PROHIBITION IN AMERICA

Evening Star, Issue 19032, 29 August 1925, Page 10

PROHIBITION IN AMERICA

ii sejsrchins mmmm GAINS AND LOSSES OF REGIME DEFECTS OF ENFOMEHEUT Possibly the most exhaustive investigation which has yet boon made Into the workings of Prohibition- in America is that ol Mr Ernest M. Mandovillc, -the results of which have been embodied in a series of articles running for live months in the New York ‘ Outlook.Mr Mandevillo explains that ho visited principal cities and studied community conditions north of the Mason and Bison lino and oast of the Mississippi River. He interviewed leaders of all parties, obtained statistics and opinions from social workers and officials, made his own observations among different classes, and associated with ■“bootleggers” and “rum-runners” to learn the extent and methods of their work. In commending his articles the ‘ Outlook ’ states : “It is not propaganda which Mr Mandovillo has written, but fact, and by fact the Prohibition law must bo judged.” We give Mr Mamleville’s _ final article, epitomising his conclusions: Since early in February I have boon reporting to you the results of my investigations into the enforcements and effects of Prohibition. Two of my articles dwelt on the bright spots of our five years under the YofstmM Act. Jn the rest of the series the failures of enforcement and the accompanying evils weighed heavy. _ Tin's, I believe, is proportionately a fair picture for the section of the country that T covered. Although many of my conclusions have been stated throvighont the scries, especially in the first two instalments, I think that this concluding article may well be devoted to the answering of pertinent questions which have been ?ut to me on the problem ns a whole, irst, Has the Prohibition Law been a success? In answer to this question ! must make a distinction between a Prohibition law actually enforced on a par with other laws and a law which is publicly flouted by great numbers in the various grades of society with comparatively little efficient action taken to prevent violations. I strongly fee! that the_ Prohibition Law cannot be rightfully judged until it is given a fair test under real enforcement. Then only can wo tell whether or not it would work the great benefits that were hoped for by its enactors. I think that, in the main, it would. I will discuss the possibility of real enforcement later. My study loads me to the conclusion that" the "enforcement record for the East five years has been a bad one. liquor has been easy to get tor those who wanted it. The quality of the drink, however, has been lowered all around and brought down almost to the straight poison stage for the cheap buyer. A goodly proportion of pur population, who "live respectable lives and who obey other laws as a matter of principle, disregard the Volstead Act and either continue their tippling as if there were no law or go to further extremes in drinking in the spirit of spite against the restriction. A new class of ’drinkers has been crcatocl. Hie small-town “society set goes in for boozing now as " the thing to do.” Young folks, following after their elders, have taken to hard liquor as never before through smartness and the feeling of deviltry in breaking bounds. A highly-organised _ underground liquor traffic has been built up. Trickery and reccit have been fostered. A new criminal class has come into being. It is a large one, and consists of manv who could not have been entangled in other criminal pursuits. Officers of the law in large numbers disobey tins law themselves and wink 'at the violations of it. Local authorities, in many cases, take, ho interest in the enforcement of the Prohibition Law. They prefer to disregard it as their dutv and pass on the responsibility to the State. Many States, officially or unofficially, take the attitude that ‘a Federal law is to be enforced bv the Federal authorities, and “ the buck is passed ” once more to the Federal Government. The Federal authorities have been unable to rope with the situation. Their effort has not been a whole-hearted one, and, as General Andrews, the new enforcement head, sava, the matter has been more or less treated as a joke in WasbingtC>Tlic results of Prohibition under Buch nufortunate conditions have boon both bad and good, mostlv the former. But if under such farcical enforcement the benefits described in my articles of March 25 and April 1 have keen produced, it seems reasonable to think that real enforcement would transform an unsuccessful law into a glowing success. The guilt so far must be put upon the enforcement of the law, and not upon the law itself. It must be said that enforcement conditions in the east five years have grown worse rather than better. However, it seems that there is some hope now for an improvement' all around. This leads mo to the next questions: How can the law be better enforced? and Can ?t ever be well enforced?

The first of thcso questions I covered rather fully in my article of July 15. The needs are, generally _ speaking, much larger money appropriations for the purpose of enforcement and the official determination to sec the job done. The money will provide more enforcement agents and salaries can ho paid which will attract incorruptible men of intelligence and ability. The will of the leaders to obtain results and an efficient staff will bring results. .If the sources of supply are dried _ up, which is within the range of possibility, the problem will bo largely solved. This cannot bo done until the official mind is made up and the enforcement unit is properly manned. Jfc the present time it seems to me that it is of much more importance to prosecute the crooked Government agent who is promoting the trade he has taken vows to obliterate than it is to catch individual bootleggers. Politics must be removed from Prohibition enforcement. The people must bo educated in the importance of obedience to the lawn As long as the people want illicit drinks there is bound to bo a traffic in them. The bootlegger sells whisky only w'here the people want him to. The mind of the public must be made to realise the damage that is being done by their attitude. In my estimation, the most serious danger from a state of affairs such as we have to-day is the gradual breakdown of pur democratic system. Courts are being demoralised, and once graft seeps through the official system tor one purpose, the officials arc limited m their usefulness. in other ways. Corrupted for one purpose with fear of exposure, they cannot take strong stands on any measures. .... , , ~ When the public is mado to see the dangers, I feel that we shall get more of the “common consent” which enables the authorities almost automatically to enforce other law's. Once Americans realise that conditions are deplorable, they usually got into action and see that niatteis are corrected. Therefore I believe that a scries of fact articles, such ns this one, is a means of bringing reform. Tho facts may be unpleasant and disquieting, but the sooner we know them tne gooner we can set about a cure. Some ardent drys ” promote, the

