There is no longer any doubt that the fight against Prohibition will be won. So far, all states which have voted on the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution have piled up majorities in favor of Prohibition repeal. In most cases these majorities have been quite substantial. Even in the formerly "dry" Southern States they were much larger than the opponents of Prohibition had dared to hope. That proves that even in the South the attitude toward Prohibition has undergone a radical change. In the Southern States, Prohibition was favored mainly because the southerners wanted to keep liquor out of the hands of the Negro population. Of course, that did not work, in spite of all the federal laws and the even stricter state laws. Although the large legitimate distilleries had been closed by Prohibition, the number of "moonshine" stills increased by the hundreds and 2thousands. There wasn't a Negro in the South who could not obtain his whisky or gin as easily as the thirsty white, but it was low-grade, adulterated liquor for which he had to pay more than good whisky ever cost. It seems that south of the Mason-Dixon Line they have finally come to the conclusion that, since people cannot be kept from drinking liquor, it would be better to let them drink good whisky than poisonous booze.

Now that a gap has been created in the phalanx of the formerly bone-dry states, there is reason to hope that the notorious Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution will be repealed before the year is over. Then we will have a foundation for the reorganization of the liquor traffic in the various states. For although some states suspended their state Prohibition laws in anticipation of the pending repeal of National Prohibition, there are still a number of states which will remain "dry" even after repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. If the majority of their population is against repeal of state Prohibition, these states have a perfect right to be protected against the smuggling of alcoholic beverages and other violations of their 3state laws. But now, since the latest Prohibition elections have shown that general public sentiment has undergone an overwhelming change toward Frohibition, it would only be fair to have popular referendums on the question in those states which until now have been considered traditionally dry.

There are also cases where state governments are very reluctant to give up their own "dry" position, even though the polls showed a majority of votes against Prohibition--cases where state administrations use every conceivable legal technicality to forstall the will of the people as expressed in the elections. One of the states of which this is true is our neighboring state,Indiana. Indiana is blessed with a "dry" governor, McNutt, who declared, during the last session of the legislature, that he would veto any regulation of the beer problem by the state which would legalize the sale of beer on tap. Only those localities in which there were natural artesian wells would be exempt. The popular conception of the reason for this exemption is that his political pal, Taggart, is located there, and that naturally McNutt does not want to spoil his business. This explains why today one can only get 4bottled beer in Indiana. The understanding of the real meaning of this arbitrary restriction by the governor is beyond the scope of the limited brain power of his subjects. Neither is it necessary. Whatever the "dry" governor of Indiana prescribes for his subjects can only be good and wholesome.

If a Hoosier wants to drink draught beer today, he has to cross the state line to satisfy his desire. Of course, the beer dealers in Indiana lose all kinds of business that way. But that does not keep a wise Indiana administration awake at night. On the other hand, there are certain circles to whom it is of great interest that beer is sold only in bottles and not from the barrel. What a splendid business this wonderful law is creating for bottle factories and dealers! Could it be that--but no, why always entertain wicked thoughts? The sale of bottled beer is prescribed for sanitary reasons only, of course. Nobody can stick his fingers into a closed bottle, as some waiters have been known to do while serving full steins of beer. If you believe all this, pay a dollar!