tion of speakers was left to the California Campaign Federation as the organization responsible for the submission of the amendments, and to the United California Industries, an association of the interests threatened by the amendments, for presentation of the other side.

The California Campaign Federation chose to present its arguments through Rev. Dr. D. M. Gandier and Arthur Arlett.

The United California Industries chose George M. MacDowell. Forty-five minutes were given to each side, after which the question was thrown open to debate under the five-minute rule.

On account of the great interest in the subject, the occasion was made Ladies' Night and was largely attended.

Meeting of September 20, 1916

The Club met on the evening of Wednesday, September 20, 1916, at the Hotel St. Francis, to attend the dinner and to listen to a discussion on the constitutional amendment prohibiting the sale of liquor, and the amendment restricting its sale. The occasion was made Ladies' Night, and about three hundred members and guests attended the meeting.

At the conclusion of the business meeting the President called the Club to order with the following remarks:

Remarks by President Beverly L. Hodghead

THE PRESIDENT: The debate tonight is of a character that requires a time-keeper. A definite allotment of time has been given to each speaker and none to the chairman, so we may as well begin at a very early moment.

The discussion is upon a topic which has aroused wide interest throughout the state. I do not know whether this unusual outpouring this evening is due to the popularity of the subject, or to the popularity of the ladies, or to the eminence of the speakers; possibly it is due to some extent to the price of the dinner. (Laughter.) There is a joint influence there somewhere.

It has been the practice of this Club for many years, just preceding a general state election, to discuss all proposed amendments to the organic law of the state, and the meeting this evening is in keeping with that custom. It is well known that the Club is a fair and free and open forum where all controversial subjects may be discussed in a serious and gentlemanly manner, and this evening is also to be in keeping with that custom. (Laughter.)

This is not a report of a committee. We have no outstanding committee on this subject. The speakers are guests of the Club, who have been invited to debate this subject, after they have each been selected by their own respective organizations to represent their thoughts upon this question.

There are two amendments, as we all know, differing somewhat in their phraseology, and possibly in their meaning if you should ever be put to the position of having to interpret them in spirit. Just what that difference is, just what the effects of each one would be upon us if adopted, I shall not undertake to discuss. That is a task which the speakers must assume.

We know, however, in a general way, that the proposed amendment designated as No. 2 is not absolute in its terms; that it still allows some room for personal preference, as one might say. It still allows in a regulated manner, the sale of liquor and also the possession of it.

I remember the story of an old negro down in Georgia who was arrested for having three barrels of liquor in his possession, which was in violation of law, but he was acquitted on the ground that it was intended for his own personal use. (Laughter.) Proposed amendment No. 1 is more drastic in its terms, more comprehensive in its provisions. It is intended to prevent the sale or possession of liquor in any form, whether in saloons, or in places like this, for instance, of wine or intoxicants of any kind, and if adopted, those who are so inclined, will have to rely as a last resort upon the drugstores, who sell only upon prescription.

We may have repeated the experience of Mark Twain. You remember his story. He landed in a dry town, so he told us in one of his works, where the prohibition ordinances were very severe. He applied at a drugstore and was told that they sold only on prescription, which he could not obtain. However, it was said that in a case of emergency some relief might be supplied-snake bite, for instance; and in cases of that sort, probably some indulgence could be allowed. He was told that down on the river bank just outside of town there was a rattlesnake, and perhaps he could find it. He was given explicit directions, to go down the street three blocks and then turn to the left and proceed to the river, and along the bank he would find an experienced rattlesnake. In a half hour he came back not feeling very happy. The druggist asked him if he had been to the river and inquired if the rattlesnake was there. Mark answered "Yes, but it was engaged for three weeks." (Laughter.) I do not know which side of the debate that argument is on. (Laughter.)

Now, these amendments may affect us in different ways. They affect different localities in a different manner. For instance, some sections of the state are dry. I live in a section of the state which is alleged to be dry; that is Berkeley. We are existing there under a four-ply prohibition. We have two ordinances, one charter provision and the University state law, all of them prohibiting the sale of liquor. It is unlawful to take liquor into Berkeley, and I suppose it is unlawful to take it out, although that has never been tried.

