PROHIBITION IN AMERICA

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 292, 10 September 1928, Page 13

PROHIBITION IN AMERICA

Sir, —I cannot understand bow a man can be so presumptuous and have so little accurate knowledge of what he writes. For instance, the Prohibition party's secretary. Mr. Murray, thinks that the official U.S.A. Congressional recurd is the same sort of publication as our New Zealand Hansard. The Congressional Record is a "blue book.” and that published bearing date February 13, 1928, gives at page 3006, the ollii.al number of increasing arrests for drunkenness as from 11120 (the first year of Prohibition) to 1927, inclusive, and the former year the arrests. for drunkenness in Chicago were 32.3-13. and in the latter year 85,290; and this official record definitely states that “in 534 places in United States arrests tor drunkenness in 1926 increased 136 per cent, above 1920.” From this, it would appear that there has not been a decrease, but an increase every year, oi 500.000. Even if, as Mr. Murray says, quoting Mayor Denver, of Chicago, the increase in drunkenness includes all kinds of disorderly conduct, assaults, and neighbours drunken brawls, the explanation is confirmatory of the fact that Prohibition lias not lessened, but rat her’ increased and intensified the criminality of that city. That is one of the reasons why I would not. ns a lover of New Zealand, do anything either by voice, vote., or pen, to put Prohibition over this beautiful country. The Moody Bible Institute (Chicago), last year issued this statement: "Crime in the United States in increasng at an alarming rate among young people. Over 80 per cent, of the criminals in New York City are under 25 years’ of age. It is probable that this is the approximate ratio for the entire country.’ Mr. Slurray must have last year’s report of the Moody Bible Institute, and he can verify this statement. The protective committee of the American Bankers Association, surveying the criminality for 1927, reports: “The cost of crime has reached its highest point, and approximates 3700 million dollars. Hold-ups have nearly doubled. There is as much crime .in the United States as in all the other countries combined.” The Bankers’ Association was favourable to -Prohibition, believing it would help lessen erme, but as the reverse is the case, they have turned it down as a worthless and contemptible attempt at reform. Mr. Murray says ‘“you must brush Mr. AVilburne’s statistics aside as worthless. I would inform him that none of the figures quoted by me are other than those procured from the sources mentioned, and Government documents cannot be so easily brushed aside. They are, as m New Zealand, prepared with great care by persons who are, as officials, entirely disinterested. I have no means of ascertaining what inebriate homes have been dosed since the adoption of Prohibiten, but I do know that the gaols and lunatic asylums have been enlarged or duplicated all over the States, and that Prohibition lias been responsible for the creation of crime, and the creation of what is now the largest criminal organisation in the world —tlie bootlegging business and the bootleggers—now that honest business men and bankers have withdrawn tlleir support from the Anti-Sa-loon League—are the principal contributors to the Prohibition party’s funds. That is well known and established. The churches and the good men ot the States arc a good deal like the churches, and good men in this country. They are all beginning to waver, and many of them have already turned right round against the Prohibition movement, declaring it n complete failure. Yet the movement in America requires five million dollars a year to pay its officials to watch the operation of Prohibition, I know many people voted for Prohibition in the States in order to get rid of it, as it was a severe tax upon their businesses.. But you can never get rid of Prohibition by voting for it. The best thing to do is to prevent Prohibition from getting in on this country, and dragging it down to the deplorable state that the United States are in to-day, all through Prohibition. After the manner of that eminent English lady, Miss Hoyden, I would say this: .It you do not believe me, and the warning I now give you, then wait a little longer before committing New Zealand to a very questionable adventure that has. wrought disaster to the social and public lite ot the States.”—l am, etc., GERALD M. AVILBURNE. Wellington, September 3.

Si r ,—That “all the best .people—and the church people are the best, people —in America are now doubting the value of prohibition as an aid to temperance, is a statement made by Mr. AV. H. “lulpotts in your issue of September 3. He makes this statement on the strength of an editorial in the New York “HeraldTribune,” but in my previous letter I said, “Mr. Philpotts says the churches do not stand for prohibition aud law enforcement. Since he claims‘to know, I invite him to quote any resolution adopted at anv annual convention of these great churches that either condemn the prohibition law or asks for repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment.” Mr. Philpotts has failed to produce any such resolution. I pointed out that these annual gatherings of the churches represent millions of American citizens, and that while an occasional member of the ministry may be opposed to prohibition, these great church bodies are emphatically in favour of it. Your correspondent asks us to believe that prohibition has "corrupted and criminalised the U.S.A.” It follows, therefore, flint tlie moral life of the nation must be in a bad way. That Air. Philpotts’s state- • inent is incorrect is abundantly proved by the fact that in 1927 the churches in the U.S.A, gained 573,723 new members, which was 83,723 more than in 1926. I may add that, since 1920, when national prohibition began, the gains in church membership in the U.S.A, have been enormous. .This would not have occurred if prohibition had produced widespread demoralisation and corruption. I submit that Air. Philpotts having failed to respond to my challenge, his mere assertions with regard to what prohibition is doing in the U.S.A count tor nothing. The Democratic Presidential candidate,

