Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

number of savers; the popularising of conservative investments and the tendency in periods of depression to put money in the bank rather than to buy securities on a falling market; the release of savings for deposit when the Liberty Loan campaigns ceased; increase in money circulation during the "inflation " period; and other, more technical considerations. But it would be idle to dispute the assumption that prohibition has been a factor, and an important one, in keeping savings deposits on a high level. Improvement in premium collections from industrial life insurance policy holders points in the same direction. The disappearance of the saloon and the "treating habit' has undoubtedly been a great material boon to the American working man' (p. 30).

But, contrary to what we are often told, employers of labour are by no means generally in favour of prohibition. The Research Department issued a questionnaire to a thousand or more business men, directors of important companies chosen at random; and we are assured that the replies 'yielded a predominantly "wet" result."'

In discussing the effect of prohibition upon crime the Bulletin seems to make an unjustified concession to the prohibitionists. It says that the post-war period would be expected to be marked by an increase in crime.' That expectation was entertained in this country during the war, but the criminal records of the post-war period have not justified it, notwithstanding that war influences must have entered much more into our life than into America's, and notwithstanding that our unemployment condition is also of an acuteness supposed to be provocative of crime. Crime in this country is not above the level of pre-war years. In America crime fell (as it did here) during the war, and kept down during the early days of Prohibition; now it is rising, and by 1923 the prison population was nearly up to pre-war level. (The 1924 figures are not given.) Figures for various cities are quoted in the Bulletin, which indicate substantial increases in all sorts of offences since the coming of prohibition, particularly in drunkenness and disorderly conduct. The Bulletin, however, refuses to hold Prohibition responsible, and thinks these 'crude statistics of crime' do not warrant a stronger assertion than that 'prohibition has thus far not prevented an increase'-a very oblique kind of praise. The writers of the Bulletin

would like to think that the increase in the already appalling amount of crime in America would have been greater but for prohibition, though they will not commit themselves further than to state that such retardation is a possibility.

The Bulletin handles the much-canvassed question of drinking among young people in almost as cautious a manner as it does the question of crime.

'Reports of school administration officials and of teachers who have made extensive studies of moral problems in the schools give little support to the theory that prohibition is in itself a cause of moral breakdown. It may perhaps just as truly be said that it does not appear to be a great asset' (p. 39).

And in all this (including a story of a student in a denominational' college, who defrayed his expenses by bootlegging) the Bulletin finds 'food for earnest thought.' The training of the young mind in ignorance of alcohol upon which prohibitionists rely so heavily for ultimate success does not appear to be making marked progress.

Immediate success is certainly not apparent. The Bulletin devotes a pessimistic chapter to Prohibition Enforcement.' To what extent it is enforced it is impossible to say, but, as we are reminded, 'no statistics are necessary to warrant the assumption that with scores of thousands of saloons closed . . . the liquor traffic has been enormously reduced.' The supporters of prohibition can claim success to that extent; yet how far short of reasonably complete success this leaves them the Bulletin is at no pains to hide. Its writers quote from the AntiSaloon League itself. The Iowa branch of this body issued a statement in May last, giving the result of its news bureau's survey in Dubuque and four other towns:

[ocr errors]

Rampant lawlessness, increasing by leaps and bounds, is forcing Iowa to face the problem of either demanding strict enforcement of the present prohibition laws or else of modifying these laws to permit the sale of light wines and beer. . . . The laws of the State and nation are now held in greater contempt in these cities than ever before. Dubuque boasts of 41,000 citizens and 1000 bootleggers, not to mention the countless moonshiners who operate in the city and vicinity. . . . The islands and bluffs are swarming

...

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

with stills, some of which turn out huge quantities of liquor each week' (p. 43).

And, if this is the case in small inland towns, what of New York, and its millions of population?

'It is stated on the highest authority that complaints of violation of the Volstead Act have been coming before the United States Commissioner from the police department at the rate of 15,000 a month' (p. 44).

Yet the Bulletin adds that New York is no 'wetter' than most other cities; indeed, that there is reason to think that the reverse is true. It should be said, however, that a more satisfactory picture (from a prohibitionist standpoint) is drawn of bone-dry' Indianathough the dryness even of that State (which has a special law, going beyond the Volstead Act) is damped by troublous importations from outside. In connexion with illicit liquor the Bulletin enforces the point which the American Government's action on the high seas has somewhat obscured-viz. that 'a relatively small amount of illicit liquor in the United States is smuggled over its borders.' The manufacture of alcoholic beverages is a universally spread-out, local, and even domestic industry; and the authorities cannot destroy it, notwithstanding efforts which become yearly more costly, the Federal Government's expenditure (apart from the heavy cost of coastguard work) having risen from $2,000,000 in 1920 to $7,500,000 in 1924 and to $6,600,000 for the first nine months of 1925.

