THE WARNING OF PROHIBITION IN AMERICA.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16699, 6 December 1919, Page 12

THE WARNING OF PROHIBITION IN AMERICA.

♦ [An articlo contributed to the "National Ueview'" of Juiy, 11'19, by Profiajr a nwi.-ui' 01 Political ttocoir.y ;u u:c .MtVjiU L'uiVlTsllv, Montreal.] Tho whole of Is'orth Amorica, or all of it tiiat lies between luo .Mexicans nnd the. iv<q ilium ux. j., uuilcr ;; now tyranny. It i.-, new. at least, in the sense tuat the jiartuuiar lorui 01 it. uuaer Uio name ui l'roinriilioii, in a tniny hitherto unknown in the woriii. Ht is old in the sense t/iat the evil that inspires it is that agaii-st. which ior tne spirit of liberty juts- been in conflict. It is time that jv-oplo in England should have proper warning oi the social catastrophe wnich ha> overwhelmed America. "While there is yet time tho danger should be averted. For tho United States and Canada regret is too late. It is only ton evident now that the proper time fur protest and opposition was at the beginning of the insidious movement, i.ut low people realised the power of fanaticism or the peculiar weaknesses of democratic rule upon which it fed. From tho crusade of a dospisr-d minority, a mark for goodnatured ridicule rather than fear, the prohibition movement became a vast continental propaganda, backed bv unlimited money, engineered by organised hypocrisy. Under the stre.ss of war it masqueraded as the crowning effort ol patriotism. Jho war over, it .•-its enthroned a.s a social tyranny, !]■• the full force of tho law, the like of which has not been seen in Englishspeaking countries sincc the lires died out at iSmithfield. Tho precise legislative .situation at tho present moment is this. In the United States sixteen of the ' fortyeight States are "bone-dry'': this means that in theso States "liquor" can neither bo gold nor can it be brought in by the individual citizen from outside, tightcen other States jiro "dry"; in these no liquor can be sold, but it may bo irftportcd. In these States, Brother Stiggins, while deploring with uplifted hands and eyes the evils of the liquor tinfSo, can still order in a comfortable little keg from the outside. The other fourteen States are still."wot." In this category belong Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Louisiana, States typical of tho old culture of tho country; while, by ;i strand freak of psychology, the wilder and vroolier of the States aro found among tho list of tho dry. Oklahoma, the latest flower of tho prairies, is dry as a bone. In Idaho, even the possession of "liquor" in a prirato cellar is a crime. Nevada is as dry its own desert. Moreover, even the "wet" States are spotted 9vcr with the arid areas of "local option" municipalities that have dried up of their own local volition. In Kentucky 107 counties out of 120 aro dry. California, spurning the pleasant vineyards of its hill-sides, is half dry. Missouri announces itself as "fifty-three per cent, dry," showing a majority, at least, on the side of virtue.

i But all of this only represents the least | part of the situation. When the nation sprang to arms in April, 1917, the prohibitionist Bprang upon the platform. A War-Timo Prohibition! Act was passed through Congress making th» whole country dry from July Ist, 1919, till the demobilising of tho armies after the coming of peace. Finally, to crown the work, an amendment to the Federal constitution was proposed by tho Congress by tho necessary two-thirds vote, and was passod into tho State Legislatures for ratification. Under tho law amendments need the sanction of

