To keep the record straight, and because it has been stated otherwise, let me say I was not a Member of the Congress when the eighteenth amendment was adopted, so I could not possibly have voted for it. That amendment had been ratified and was part of the fundamental law of the land when I became a Member of the Congress. I voted for the Volstead bill because I had sworn to vote for legislation to enforce the eighteenth amendment when I took the oath of office, and because it seemed to be the best bill which could be prepared at that time for that purpose. When I take the oath of office as a Senator I shall do so without reservations, and I will uphold the Constitution of the United States as long as I am a Member of the Senate. Therefore, so long as the eighteenth amendment is a part of the Constitution I shall uphold it, and will be for the enforcement of a law to carry out the intention of the Constitution, whether it is the Volstead Act or some other act. CONSTITUTION, NOT VOLSTEAD ACT, BASIS OF PROHIBITION Fed upon misinformation, many people have come to believe that the Volstead Act is the foundation of prohibition. I repeat, this is not true at all or in any sense. The Constitution is the thing which makes the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating beverages illegal. If the people of this country, or if the people of Illinois, desire to have the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating beverages legalizedwhether they mean by "intoxicating beverages" either spirits of any kind like whisky, rum, or gin, or whether they mean wines and beer-there is an orderly, legal way to do so. That way is by modifying or amending the fundamental prohibition law-the eighteenth amendment. Doubtless there are many who sincerely and honestly believe this ought to be done. They can go about it in a manner which will command the respect of the Nation. But merely to propose to tinker the Volstead Act will not convince the public of their sincerity; nor can that act be tinkered so as to legalize intoxicating beverages as long as a majority of the Members of the National Senate and a majority of the Members of the National House of Representatives regard the oath of office which each must take as anything more than an idle phrase. The Republican State platform states that the genius of our institutions and the foundation of our liberties is our recognition of the right of the people to pass upon and determine the policies to be pursued and the action to be taken by those in authority. I am wholly and wholeheartedly committed to that principle. Therefore, if and when a majority of the people of the State of Illinois shall, upon a properly submitted question, vote for either the modification or repeal of the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution I will, as Senator, comply with their mandate. To promise more than that would be to pledge one's self to the impossible or to contemplate doing the unspeakable; to think of doing less would be to repudiate the bedrock principle of a free people. FRANK L. SMITH. Observe that Colonel Smith's statement about the referendum does not apply to the referendum to be submitted at the coming election in Illinois. This socalled Brennan referendum provides that the alcoholic content of permitted liquors shall be determined according to the laws of the several States. Such a proposal is an evasion of the Constitution. It does not refer to the eighteenth amendment at all. It only suggests an improper method of modifying the Volstead Act. To vote "yes on such a referendum would be to vote for a thing that can not be done. To vote "no" will not necessarily mean that the voter is dry. It would only mean that he was not in favor of trying to modify the Volstead Act that way. It does not afford an opportunity "to stand up and be counted" in behalf of prohibition. It is a trick referendum devised by the wets to confuse and split up the drys and divert their attention from the main duty of the hour, which is to prevent the election of George Brennan to the United States Senate. Issued by the Anti-Saloon League of Illinois, George B. Safford, superintendent, 1200 Security Building, Chicago, Ill. DEAR FRIEND AND FELLOW WARRIOR: ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE OF ILLINOIS, Just now Illinois is a storm center of the world in the wet and dry fight. The wets of our State and in the country are trying their hardest "to make a killing" in the senatorial fight. If they can elect Brennan on a light wine and beer platform, they believe they will start a mighty reaction against prohibition. Secondly, they are endeavoring at the same time to destroy the Anti-Saloon League. If they could do that, they know they would remove the principal barrier which stands between them and the success of their plans. The Chicago Evening Post admits