Nation Leader of W. C. T. U. On the Victory

The temperance forces of this country, including all the temperance organizations and the churches of nearly every denomination, have reason to rejoice over the result of the vote in favor of the Sheppard-Hobson resolution, even though it fell short of the two-thirds majority. For the first time in the republic's history the question of national prohibition was discussed in the United States congress.
To secure a majority of eight, exclusive of pairs, with the Democratic floor leader, Mr. underwood, the Republican floor leader, Mr. Mann, the chairman of the committee on rules, Mr. Henry, and President Wilson and Secretary Bryan against the measure, and in view of the fact that no member of the sixty-third congress was elected on this issue, was a notable victory. A record has now been made and the friends of the Sheppard-Hobson resolution need no longer fight in the dark.

Long to be Remembered
The twenty-second of December is a day long to be remembered by those who were privileged to listen to the debate in the house of representatives. We at national W. C. T. U. headquarters were especially interested in an unusual decoration of the house. Across the entire length of the gallery over the speaker's desk was fastened our scroll, recording the number of public assemblies endorsing the resolutino and sent to congress through our office here. Every state was represented upon this scroll--nearly 12,000 organizations and assemblies endorsed the resolution, representing an aggregate of nearly 5,000,000 people. Adding to this large number, the petitioners whose names were sent directly to members of congress, it is safe to say that 7,000,000 American citizens have petitioned on this subject--ten times as many petitioners as ever petitioned any government in the history of the world.

All Day At It
The house convened at 10 a.m. and from 9:30 in the morning until 11:30 at night packed galleries attested to the tremendous interest in this memorable debate. Sixty addresses, long and short, were made, and among the speakers were several Illinois representatives. It may be of interet to know how the Illinois delegation voted. The following record is, I think, correct.
Democrats voting "no"--Mr. Stringer and Mr. Williams, representatives at large; Mr. Sabath of the [?]th district, Mr. McAndrews of the [?] district, Mr. Buchanan of the 7th district, Mr. Gallagher of the [?] district, Mr. Fitzhenry of the 17th district, Mr. Graham of the 21st district, Mr. Hill of the [?] district.
Republicans voting in Favor of the Measure--Mr. McKenzie of the 13th district
Republicans voting "No"--Mr. Madden of the 1st district, Mr. James R. Mann of the [?] district, Mr. Brittan of the [?] district.
The three Progressives in the Illinois delegation all voted in favor of the measure, namely--Mr. Thomson of the 10th district, Mr. copley of the 11trh district, Mr. Hinebaugh of the 12th district.
Mr. Gorman, Democrat, of the 3rd district; Mr. McDermott, Democrat, of the 4th District; Mr. Baltz, Democrat, of the 22nd district, were absent
Among the speakers against the bill were Mr. Mann and Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Thomson spoke in favor of national constitutional prohibitions, and Mr. Copley favored the referendum to the states.

Mr. Taft's Attitude No Surprise
Regarding ex-President Taft's recent statement that national prohibition is "a dangerous proposition" and unconstitutional, I was reminded of the fact that Mr. Taft, when president of the United States, vetoed the Webb-Kenyon bill prohibiting the shipment of liquors into dry territory to be sold contrary to law--on the ground of its unconstitutionality--and that thus far his contention has not been sustained by the courts. In an address made by Senator Sheppard on Dec. 18 [unclear], on the floor of the senate, he said:
"It will be seen that the amendment in question deprives both federal and state governments of the power to authorize the liquor traffic. It delegates to both federal and state governments the power to prohibit the traffic within their respective jurisdictions. How misleading the statement that it turns over to the federal government the entire machinery of control and eradication! the federal government exercise, through the taxing power, a control over the liquor traffic today superior to that of the states, except in the case of absolute prohibition. Neither the sale nor the manufacture of alcoholic liquor may be undertaken in any state in the union without federal authority. The federal government maintains a rigid supervision over the making of alcoholic liquors from the still to the saloon, and with this supervision no state government and no state official may interfere. When the state of South Carolina entered te dispensaary business her officials had to pay a tax to the federal government. The amendment now pending preserves to the states the only exclusive right they now have with reference to the liquor traffic--the right of prohibition."

Nearly All Dry Now
With seventy-five percent of the area of the United States "dry" and with nearly sixty million people living in territory that has outlawed the saloon; with "big business" demanding total abstinence among its employes for the sake of greater efficiency, prevention of accidents and disease caused by alcoholic drinks; with the great moral forces of the country actively arrayed against the liquor traffic, this vote on Dec. 22, when 197 members of the house of representatives voted in favor of the amendment and only 189 against, is tremendously significant.
The predominating sentiment of the American people will, in the long run, prevail in national legislation and we shall, many of us, live to see the coming of national constitutional prohibition.