two-thirds of the States' Legislatures. The nccessary thirty-six States had ratifiod by January 20th, 1919, and tho amendmont is to come into forco on January 20th, 1920. Its terms aro complete and all-enveloping as tho darkness of an eclipso: — "After one year from the ratification of this article tho manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within* the importation thereof into, or tho exportation thereof from, tho United States and all territory subject to tho jurisdiction thereof, for beverage purposes t is hereby prohibited." From this amendment there is no war out. A counter-amendment to abolisn it would involve tho action of both Houses of Congress, of thirty-six Stato Legislatures, ' each made up of two Houses. Such a concurrence is outsido of tho bounds of practical politics. Tho door is locked and the key is thrown avuy. So much for the United States. A similar situation obtains in Canada. Here all of tho nine Provinces have voted themselves dry. The dryness is actually in force in eight of them. The Province of Quebec, unable, in spite of its French population, to stand alone against the contagion of a continent, dried up on May Ist of 1919. Superimposed on the Provincial legislation is the Federal Government of tho Dominion of Canada. Under tho War Measures Act a Federal Order in Council prohibits all -itnport and transportation of intoxicating liquor. Hero and there, indeed, tho Canadian situation presents some redeeming features. Thus, Queboc is to hold a referendum as to whether the prohibition shall be total or shall permit tho sale of thin beer and even thinner wine. But tho beer —defined with scientific cruelty under tho law —is to be lighter than German lager, and tho wine is to be less maddening than claret. In Ontario also the present law provides for a referendum beforo a final acceptance of the system. Thero is talk, too, of a general Federal referendum to bo taken by tho Dominion Government. But there is little hopo that the return to common sense and tho revulsion against fanaticism will ho rapid enough to prevent the catastrophe. A candid outsider might well stand perplexed as to how and why communities apparently free can vote themselves into such an appalling bondage. The reasons for it can only bo understood by an appreciation of certain of the peculiar features, certain characteristic weaknesses of democracy in North America. Both in tho United States and in Canada wo hava long Binco fallen under tho administration of the class of people whom we call tho "politicians." Let it be noted that tho word administration jnst used is employed designedly: wo are not and never have been nnder the rule of tho politicians. Thoy have never wanted-to rule. They do not lead, thev follow. They do not speak, they listen. They do not move, they are pushed. What the politician wants Ls tne emolument and tho dignity of offico and tho elusive appearance of power: a certain number, too, are seeking the opportunity of more sinister gains. But the real goveminc forces in North America are such things as Bi«r Business, the Manufacturers, tho Labour Unions, and. in various forms,

National Hysteria: mixed in with it all, as the war has proved. _ is the golden thread of individual |>atriotism and love of country, woven into tho complex meshes of national selfishness. On tho

whole, the rule is not bad; it is froo at

I least from tho arrogance of caste and the power of heroditaiy aristocracy that di-siigures still the Governmoats of tho older world. ] kiii Li.e least part of it. all. in tho 1 | sense of real intlucnco and power, is ' the politician. He moves about in his frock coat and his silk hat, a garb which : ho snares alone with the undertaker and the travelling conjurer, his pockot full of premutation cigars, tho most meretricious and the most melancholy figure in tho democracy of North Ame- , rica. .U times, indeed, ho bursts through the shell that envolops hint and insists on being a leader in liis oivn right, a ruler oi men and not a suppliant- for. votes; as witness of such Roosevelt and tho manly dignity of a l{oot%ovo!t and the manly dgnity of a Borden. But these arc tfle exceptions. The ordinary politician is merely busy picking up his votes from the rnud of democracy liko the ramassour of tho Parisian streets picking up cigar-butts. I'hus in the matter of real rule the politician is nowhere. His only aim is to give the public what tho public wants or at least what the public seems to ask for. And the politician has heard apparently only a single voice. On the ono hand were tho prohibitionists— articulatc, strident, fanatical, highly organised, amply supplied with money, with tho name of religion j upon tlie;r lips, ready at a moment's notico to lash themselves into a fit of hysteria, and to attack with overwhelming force tho personal fortunes and the political position of anyone who should dare to oppose them. On the other side was tho general public, the vast majority of whom wero, and aro, opposed to national prohibition, but among whom no individual, or at best only one or two in thousands, wa£ prepared to take the risk of open opposition to the relentless and fanatical minority.

Where the public would not speak, ihe politician would not act. A great raany Ministers of tho Crown in Canada, Members of the Canadian Legislatures and of tho State Assemblies of the United States, have recorded a jiJent voto in favour of prohibition with loathing and contempt for it in their hearts. I speak here of what I know. If proof wore needed I could name such men; but in the atmosphere in which wo lire in Canada, to "accuso" one's parliamentary friends of boing opposed to prohibition would bo about the same as to -accuse them of being in favour of