that "the Anti-Saloon League is the only organized agency in the field capable of conducting an effective compaign in behalf of the eighteenth amendment." If you believe in prohibition, do not waver in your support of the Anti-Saloon League. The disclosures in regard to the campaign funds of Smith and Brennan, while they are disquieting, reveal a condition which should be corrected. But it is not the leading issue in this particular campaign. That was created before these disclosures came out and we should not be diverted by them from carrying on our fight to a successful issue. We can not fight both battles at once. Let us finish the one in which we are engaged and then take up the next. The league insists that our first and chief concern in the coming election is the defeat of Brennan. We are convinced the only way to do this successfully is to support the opposing party candidate, Colonel Smith, who is dry. No independent candidate coming in at the eleventh hour can possibly succeed in defeating the two party candidates, supported as they are by their respective powerful political organizations. Voting for independents simply splits the dry votes at a time when splitting it is suicide. A morning paper carries the claim that 45,000 votes for an idependent will elect Brennan. In this connection may I call your attention also to a sentence which occurs in the press of October 9, " Meanwhile George E. Brennan, Democratic nominee, continued to receive letters from Republicans pledging support on account of the issue of Volsteadism." This shows that the wets of both parties are concentrating behind Mr. BrenIf he is to be defeated, the drys of both parties must concentrate behind Colonel Smith. Brennan's election would be a National tragedy. nan. Very truly yours, GEORGE B. SAFFORD, P. S.-Important. Please read the inclosed leaflet carefully. It is a masterly statement. How many would you like to have for distribution. Please inform us at once. Also how many copies of our indorsement list can you use among your friends? We will have them ready soon. G. B. S. CHICAGO, ILL., October 19, 1926. Below is list of persons regularly employed by the Anti-Saloon League of Illinois at the present time, and weekly salary of each, exclusive of office help: There are 20 stenographers and office clerks regularly employed, with an aggregate salary of $498 per week. 103434-26-PT 3 TESTIMONY OF E. J. DAVIS-Resumed (The witness was sworn by the chairman.) The CHAIRMAN. You are Mr. E. J. Davis? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You are the same Mr. Davis who testified before this committee some time back? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What is the organization with which you are connected? Mr. DAVIS. The Better Government Association. The CHAIRMAN. Did that association, or did you for it, or anyone else for it, receive any contributions of money from any senatorial candidate? Mr. DAVIS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. When, and what were the amounts. Mr. DAVIS. The 15th of February, as I remember the date, $2,500 from Senator McKinley. The CHAIRMAN. February 15, 1926? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. $2,500 from Senator McKinley. Mr. DAVIS. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Did you receive any other contributions from any person who was active in political affairs? Mr. DAVIS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Who? Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Roy O. West. The CHAIRMAN. Roy O. West, secretary of the Republican Na tional Committee? Mr. DAVIS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. How much did he give you? The CHAIRMAN. When did he give you that? Mr. DAVIS. At different dates; the first one was the 17th of February, I think, $1,000; and the second amount was soon thereafter. The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps you have the accurate dates there. Mr. DAVIS. February 23, $1,000. The CHAIRMAN. Is that the first one? Mr. DAVIS. No; that is the second one. The CHAIRMAN. Give me the first one first and let me get them in order, please. Mr. DAVIS. February 15 was the first one. The CHAIRMAN. $1,000? Mr. DAVIS. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. And that same day you got McKinley's $2,500? Mr. DAVIS. The same day. The next one was March 16. That is the third $1,000. The CHAIRMAN. The second one; I want the second one. Mr. DAVIS. The second one from West was February 23. The CHAIRMAN. That was $1,000? Mr. DAVIS. $1,000. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. DAVIS. The third $1,000 was March 16; $500 on March 30; and $500 on April 6. The CHAIRMAN. You have a memorandum there, have you not, a book that shows the moneys you did receive from various parties? Mr. DAVIS. This is simply the bank book; simply the depositsthe bank deposits. The CHAIRMAN. Would you mind letting me see it? Mr. DAVIS. No; that is all right. There was no contribution over $500 from anyone apart from those that I have mentioned. This is the first one from Mr. West; and this one is the first one from Mr. McKinley [indicating in book]. That is the only one from Mr. McKinley. The CHAIRMAN. You have handed me here a book, a depositor's pass book of the State Bank of Chicago. Mr. DAVIS. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Bearing the title, "In account with Better Government Association of Chicago and Cook County." The first entry in it is under date of 1926, February 15. What are those initials? Mr. DAVIS. I do not know. That is some entry the bank made. I do not know what that is. I presume it is the name of the clerk who received it. The CHAIRMAN. Well, it looks like G. S. M. Mr. DAVIS. Possibly; I do not know. The CHAIRMAN. Have you a clerk who has those initials? Mr. DAVIS. No. That is put in by the bank. That is not entered by us. The CHAIRMAN. Surely it was put in by the bank, but it was put in on a deposit slip that somebody handed to the bank. Mr. DAVIS. I think that was the assistant cashier's name, or that those are his initials, who opened up the deposit. That was the first deposit in that bank. It had nothing whatever to do with the depositary or the name of the contributor. The CHAIRMAN. I will read this entry; "Feb. 15, G. S. M., $2500." And written above in pencil, "McKinley." Who made the entry "McKinley"? Mr. DAVIS. I did: for identification, that was all. The CHAIRMAN. When did you do that? Mr. DAVIS. To-day. The CHAIRMAN. Under date of March 16 is this entry: "March 16, 1926, Dup. K, $1000." Is that one of the items that you got from Mr. West? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And the entry on April 22, 1926, "3/30 D $500"; April 22, 4-6 D $500." Those are the two $500's that you got from Mr. DAVIS. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. They do not appear to jibe in the dates. They are entered in the book here under date of April 22 $500, which you have given us, April 23 $1,000. But those two are probably the two items making up the $1,000. Mr. DAVIS. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. As of that date. Mr. DAVIS. I think that is the last. It makes $4,000. The CHAIRMAN. Have you anywhere a total of the deposits made in this bank up to October 16, 1926, for the period between that and the first item, which is February 15, 1926? Mr. DAVIS. No. The CHAIRMAN. You have not the total? Mr. DAVIS. No. The CHAIRMAN. You had another account-your institution or organization, I should say-in the Central Trust Co. of Illinois? Mr. DAVIS. That was closed about the time we opened the account in the State Bank; simply transferred our account. The CHAIRMAN. That account covers from January 20, 1925, to February 6, 1926, I believe, sir? Mr. DAVIS. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Are any of these items to which you testified shown in this Central Trust Co. account? Mr. DAVIS. Yes; the one-pardon me [taking the deposit book from the chairman]. Yes, one; this one [indicating in book]. This $1,000 there was the one from Mr. West. The CHAIRMAN. February 15? Mr. DAVIS. That is the first contribution. Mr. DAVIS. There was $63 that was The CHAIRMAN. That is not an even amount. Mr. DAVIS. No. at the same time. It was $1,000. There were other items deposited The CHAIRMAN. He gave you $1,000? Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Pardon me, mayI have the books? The CHAIRMAN. Just a minute. I would like to get the total of these amounts. I will give them back to you. Mr. DAVIS. No objection to that. The CHAIRMAN. Did your organization put all of its money that it received into one or the other of these accounts? Mr. DAVIS. Every dollar; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. So that the total of these two accounts would show the total of the moneys that have been received by your organization up to the present time? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You keep a set of books, do you? Mr. DAVIS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Do the books show the various sums of money received and the various amounts expended? Mr. DAVIS. They do. The CHAIRMAN. Do they show to whom the amounts were paid and the purposes? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Where are those books? Mr. DAVIS. In our office. The CHAIRMAN. How many of them are there? Mr. DAVIS. There are several. The CHAIRMAN. That is indefinite. Mr. DAVIS. You mean covering the primary period, since the 1st of January? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; since the 1st of January. Mr. DAVIS. There would be two books that would cover it. The CHAIRMAN. A journal and a ledger, or is it Mr. DAVIS. A cash book. The CHAIRMAN. Have you a cash book? |