The result of Tuesday's elections, in which three states voted to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment, was very satisfactory to the opponents of Prohibition. The three states were Iowa, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. It was a foregone conclusion that Connecticut would yield a great majority of votes against Prohibition; a victory for the "wets" was also expected in New Hampshire; but the result in Iowa was doubtful. Naturally the victory won by the anti-Prohibitionists in Iowa caused great rejoicing among their political friends throughout the country. It was also pointed out that the result of the election in Iowa is conclusive evidence that the attitude of all the farming states west of the Mississippi has undergone a radical change, and that the repeal movement can count on success in all these states.

This conclusion is by no means too optimistic. On the other hand, it 2would be disastrous to assume that ratification is an accomplished fact. The abolition of Prohibition is still a matter of the remote future. Even today, after fourteen states have voted for abolition, it is stilly very doubtful that it will ever be possible to eliminate Prohibition. In the first place it must be remembered that thirteen states still refuse to introduce congressionally legalized beer. It is also possible that in most of these states the attitude of the people is anti-prohibitionist, and that the legislatures are still under the influence of the Anti-Saloon League, and therefore refuse to act in accordance with the wish of the electorate.

Then, too, it must also be pointed out that not one of the states of the solid "dry" South has thus far held an election. The Democratic party has a strong political majority in these states and the Administration has evidently resolved to use all the means at its disposal to attain favorable results in the election. The coming months will tell whether the influence of the Administration is strong enough to gain a victory in the 3traditionally "dry" states. However, the attitude and conduct of the Anti-Saloon League is the greatest hindrance to the ratification of the repeal bill. A short time ago Dr. F. Scott McBride made a surprisingly candid statement concerning the League's altered strategy.

According to this statement the League is well aware that the majority of the people are in favor of repeal. Despite this fact the organization intends to try to prevent repeal by resorting to all manner of tricks.

McBride said, "The 'drys' can and should gain the support of more than the necessary number of states, and thus prevent repeal." He explained very clearly what he meant. He did not mean that the "drys" should attempt to gain a majority of votes for their cause in the elections in thirteen states. According to the Constitution, repeal would then be impossible. But McBride does not count on that; he has other means of averting repeal.

He calls attention to the fact that, as matters are now, eleven states will 4not be able to vote on repeal this year. So the "drys" need secure a majority in only two states in order to hinder the ratification of the repeal bill this year. Evidently they have chosen this course. In Ohio, for instance, no law is effective until ninety days after it has been passed by the legislature. If six per cent of the state's eligible voters make a request during this period, then the law can be effective only if it is endorsed by a majority vote in a referendum.

The "drys" have circulated petitions in Ohio, and there can be no doubt that they will succeed in obtaining the signatures of the required six per cent. The legislature of this state has enacted a law according to which the voting on repeal shall take place in November. However, if the "drys" are successful in their endeavors--and no doubt they will be--then the citizens will vote on the question of repealing the Eighteenth Amendment; but first they must decide whether or not to approve the law enacted by the legislature. In other words, they will decide whether or not they will vote on repeal. That is an insane, time-wasting procedure, 5and an expensive nuisance. But the state constitution contains this provision, and nobody can prevent the "drys" from using it to their advantage.

The situation is similar in Missouri, where the "drys" want to obtain an injunction which would make it unlawful for the Secretary of State to count the ballots or publish the result of the election.

....If the League can prevent the introduction of ratification this year, it will concentrate its efforts upon thirteen states, and try to hinder ratification. Of course their method will not be completely effective but, in any event, it should be plain to the opponents of Prohibition that they are still very far from their goal.