Governor Al. Smith, of New York, when accepting nomination, indicated that he intended to work for what amounted to a return of liquor in the U.S.A. If there was any widespread demand for abolition of prohibition, sncii a statement would have made Mr. Smith popular. Actually, it has lost him already quite a lot of influential support in his own party. For instance, Mrs. G. Al. Rattengall, loriner Democratic National Committee woman, has indicated her intention to support the Republican nominee in her own State because of Governor Smith’s statement, Robert L. Owen, former Democratic U.S.A. Senator for Oklohaina for eighteen years, has stated that he will support Hoover. In Springfield, Georgia, the Democrats have formed an Anti-Smith Club, and endorsed Mr, Hoover, Republican candidate for the Presidency, Vauee C. McCormick, National Democratic chairman in 1916. and a prominent figure in President Wilson’s time, and who owns an influential paper in Harrisburg, has editorially declared of of Air. Smith’s statement: “The only influence it could possibly have was to embolden and encourage those who defy or ignore the fundamental law of the land,” and because of this, Mr. AlcCortnick and his paper are actively opposing Smith. I Submit that these facts again show Air. Philpotts to be woefully ignorant regarding the position in the U.S.A.—I am, etc., M. W. P. LASCELLES. Sec. N.Z. Baptist Union. Wellington, September 3. Sir, —Your correspondent, W. H. Philpotts, states that there are 4,000,000 unemployed in the U.S.A. President Coolidge, in a statement published in your issue of June 12 last, said: “lu 1921 there were 5,700,000 unemployed in the U.S.A., whereas the number at present is only about 1,800,000.” National prohibition began in 1920, so that, under national prohibition unemployment in the the U.S.A, has been enormously reduced. The British Government sent a special delegation, of which Sir W. W. Mackenzie, 0.8. E., was chairman. That delegation, in its report, stated : “Since the war prohibition of the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors has become the general law of the- land; its economic effect has been very great by the diversion of large sums of money into savings and the purchase of commodities, aud by increasing regularity of attendance at work.” The reference to regularity nt work is confirmed by a statement made by Air. Henry Ford in June this year, when, writing to tlie editor of the ‘Manufacturers’ Record,” Mr. Ford said: “Our men are very much better off since prohibition, as our records indicate that their attendance is more regular, their savings have increased, and property ownership has greatly advanced.” It will be seen that the British delegation definitely states that prohibition has had a great economic effect. Mr. Herbert Hoover, Presidential candidate, and Alinister of Commerce, in a report discussing the factors responsible for the wonderful prosperity the U.S.A, has enjoyed, said: “In addition to elimination of waste, we have had the benefit of notable advances in science, improvement in methods of management and prohibition.” Air. Philpotts asserts that “Prohibition has corrupted and criminalised the U.S.A.” The authorities above mentioned carry much more weight than Air. Philpotts. Mr. Philpotts asserts that I “would also affirm that the unemployment in New Zealand is due to the drinking habits of the men.” I made no such assertion. But I do assert that there are numbers of men in New Zealand unemployed who lost their jobs because they became victims to the craving for drink. In your issue of December 16, last, for iustance, there appeared a report concerning certain contractors, which contained these words: “A‘large number of those dismussed had been paid off because of insobriety.” In the U.S.A, since prohibition very remarkable improvements have taken place in regard to this particular section of the community. Commander Evangeline Booth of the Salvation Army, reports: “Since prohibition, many of the inmates of our industrial homes who, previous to its advent, could not carry fifty cents overnight, now have banking accounts. In eleven of our eighty-eight institutions of this character, a recent study showed 16G men had saved 6800 dollars, an average of 41 dollars per man, and these are men who could not have carried twentyfive cents past the first saloon they met. No amount of national prosperity could account for this growth of will power, of manhood.” I am content to leave it to your readers to decide whether Mr. Philpotts or Commander Evangeline Booth is the more satisfactory witness.;—l am, etc.. J. MALTON MURRAY. Executive Secretary, N.Z. Alliance. AVellington, September 3.