PROHIBITION IN AMERICA

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 184, 2 May 1929, Page 13

PROHIBITION IN AMERICA

Sir, —Your correspondent, Mr. F. C. Hawkins, claims to be an American citizen, but he exhibits so much ignorance ■with regard to the constitutional law of bis country that one begins to doubt the validity of his claim. He says that because a referendum to legalise home brewing was carried in Wisconsin, Prohibition in that State is “dead and buried.” If the citizens of Wellington, by referendum, carried a proposition that every Tom, Dick and Harry in the place was to be entitled to manufacture and sell intoxicating liquor without taking out a license, no reasonable New Zealander would assert that licensing law in New Zealand was dead and buried. The fact is, of course, that the national licensing law would still apply and the citizens of Wellington could not put into effect the decision arrived at by their referendum. The same thing applies in Wisconsin, It is still illegal to manufacture in that State any beverage containing over one half of one per cent, of alcohol, and if Mr. Hawkins is an American citizen he ought to know that the Federal law will apply and the decision obtained by referendum is not worth —in the language of his own country—a hoot. Your correspondent displays further ignorance of conditions in his home country when he says that since the-adoption of Prohibition —or what he calls nouenforcement of Prohibition—“all forms of criminality” in the U.S.A, have increased. As an American citizen he should know that the U.S. Census Bureau figures are authoritative in regard to this matter. That Bureau published a report showing comparisons between 1910 before Prohibition, and 1923 after Prohibition, which showed a marked decrease, of 37.7 per cent, in general criminality in the United States in proportion to population. Significant reductions were: Public intoxication, 55.3 per cent.; disorderly conduct, 51.5 per cent.; vagrancy, 52.8 per cent.; larceny, 53.1 per cent., and burglary, 11.4 per cent. If he knew the history of his country, Mr. Hawkins would know that twentyfive years after the abolition of slavery had been legally adopted, the records show that 200,000 slaves per annum were being smuggled into the United . States. Yet to-day slavery in the U.S.A, is effectively abolished. If, ten years after the abolition of slavery had been earned, the people had repealed the law on the ground of it being impossible to enforce it because of the large number of slaves being smuggled into the country, they would have been in just the same position as the people who now argue that the Prohibition law should be repealed because it is not one hundred per cent, effective. Mr. Hawkins claims that Dr. Doran, head of the Prohibition Enforcement Branch, is his friend. If that is so, then perhaps he will accept the statement of his friend, because Dr. Doran is on record as saying of Prohibition: “It has demonstrated that the American public does not want the saloon or beverage liquors. There is no question of personal liberty. It is simply a question of the general public good. The evident results of Prohibition are not entirely matters of statistics. They are apparent to the senses and shown in the daily lives of the people. Of course, there is much unlawful liquor, and not a little drinking, but these are gradually decreasing. Students of economics have generally reached the conclusion that Prohibition is beneficial and a wise policy. Certain groups of the population think differently, but there is a slow but sure tendency in the public mind to adapt itself to the new conditions, and thoughtful people believe them best for society. Enforcement is improving in methods, in public confidence, and in the practical results obtained. —I am, etC ” J. MALTON MURRAY. Executive Secretary, New Zealand Alliance. Wellington, April 27. Sir, —In your issue of Saturday last Mr. Frederick C. Hawkins makes the following statement: “If there was anything good about prohibition it would attract all the people to it, but it has proved a very evil-producing power in the U.S.A, 'hence its general denunciation after due trial.” What are the facts? When Mr. Coolidge was nominated by the Republican Convention held in Cleveland, Ohio, five years ago, in which city I was a visitor at the time, the Republican Party did not dare to embody a “wet” plank in its platform. That same year the Democratic Party held its convention for nomination of a candidate for the Presidency in New York, in which city I also happened to be at the time. That convention did not insert a “wet” plank in its platform. Therefore the two great political parties of the country felt it unwise to flout an overwhelming body of public opinion by inserting a “wet” plank. How does that coincide with Mr. Hawkins’s statement that prohibition “has proved a very evil-producing power in the U.S.A., hence its general denunciation after due trial”? But let us come nearer to the present time. What of the last Presidential campaign? Everybody who knows anything about American politics knows that Al. Smith, the Democratic Party’s candidate, was the “wets’ ” candidate (although he did not dare declare for repeal of the law). We know what happened to him. Mr. Hoover, who declared for strict enforcement, swept the country in a way which had not before been equalled. And this, after “due trial” had been given to prohibition. How does this tally with Mr. Hawkins’s statement about "general denunciation”? Surely if Mr. Hawkins was right one of the two great parties would embody a “wet” plank in its platform. I unhesitatingly declare that no one can visit any of the great cities or any part of the U.S.A., without being struck with the remarkable absence of drunkenness in the streets, as compared with other countries. In fact, one might say it is totally absent, for I did not see six “drunks” in a six months’ visit. As to Mr. Hawkins’s statement that prohibition has been the cause of a great increase in crime, I need only say that there is not a single parent worth the name in New Zealand who would not have more faith or repose more trust in a son who kept his head clear and his judgment undimmed by total abstinence than in one who indulged in consuming alcoholic liquor. And I challenge Mr. Hawkins to refute any of my statements. Much more could be written, but it is clear from the letters Mr. Hawkins has published that he does not know much about public opinion in America, and certainly is quite out of touch with the question of prohibition. If Mr. Hawkins desires an object lesson, let him pay our law courts a visit and see the wreckage caused by the drink traffic; and if that does not move him to human sympathy, and human pity, the only thing to be done is to gently place him where stand the unconvincible. —I am, etc., C. H. Wellington, April 27.