactment of such measures by the sev-
eral States as will actually promote temperance, effectively prevent the return
of the saloon, and bring the liquor traffic into the open under complete super-
vision and control by the States.”

The two candidates in their acceptance speeches dealt with the de-
clarations of their respective parties. Mr. Hoover went further than the
Republican platform in that he announced in favor of definite repeal of the
Eighteenth Amendment even though he sought to qualify the plan that
should be set up in its stead. Mr. Roosevelt called attention to the stand
of his party for straight repeal and declared himself as 100 per cent in
favor of his party’s position.

Our Association did not take sides as between the two Presidential
candidates in View of the fact that such resolution as may be submitted
dealing with the subject of repeal must be passed by Congress and is not
specifically a matter with which the President deals. As announced at
the time, our activities were confined to Senatorial and Congressional elec-
tions. We did not attempt to enter all of the contests. In many instances
the nominees of both of the major parties stood for outright repeal and
where that was the case our Association could not properly attempt to
discriminate between them. In a few instances the position of neither
candidate was satisfactory and there we did not try to differentiate. But
in cases where the issue of repeal was clearly drawn our Association lent
all the help possible to the repeal candidates and in a large proportion of
the contests that we entered those whom we supported were victorious.

It is a matter of common knowledge that the election of November
8th last, in its broader phases, constituted an outstanding mandate from
the voters of the United States for repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment.

It is the confident belief of the officers of our Association that this mandate
, will not be ignored by those who were chosen as members of the national i
legislature and that the Seventy-third Congress may be expected to submit,
soon after it convenes, an unqualified repeal resolution to be ratified by i
conventions in the several states. l
. On the eve of the Republican convention the discomfited apologists
for the Eighteenth Amendment received a stunning blow. Many of them
have yet to recover from it. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., a life—long total
abstainer, a former financial supporter of the Anti-Saloon League, for
years an ardent advocate of the Eighteenth Amendment, published a
dramatically courageous declaration for repeal. He supported Dr. Butler’s
proposal that the whole question of liquor control be returned to the states.

 a Mr. Rockefeller placed himself squarely in line with the policy of our
" Association by advocating simple repeal without a substitutive formula,
V leaving to the several states decision as to their own community measures
8 for liquor control.
In his letter to Dr. Butler, Mr. Rockefeller said: .
“It is not to be expected that the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment
will in itself end all these evils and restore public respect for law. I believe,
however, that its repeal is a prerequisite to the attainment of that goal. I am
, informed that should repeal become effective, all the machinery for controlling
the liquor traffic built up in the respective states and in the nation throughout
the many years prior to the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment would
with few exceptions be in force, strengthened by various Federal laws and
court decisions having to do with the regulation of interstate commerce.
“There are many who, feeling as I do that the Eighteenth Amendment has
1- not accomplished the object which its enactment sought to attain, would will-
8 ingly favor its repeal were some alternate method that gave promise of better
results offered as a substitute. In my judgment it will be so difficult for our
3 people as a whole to agree in advance on what the substitute should be, and so
t unlikely that any one method Will fit the entire nation, that repeal will be far
1 less possible if coupled with an alternate measure. For that reason I the more
strongly approve the simple, clear-cut position you are proposing to recommend
'1 and which I shall count it not only a duty but a privilege to support.”
t It would require space far beyond the proper confines of this report
t to attempt to recount in detail the victories that were achieved in the
' November elections. In the first place, a Presidential ticket standing for
3 unqualified repeal as against Presidential nominees who were at least
i lukewarm in their position, if not definitely opposed, was voted into office
3 by the largest popular and largest electoral vote alike in the history of the
r country. With it was chosen an overwhelming majority in both Senate
t and House standing on the repeal platform. The results were not confined
'3 to any section of the country. They were universal in their applicatlon.
f In states and districts of the far West, as well as in the North, the East
and the South, Senators and Congressmen were placed in office because of
r their outspoken opposition to prohibition.
1 A surprising development of the whole situation these last two
'° months, however, has been the assertion by many well—intentioned men
3 p and women who honestly believe the Eighteenth Amendment should be
‘1 1 retained that the issue of prohibition was not involved in the November
v ‘ election. Some of them have gone so far as to say that the people did not
V l express themselves upon the question even remotely, that other cons1dera—
“. tions were responsible entirely for the verdict given.
‘ It is interesting to contrast the contentions now voiced by these zeal-
‘ ous advocates with their expressions following the election of 1928. With-
_ . out exception they claimed in November of 1928 that the election of Her-
” bert Hoover and a Republican Congress constituted a mandate from the
i American voters for retention of the Eighteenth Amendment. They de-
‘ clared unequivocally that it was a clear endorsement of national constitu-
r tional prohibition.
2' I have no desire either to challenge or to defend those interpretations
5 of the election of 1928, but I have the right to insist that the men and
" women favorable to the Eighteenth Amendment shall be consistent.