burglary, Moreover, the method of operation of tho prohibitionist has been singularly ingenious. There w&3 no question at first of total national prohibition. The thing was dono bit by bit. Municipalities voted themselves "dry" with hut littlo opposition, lie individual citizen, still able to order his "liquor" from tho outside, gave but littlo heed to' what was happening. Even when wholo States and Provinces dried up in response to the fanatical clamour of tho minority, the citisens at large raised practically no protest. They could still 'get it from the outside." Thoy did not propose to worry. They did not realise that tho time was coming when there would be no "outside." Moreover, it has to b© acknowledged that thero ar& throughout the United States and Canada great numbers of people who aro strongly in favour of prohibition for everybody except themselves. The South went dry by the vote of tho whites who proposed to keep drink away from the blacKs, not for the sake of their souls, but in> order to get mora work out of them. Tho manufacturer voted his employees dry with tho game expectation, proposing for himself to remain "wet." The shopkeeners of tho towns voted fhe farmers dry, so as to get more money in trade. The farmers who live in the country where it is dark and silent, helped to vote the cities into dryness as a spite against their lights and gaiety. Ono might well ask who, then, are the real prohibitionists? Such there undoubtedly aro. In the first placo thero are a certain number of deeply religious, patriotic, and estimable people who actually believe that in passing a law to make it a crime for a man to sell a glass of beer they aro doing the work of Christ on earth. Let them be entitled—along with Torquexnada and Philip of Spain—to the credit of their good intentions. Along with these aro a vast number of people who are animated by the evil spirit that for ages long has vexed tho fortunes of humanity ; the desire to tyrannise and compel—to force the bouls of other men to compliance with the narrow rigour of their own. These, above all, aro the typical prohibitionists. But to their numbers must bo added the large body of people who fish in the troubled waters for their owni gain; tho salaried enthusiasts, the paid informers, tho politicians seeking for votes, ministers of the Gospel currying favour with the dominant scction of their congregation, business men and proprietors of newspapers whose profit lies in tho hands of the prohibitionists to make or mar. To all theso must bo added the whole cohort of drunkards who can be relied upon to poll a voto in favour of prohibition in a mood of sentimental remorse. On the other side stand, undoubtedly, the great majority of tho people. National prohibition, let is bo observed, has not been adopted either in tho United States or in Canada by a popular vote. It never would be. It has been carried only, by the votes of the Legislatures, by the actions of the politicians responsive to tho demand of the minority. But the great mass of the people took no action. There has crown up indeed, among all those who ought- ; to bo tho leaders of public opinion,

• a strange conspiracy of silence. No- ! body scorns willing to bear witness to how widely is tho habit of normal wholesome drinking, and of tho great benefits to be derived troni it. The university where I hnve worked for nearly twenty years contains in its faculties a great number of scholarly, industrious men whose life-work c.mnot be (icrided or despised even by the salaried agitator of a prohibitionist society. Yet the great majority of them '•drink.'' I use that awiul word in the full gloomy sense given to it by tho teetotaller. I mean that if you ask j these men to dinner and offer them a .glass of wine, they will take it. Soma I will take two. I have even seen them take Scotch and soda. During these same years I have been privileged to know a great many of the leading lawyers of Montreal, who.se brains and | energy and service to the community I cannot too much admire. If there are any of them who do not "drink." I can [ only .say that 1 have not seen them. I c;ui bear the same dreadful testimony on behalf of my friends who are doctors"; and the sumo and even more emphatic on behalf of all the painters, artists, and literary men with whom I have had the good fortune to be very closely associated. Of the clergy. 1 cannot speak. But in days moro cheerful than tho present gloomy times there were at least those of them who thought a glass of port no very dreadful sin. And conversely, 1 caa say with all conviction that I havo never seen drunken professors lecturing to incbriatod students, or tipsy judges listening to boozy lawyers, or s.rtists in del'rinm tremens painting tho portraits of intoxicated Senators. Moreover, among tho class of people of whom I speak, the conception of how to make merry at a christening or a wedding or a banquet or at the conclusion of neaco, or of any such poor occasion of happiness that mark the milestones in' the pilcrimaee of life, was exactly the same — I sav it in all reverence—as that shown by Jesus Christ at the wedding feast of Cana of Galilee.

