PROHIBITION IN AMERICA.

Evening Star, Issue 18094, 9 October 1922, Page 3

PROHIBITION IN AMERICA.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,—The contention of “Continuance” that my “imported lecturer j’ is quoting figures "a yca.r or more old is absolutely false, and‘he knows it. Mr Johnson can give the latest official returns in support of Prohibition, and has done so. I do not intend to enter into a tedious discussion about the figures showing alleged increased drunkenness in the second year of Prohibition, but will only ask your correspondent to publish the source of his statistics. That newspapers owned mainly by the liquor faction in America publish figures purporting to show increased crime, drunkenness, etc., I am perfectly aware. That these estimates are proved utteriy false in nearly every case by official returns I am also aware. What I and tho public in general want is not figures made up by one side or the other, hut official returns about which there can bo no doubt.

Your correspondent says 1920 was tho first year of Prohibition. Wrong again. It was the first yean of National Prohibition, but America has had Prohibition in some States for sixty _ years, with overwhelming success, and in every case after trial retained it by increased majorities. Kansas secured Prohibition forty years ago by 8,000 majority, and twenty-five years later retained it by 405,000 majority. Does “ Continuance ” wish it to be understood that the people of Kansas are so deficient in intelligence as to he unaware of the evil results of the “dry” law? Also, ■ how does it come about that between 1880 and 1920 thirty-two Stales hi America had Prohibition if it is a failure? The President of the United (States said recently that Prohibition in that country had been a success in every way. Does your correspondent wish to insinuate that President Harding is ignorant of conditions in America? Also, will your correspondent endeavor to reconcile the two statements constantly circulated with regard to America, the first that there is an enormous increase in drinking since the “ dry ” law came into effect, and tho second that because the people cannot get drink they are taking to drugs ? “Continuance” speaks of the audacity of Mr Johnson. The foraging is not audacity, it is plain rot, and- represents the strongest arguments which liquor supporters can put forward. Mr Johnson is not “strangely silent” concerning the American mercantile marine. On the contrary, he stated that so_ long as American ships abused the Prohibition law he would decline to travel on American boats. In any case, how ships “ crammed with liquor” plying to other countries affect 110,000,000 people when they cannot land any quantity is beyond my comprehension. In conclusion may I ask your correspondent who the people are that are violating the Prohibition law, Prohibitionists or the Trade, and docs he think all laws which are violated should he repealed? When he can explain those increased majorities I will seriously consider voting Continuance. —I am, etc., Liberty. October 7.