J policy of keeping blinders on our eyes. We are to see only the good. Wo are to disbelieve all criticism and denounce it as “wot” propaganda. Those people, in my mind, are unconsciously hurting I their cause more-than any one e»bo*. The public must know of the existing evils before it will bo moved vo act. It, must luce the facts before it can act intelligently. Exposures of local conditions in various parts ofthc country that bare been made in this series have caused some protests, but they have also led in several cities to actual improvement—lo official and public action for correction.

.1 am glad to sec that people the country over are gradually coming round to the policy of facing the facts. The lowa Anti-saloon League report is an indication of that powerful organisation’s willingness to face things as they are, even though they are bad. If disorganisations would aid in making the general public realise the really deplorable stale of affairs and urge betterment, improvement would come, the faster. The churches arc becoming more willing to look into actual conditions. Soon, I hope, wo will all wake up to the sorry condition of the liquordrinking problem in this country. Whether or not there can over he enforcement which compares with that of other criminal laws, I am not prepared to say. All one can do is b) figure the costs, weigh the possibilities of getting this large amount annually (for spasmodic efforts are of little value), and then conjecture whether it can he Imped for. i believe that the job can bo done, hut I cannot predict, under the circumstances, whether the public mind will eventually sway towards action or inaction.

Is the law likely to be repealed? 1 think not. Hardly any student of the problem sees any chance of repeat. Unless enforcement becomes a reality, the most probable turn of affairs will bo the nullification of the law. In that ca.se, it will lie left on the statute books but generally disregarded, as some of our laws are. The ostrich policy of closing one's eyes to the faults will surely bring cither nullification or modification.

The people of this country should demand either enforcement, modification, or repeal, for indecision means tho endangering of all other laws. Scarcely any one wants a return to the old abuses of the corner saloon. Jinny, however, want a correction of tho newborn abuses of the hypocritical speakeasy.

Do tho people of the country want Prohibition? Thero is litllo doubt in my mind that tho majority of citizens want a prohibitory liquor law. Even in the wet sections of tho country there is more public sentiment in favor of Jaw enforcement than we dream of. Massachusetts recently showed by vote that oven in that State, which cannot by any moans be considered dry, a great majority of the citizens are outraged by the open disregard of tho law. The women of the country are for the most part, 1 believe, in favor of Prohibtiiun. However, public opinion is nor a fixed quantity. Tho balance of power may shift about unless thero is enforcement of tho present law or unless the present law is made enforceable. Then, too ; there is a_ large public sentiment against Prohibition, ft is this that makes the law hard to enforce. But this may change, too. Sentiment against drinking has grown rapidly during tho lost century. One hundred years ago criticisms began to spring up because some of the clergymen used to got drunk together at their conventions. Colleges knew nothing of temperance. Societies _ sprang up during tho century campaigning against this drink and that. Licenses became harder to get. Closing hours were enacted. The law became stricter and stricter. The West went dry, then tho South, then the whole country. So, with favorable conditions, the progress of public Sentiment would be likely to go on. But it may bo that the unfavorable conditions of the Prohibition experiment to date may drive sentiment the other way. Is. there more or less drinking than before Prohibition? Thero are no trustworthy statistics upon which to base a conclusive answer. Mv opinion is that the volume of drinking is considerably less than before Prohibition. However, tho present method of distribution leads to drinking too much and too fast. There is, I think, in certain classes of society more drinking to excess than formerly. Is not the passing of a sumptuary law an unjust limitation of personal liberty? I suppose that most of us are opposed to sumptuary legislation which interferes with habits that belong absolutely to our individual lives._ But the habit of drinking intoxicating liquors may be held to overflow tho bounds of one’s individual life. I cannot agree that, the Eighteenth Amendment "is sumptuary legislation, .ft is social legislation. The. State must, for social welfare, dictate whether _or not an individual may drink certain beverages when the individual under tho effect of that drink affects society at large. When liquor becomes dangerous to public safety, societv must be saved by law from such a menace. When the weaknesses of the people are preyed upon for profit, as in the saloon trade; when poverty and crimes are furthered by a habit-form-ing beverage; when lives of people arc enclangered by drunken drivers; when these tilings and many others follow in the wake of the liquor traffic, it must he legislated against. By the same token, however, a law which either from careless enforcement or from the impossibility of enforcement is carrying with it hypocrisy, deceit, corruption, crime, and many other evils, that, too, for tho good of society, must be repealed or amended. jn brief, it seems to me that wo must first enforce and then judge whether or not modification is advisable.