But those peoplo, one might object, aro but a class, and a small ono at that. What a!>out the ordinary working man? Surely ho is not to be sacrificed lor the sane of the leisuii: of tho intellectual classes! But here, so it seems to n;o, is wnere tho strongest argument against prohibition comes in. AVe live in a world of appalling inequality, which as vet neither philanthropy nor legislation has been ablo to remove. IHe lot of the working man who begins day labour at the ago of sixteen and ends it at the ago of seventy, who starts work et-ery morning while the rest of 11s are still in bed, , who has no sleep after his lunch, and no vacation trip to Florida, is inconceivably hard. It is a sober fact that if those of us who aro doctors, lawyers, professors, and merchants wero suddenly transferred by .cow evil magician t> tho rank of a working man, wo should feel much as if we had been gent to tho penitentiary. And it is equally a fact that we should realise just how much a glass of ale and a pipe of tobacco means to a sober industrious working man —not a picture-book drunward—after his hours of work. It puts him for the moment of his relaxation on an equality with kings and plutocrats.

It is no use to say that tobacco shortens liis life. Let it. It needs shortening. It is no use to sny that beer sogs his cesophagns and loosens his motor muscles. Let it do so. He is better off with locce motor muscles and a soggy oesophagus and a mug of ale beside him than in the cheerless discontent of an activity that knows onlv the work of lifo and nothing of its comforts. •

The employers of labour have hitherto, through sheer shortsightedness, been in favour of prohibition. They thought that drinkless men would work better. So they will in the short spurt of efficiency that accompanies tho change. But let tho employer wait a year or two and then see how social discontent will spread like a wave in the wake of prohibition. Tho drinkless workman, robbod of tho simple comforts of lifo, will angrily demand its luxuries. A new envy will enter into his heart. Tho glaring inequalities of society will stand revealed to him as never beforo. See to it that ho does not turn into a Bolshevik.

For the fundamental fallacy of prohibition is that it proposes to make a crime of a thing whicn the conscience of tho great mass of individuals refuses to consider as such. It violates here the principle on which, and on which alone, a criminal oodo can bo based. If I steal another man's money, if I rob another man's house, if I take another man's life, I do not need the law to tell me that it is wrong. My own conscience tells mo that. But if I take a glass of beer, my own conscience, in spite of all tho laws of forty-eight States and nine Provinces, refuses to give a single throb. Let me illustrate what I mean by an example.

A month or two ago I had the honour of being at a banquet given in the club to which I belong, to one of the most justly distinguished men of to-day —a certain V.C. who performed a certain naval exploit in bottling up (itself, by the way, an illegal act, had ho dono it in Canada) a certain harbour. Nearer than that I must not indicate him, inasmuch as I rather think that he is liable to a fine of two hundred dollars if the prohibitionists of Canada can catch him; unless I am mistaken, I saw somebody treat him to a whisky and soda; and "treating" and being "treated" even in tho present state of tho law of the Province of Quebec ib a crime. Now the point I want to make is this. At tho banquet of which I speak thero were present a great numbor of the best-known men in Montreal; judges, lawyers, merchants, and men eminent in. various walks of life. And every one of them—or nearly every one of them —wjfi actually "drinking something" with his dinner. Luckily for them the final law had not yet come into effect. If now they repeat their performance, they will be treated as in the same class as a group of burglars, or thugs, or yeggmen. To gaol they must go. If they have no conscience of their own a substitute. for it must be terrorised into them.

It is, of course, inevitable that a legislative code resting on so false a basis cannot last. Prohibition will not last for ever. Sooner or later thero will be a return to common sense and common justico. But the end will not come for a long time yet. Organised tyranny is difficult to break. Especially is this true of tho United States, where an amendment Constitution once accepted requires for its removal an intricate and prolonged process of legislation. Without the war, national prohibition would never have been voted even by tho politicians. It has swept through tho Legislatures on a false wave of agitation, masquerading as patriotism. It owed much to the fact that Germans are by way of drinking beer, and that such names as Anheuser Busch and Schlitz and Papst do not somehow

sound altogether British. Hut as it came, so it will go. The unexpected will happen again. In the course of tirno some unforeseen contingency will send a new amendment rippling turough tho American Legislatures. Social life and individual liberty will bo freed from the incubus that now lies on thom. Meantime it is well for the British people to be warned. If thoy dn rot strangle in its cradle tho snake of prohibition, then the country will lio given over in i+s due time to tho regime of the fanatic, tho informer, and the tyrant, such as wo have in North. America even now. (PtTBLISHF.n BY A RnANGEJTENT.)