In a chapter appraising the Government's efforts' to enforce prohibition, the Bulletin says that

'if infractions of the law incident to the retail trade in liquor should continue on the present scale nothing but a sweeping change in public opinion can prevent the effectual nullification of the National Prohibition Act' (p. 65).

This is an emphatic indication of the present state of public opinion, and it is confirmed by the reports of the Department's own investigators. The statements in the section of the Bulletin dealing with this aspect of the problem are indeed remarkable. The Research Department of the Council inquired in various directions as to public opinion on the results of prohibition, among

T

others from the thousand prominent business men already referred to. These gentlemen have their headquarters in New York, but their interests extend all over the United States. It is unfortunate that we have the replies of only 169 of them. Of this number fewer than a third-51-expressed themselves in favour of prohibition. A larger number-66-declared themselves vigorously opposed to prohibition, and in addition 25 expressed opposition, but more mildly: the remainder must also be classed as opponents, since they wanted modification, such as the exception of light wines, or wanted the Quebec system of Government sale.

The view of the business element was pursued further-into Rotary and similar Clubs. On a vote taken at the Cleveland Rotary Club only 64 out of 188 favoured the existing law. At the Rochester Kiwanis Club prohibitionists numbered 30 out of 70. In only one ballot was there a majority favourable to prohibition-the Kansas City Clubs-the numbers being 54 out of 81. These figures are worth setting by the side of the statements so often heard from prohibitionists as to the enthusiasm of captains of industry over the industrial and economic value of prohibition. But more emphatic, more important, too, in a democratic country, are the views expressed by the working classes, of which the Bulletin contains a good many specimens.

The first specimen given is the 'fairly typical industrial city' of Fitchburg, Mass. Out of 149 men interviewed 84 appeared hostile to prohibition; 50 were friendly, and 15 uncertain. Many of them recorded a serious and sober judgment that the results of prohibition were unsatisfactory.' At Lawrence, Mass., a meeting of 180 men and women employés of a woollen factory was held, and 'the labour manager who assembled the group and presided made a strong prohibition appeal before a vote was taken.' But only 8 men and 19 women responded to the appeal; the rest, men and women, voted for modification. In some cases the opposition was even more strongly pronounced, as in Chicago, where out of 260 men interviewed in five establishments only 20 were favourable to prohibition; or, as in St Louis, where only two out of 56 men interviewed were in favour of the present régime. It is fair,

[graphic]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][merged small]

however, to say that one town-Kansas City again-gave a less emphatic result; out of 163 men interviewed 62 were friendly to prohibition.

It is said that at all events the women favour prohibition; and it appears from the Bulletin's figures that in factory towns where both men and women were interviewed the minority of women favouring prohibition was larger proportionally than the minority of men. But even that position was shaken when the Department's investigator visited the anthracite coal region of Pennsylvania, and called upon miners' wives at their homes. She made 97 calls. In 54 cases no interview was possible, because of a real or simulated ignorance of English; 32 refused to talk (this reticence suggesting to the Research Department that they were against prohibition); and among the remaining 11 who were willing to talk not one endorsement of prohibition was found! It is not, therefore, surprising to read afterwards that the men of this area rejected prohibition overwhelmingly. A meeting of 168 delegates, representing 43,000 miners, was held. Only 7 of them voted for prohibition; and 70 not only were against prohibition but voted for the return of the saloon. This last-named exceptional result of the voting the Bulletin explains by pointing out that the saloon in the mining towns performed a different and more nearly valid social function than was the case with the city saloon.' In this there is a moral whose application may be extended beyond America. It is the case for the improved publichouse. Houses of public refreshment should be worthy of their name, and not mere drinking bars.

An exception to this attitude of hostility to prohibition should be recorded. It is found in the newspaper trade. A ballot of 80 persons employed on the 'Seattle Daily Times' revealed 47 sympathisers with prohibition. This attitude was reflected yet more strongly in the answers to a questionnaire addressed to the editors of the 680 morning newspapers of the United States. It is significant that only 170 replied at all, and that of these only 163 recorded their personal views. Of this last number 113 favoured the Prohibition Act, 12 wanted it repealed, 34 were for amendment, 5 were doubtful, 5 thought the Act impossible to enforce, 3

« PreviousContinue »