 At Winona Lake, Indiana, on August 19, last, the Rev. Dr. F. Scott
McBride, superintendent of the Anti-Saloon League, stated the issue of
1932 clearly and accurately when he said:
“Our major task as to the coming campaign is clearly presented in the ‘
election of Congressmen, who, in the last analysis, have sole responsibility for
amending the Constitution. We will support those candidates who stand defi- ;
nitely committed in opposition to either repeal or modification.”
Dr. McBride and his associates had every right to do just what he ’
suggested. I have not the slightest doubt that they carried out literally
the plan made clear in his statement and that they placed behind candidates
for national legislative office, who agreed with their views on the prohi- l
bition question, all of the vast resources of their combined organizations. 4
I am happy that they did. It clarified the whole question. It made the
issue plain to every voter. The result was recorded. Throughout the ,
country those who stood for repeal were swept into office by overwhelming ,
majorities. The obviously proper course now is that the outcome be ac-
cepted and effort not be made to deny that prohibition was the real issue
in multiplied instances.
The advocates of retention of the prohibition amendment of whom I
speak are excellent men and women—law—abiding, God-fearing citizens. 1
I question neither their loyalty nor their patriotism nor their good intent. ‘
I call upon them, if they meant what they said with reference to the 1928 ‘
election, to accept the mandate of the election of 1932. I call upon them 1
to cease their claims that the chosen national legislators were placed in
office solely because they were Democrats, not because they were for re- .
peal, and that, therefore, they have neither moral obligation nor political ‘
responsibility to support the platform declaration of the Democratic party. 1
In addition to the election of a Presidential ticket and members of the
national legislature, referenda were held in eleven states in which some
form of the prohibition question was at issue. In each instance a victory
was recorded against prohibition relating either to state or federal pro-
A review of these referenda is of marked interest and of real value: ‘
Arizona 5
Arizona voted to remove or retain prohibition in the State Constitu- 1
tion and also to repeal all state laws for enforcement. The vote was: T
For repeal 63,850 1
For retention 36,218 l
In 1918, the Legislature of Arizona ratified the Eighteenth Amend- V
ment by these votes: Senate—18 to 0; House—20 to 3. I
Two questions were voted on in California.
The first was repeal of the Wright Act, the State enforcement code, to ‘»
[8] ‘

 tt become efi’ective without further action by the Legislature. The result
)f was:
For repeal _-_1,459,835
Against ,, ,, _ 658,351
, The second question was that if the Wright Act should be repealed
‘ and if the Federal Constitution permitted, California should have the eX-
clusive right to “license and regulate the manufacture, sale, possession,
1e transportation, importation and exportation of intoxicating liquors.” The
_y ’ proposal further specified that saloons and bars should be prohibited but
gs the sale of wines and beer with meals in hotels and restaurants should be
i— permitted. The vote on that was:
5' “ Affirmative ,______..__,,,1,308,428
:: Negative 730,522
g Three previous state—wide referenda had been held in California. In
c- November, 1920, a state enforcement code was rejected by a vote of 465,-
le 537 to 400,475. In November, 1922, the people voted adoption of the
Wright Act by a vote of 445,076 to 411,133. The change of public senti—
I ment in California from 1926 is revealed by the referendum of that year
s. j on the repeal of the Wright Act. The vote was:
,1; ‘ Affirmative W1---” 502,258
'n ‘, Negative 565,875
a- 1 Colorado
.9‘1 ‘ The voters of Colorado decided to take prohibition out of their State
’7' 1 Constitution and provided that after July 1, 1933, the manufacture, sale
‘ and distribution of intoxicating liquors within the state, subject to the
i Constitution and laws of the United States, should be under such agencies
‘ and regulations as might be provided by state laws, with an inhibition
19 against the saloon. The referendum resulted:
‘3 For ,, 233,311
,_ ‘ Against ,, ., 1 182,771
, In November, 1926, Colorado voted on a proposal to provide for sale
of liquor for personal use when and if the Eighteenth Amendment should
i be repealed and the outcome was:
" For ., 107,749
" : Against 154,672
i Colorado’s Legislature voted for ratification of the Eighteenth Amend-
ment, in 1919, as follows: Senate—34 to 1; House—60 to 2.
1- 1 Connecticut
E The Connecticut Legislature passed, in 1931, an act petitioning Con-
i gress to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment, but there was a provision that
i the memorial should not go to Congress until it had been submitted to the
1 voters for their approval. The petition provided that Congress should
;0 1 have power to regulate the sale and transportation of intoxicating liquors
‘ [9]