Now, I do not want to charge up this time to any of the speakers. We must come direct to the question, and it seems that the proposers of the measure would be considered to have the affirmative, and I will ask them to open the debate. The subject will be introduced by Dr. D. M. Gandier, who is accustomed to speak upon this subject. He is the Superintendent of the Dry Federation of California, which is advocating the adoption of these measures. I am very glad to introduce Dr. Gandier.

Statement by Rev. Dr. D. M. Gandier

DR. GANDIER: It is my privilege tonight to give reasons why I think you and other good citizens should vote "yes" on the first and second amendments on the ballot November 7th. Our president has told us a little about what is in these measures.

The first provides for absolute prohibition on and after January 1, 1920. It takes no snap judgment. Three years and two months after election are allowed for industrial and commercial readjustment, before this measure goes into effect. But when it does go into effect, it is thorough. It forbids the making, importing, selling, or storing of liquor for drinking purposes.

The second amendment is not so drastic. It will close saloons and take liquor out of hotels, restaurants, clubs and grocery stores. It closes the public drinking place and the bottle-house. It does not interfere with the manufacture and exporting of liquor; neither does it prevent sale in California by manufacturers in two gallon or larger lots, delivered at the residence of the buyer. It does not prevent importing liquor in two gallon or larger lots. It closes the public drinking place, but does not prevent the manufacture, the use in California homes, or the shipment to other states and countries. This amendment will go into effect January 1, 1918, one year and two months after election.

Electors may vote for either or both of these measures. There will be no conflict if both are adopted.

Very briefly now let me tell you why I think you should vote for these measures. Probably, we are all agreed that the liquor traffic is a serious evil. I do not think I need to discuss its influence in politics. We all know that has been bad.

How many of us realize that, from the standpoint of public health, the liquor traffic presents a serious problem. In May, this year, Dr. Richard C. Cabot, head of the Medical Staff of the Massachusetts General Hospital, said, "Abolish alcohol and you will cut disease in half." The Department of Public Health of Toronto, Canada, said in its Bulletin for October 1, 1915, "Of the three national curses, morphine, cocaine and alcohol, the greatest is alcohol."

The drink habit unfits men and women for fatherhood and motherhood; it robs children of their right to be well born, multiplies those who are defective in body and mind; keeps boys and girls out of school and college, makes it difficult for men to get work and lessens their chance for promotion. Thus, it reduces the earning power of the masses, and so weakens their purchasing power. This hurts business.

We talk about over production making hard times. Have the people of the United States ever had a chance to use all they want of what we

produce? The trouble is not so much over production as under consumption. The people could and would use more than they do, if they had greater purchasing power. Anything which lessens the purchasing power of the masses hurts business. The liquor traffic does this. It reduces the earning capacity of its patrons, and it pays out less for wages and raw material than any other big industry. To enrich a few it impoverishes many, and this is not only bad morals, but is bad business. The evils of the liquor traffic, as we know it, cannot be denied.

Is there any sufficient reason why this traffic should not be outlawed? The opponents of our measures say that prohibition is wrong in principle. If it is, we ought to repeal our whole penal code. We prohibit the sale of impure foods, decayed meat, and of many narcotic drugs.

More people in the United States are hurt by alcohol than by cocaine. We prohibit the keeping or selling of cocaine, except for medicinal purposes. If the principle of prohibition is not wrong when applied to cocaine, it is not wrong when applied to alcohol. Both are narcotic drugs. Both have legitimate uses. Both are dangerous when freely sold for indiscriminate use by the public, and government has a right to suppress the sale of either or both, as it thinks wise.

If the theory, that forbidden meat is sweet and that men will do that which they are told not to do, is true in one case, it must be true in the other. Either all law should be repealed, or the principle of prohibition must be recognized as a proper one to be applied under proper conditions.

The liquor men's talk about personal liberty is chiefly nonsense. When men live together in civilized communities, personal liberty yields to civil liberty. The public welfare is then the supreme law. Men may do as they please only so far as this does not hurt others.

A filthy backyard endangers the health of the adults who are responsible for it. If it stopped at that, the state would not be greatly concerned. But, because that filth endangers the health of innocent children in the home, and because its noisome odors cross the property line and become a nuisance to others and a menace to the health of many, the state compels a clean-up.

A man is stricken with small-pox or plague and in his home he has all the care that doctors and nurses can give him. He wants to stay there and probably would be better there than in the pest house, but the state compels him to go off to the isolated hospital because that lessens the danger for his neighbors.