Page 4 Advertisements Column 1

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 62, 6 December 1922, Page 4

jy ir . ... rii.nii » ; ■ - “Literary Digest” Nails ‘Wet’ Lies Crime in the U.S.A.: ‘Wet’ and ‘Dry’ Years Compared. ■p” Vrju ; rr —r 1 — ‘ ''V s -- .. - A --| . — ■ , - Zok Illi (r?] Aw\ /iW /Ta sr\ & ■■ AaW. 1 a R mKI 000/™iyUwii MftWM mf II ■ 7' P /Al YTY TH I ffl W I I’Wvl BM V ft MW : uVW Wb =1 I’< 7/7 LA //v U l| l i 'ft L 1 Wju s l~JL—' zhlm ss aw 1 &u k JM ifel an 2Hr JW IK WMw DRUNKENNESS ' DRUNKEN WOMEN MEN IN/AIL WOMBS IN JAIL orptNSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY OFFENSES AGAINST PERSONS WOMEN OFFENDERS NEGLECTED CHILDREN NON fUPrOKT DfcrMuMS Decrease 69% 'Decreets 52% Decrease 60% Decreaao27% Increase 3% Decrease 19% Decrease «9% Decrease 23% Decrease 31% COMPARISON OP CRIME AND POVERTY IN MASSACHUSETTS IN “WET" AND “DRY" YEARS. The fl<we 01) the Irtl in each group represents "wet" years, the figure on the right dry yeart. | The percentages cover difference between the average of years 1013-19 K and the average of years 1920 and 1911 . Average Annual Crime Years 1912-1918, ‘Wet,’ Compared with Average for 1920-21 ‘Dry* Years. } The “Literary Digest” in its issue of October 28th, 1922, presents a smashing reply to the liquor traffic’s lies about crime conditions in the U.S.A. The liquor traffic has kept on reiterating the statement that prohibition has been responsible for enormously increased crime, drunkenness and the crowding of jails. The above illustration is taken from that issue of the “Digest” and this is what appears on page 8 of the issue: MASSACHUSETTS UNDER PROHIBITION J‘A searching investigation o£ the actual effects of Prohibition in Massachusetts, different result, but a distinguished Boston physician, a'professor in the Harvard as shown in the cold figures for crime, pauperism, disease and insanity, has been Medical School and a former Colonel in the Medical Corps, A.E.F., after reading 'made by Cora Francis Stoddard, Executive Secretary of the Scientific Temperance these findings, declares that Prohibition has proved a signal blessing to the poor Federation of Boston, and the report is published in a pamphlet, after appearing of Massachusetts. “ The rich may, for all we know, be as foolish as ever,” says “ d «>. in the Society’s Journal, There may be figures for other States that show a Dr. Richard C. Cabot,— ’ ' “But beyond any question the poor are better off.” ' • v’ , ■ Time To Put ■ . The Fence ' Up! ' r — ■ ’ I . . long as the Liquor Traffic is permitted to conHOW MUCH would you take // v nue * ts ne^anous tra ® c> c^ren New Were YOU to imagine a ‘cradle for YOUR boy or girl? Not all ■ II" Zealand are playing uponjhe edge of a dangerous roll’of future drinkers, could you the money in the world. Think I : f : precipice. At the foot of this precipice lie men be sure that YOUR child’s.name then, should the State receive rev- ill/ women ave starte d out in happy would not be on it ?Or the name enue from the continuance of a l| ’ / r ' s ’ P rom^se » on V ave of some other child whose mother traffic that threatens the well-being ,j [ -ri 4 careers ruined by alcohol. New Zealand cannot hoped just as much for her little one and happiness of. every New Zea- •] J i ||l| x afford to sacrifice children for the sake of a traffic as you do,for yours? There are land child ? Can money ever com- Illi as never one an y° ne tbe least good, except 1 children under school age pensate for the destruction of life 1 1 111 brewers. Put up the fence of Prohibition - i n New Zealand to-day. and character ? ; . Il £ I x save comai S generation from the dangers ’ MMif of drink. B I / / Extract from Letter receioei from a Mother!—* ’ n 'll / ‘ ? ‘ I | j It/ I “ Enclosed please find m\> cheque for £lo —a con- \ " V HR (/** I tribution toward Prohibition. Although perhaps a small I • IJ / sum, I on it as an investment for tny small son of i I SSr ■ a years, with tremendous possibilities for his good in /. 11 1 the future, should it help to secure Prohibition.” Your Child L w M* ne— Why? - Vote For Prohibition '