THE FINANCE OF PROHIBITION.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18970, 7 April 1927, Page 11

THE FINANCE OF PROHIBITION.

TO THE EDITOR. OF THE' PEESS. ' Sir, —Your quotation •in this morning's issue l'rom an-, article in the London ''Spectator'' on the liquor question is along .the lines it-it-h."which we are'very-familiar in pro-liquor advocacy, and as such will not cut much ice. Son are"singularly unfortunate in making if an ■'occasion for making the, charge that "Prohibitionists in. 1 his country have always weakened'■ their case by hedging on this -matter '-.of cost." . There has. never been an argument advanced by prb-liyuor 'advocates that has not'been squarely,faced and met with an answer'that even our opponents have been cpihpe.Ued ,to respect. Of nothing is this more true than in dealing with the question of cost. It has been the good, fortune of the Prohibition- movement from the outset; in this country to secure the hearty and intelligent support of many of the brainiest and keenest professional and business men in the - Dominion, and there is not an item onj cither' side of the. liquor- bill of costs which they hare not thoroughly..examined. . The Prohibition party had nothing to do w'ith selecting the personnel of the Efficiency Board,..wliieli ; was .appointed..by' the .Government,;., and presented its report on the liquor trade; in relation to national. efficiency .in 1917. That- report was based on evidence invited from, and submitted by, witnesses of , all shades.-of convictjon and experienco'in all part's.of:the country. . The' unanimous finding of that Doard of expert professional and business men-was tEat so. far from,-the liquor trade being in any sense a financial gain to the State, it-would pay the State handsomely to. get-rid of it at a cost by- way of compensation of four and a-half million/pounds, "vthat need is there for "hedging in this matters of costs" on the- part of Prohibitionists in vjew of. facts, and conclusions that are so easily available ? The American Economic * Association' met not long since in St.' Louis, and discussed among other things the economics of Prohibition. At ..the. close of the- discussion Profes'sor Irving Fisher, of Yale University, said: "Sot'aii economic fact has been brought forth against Prohibition except that Prohibition is'not-the cause „of all the present prosperity. And tins is not claimed-. "I have-not yet found an economist," he added, .who is willing to sav that Prohibition" iff economically injurious.'? In .view of American experience, where tion is put to a severely practical test, vour statement that "Prohibition means a heavy financial burden by,way of decreased revenue -and - enforcement i costs " I respectfully, submit, will not. bearaookinga : t.^m,^tc. ilAMs ; April sth, 1927- -. r ;