in interstate commerce “in a manner not to abridge or deny the powers l
herein reserved to the several states.” The result of the referendum was: I
For the petition______ 292,787 ‘
Against 47,951 l
Connecticut never ratified the Eighteenth Amendment. I
Louisiana t
The voters of Louisiana had two separate proposals before them on i
prohibition. The first was repeal of the Hood State enforcement act,
submitted by an act of the Legislature and approved by the Governor, and
the result was:
For repeal 188,597 :
For retention 38,098 .
The voters of Louisiana passed also on a concurrent resolution of
both houses of the Legislature petitioning Congress to call Constitutional I
conventions to consider repeal or modification of the Eighteenth Amend- :
merit, and that vote ran: ,1
For _ 162,555
Against - 35,437 I
Louisiana’s Legislature voted for ratification of the Eighteenth 1
Amendment in 1918 as follows: Senate—21 to 20; House 69 to 41. 'I
Michigan I
Long one of the notable strongholds of State Constitutional prohibi—
tion since its adoption in 1916, Michigan voted for an amendment to its I
state constitution empowering the Legislature to establish a liquor control I
commission which should have complete control over the alcoholic bever- I
age traffic in the state, including retail sales. The amendment provided .
also that the state could tax the sales of alcoholic beverages but that no I
sale could be authorized in any county in which a majority of the qualified I‘
voters decided against it. The result in Michigan was: 1‘
Affirmative _____-__-._1,022,508 I
Negative _-____________- 475,265 I
Michigan had one previous referendum on prohibition. In April, 1919, l
an amendment to the state constitution to permit the sale of light wines "
and beer received only 37.8 per cent of the popular vote and was rejected
322,603 to 530,123. The Legislature ratified the Eighteenth Amendment
in this fashion: Senate—30 to O; House—88 to 3. A technical error in «(
procedure subsequently was rectified in 1928. '
New Jersey
New Jersey abandoned state prohibition enforcement by a popular ma-
jority of 41/2 to 1 on November 8. The vote there was on repeal of the

 'S l Hobart Act, the question having been submitted to the voters by legisla-
;: l tive act, with this result:
1 For repeal _r_________.__1,012,526
‘ Against _ 223,855
1’ New Jersey, the last state to ratify the Eighteenth Amendment,
showed this division in its Legislature in 1922: Senate—12 to 2; House—
r‘ 33 to 24.
n ‘r North Dakota
t: As a result of an initiative petition, the voters of North Dakota, long
d regarded as one of the outstanding prohibition states with a preponderant
rural population, passed on repeal of prohibition from the State Constitu—
: tion where it was embodied when North Dakota was admitted to the
, Union in 1889. Score:
if ; Repeal 134,742
[11 i Retention 99,316
_ 3 North Dakota held a referendum on the same question in June, 1928,
‘ with this result:
Repeal 96,837
1 Retention -_.-W 103,696
h i The votes in the North Dakota Legislature in 1918 for ratification of
‘ the Eighteenth Amendment were: Senate—43 to 2; House—96 to 10.
‘ Oregon
,2 i In Oregon the issue was repeal of the state prohibition enforcement
')1 l law, (the Anderson Act), the question going to the voters for decision as
,_ ; a result of an initiative petition. The vote was:
d J For repeal 206,619
g 1 Against -_-____-__________ 138,775
1 The Legislature of Oregon voted for ratification of the Eighteenth
l Amendment as follows: Senate—30 to 0 ;