PROHIBITION IN AMERICA.

Evening Star, Issue 20388, 21 January 1930, Page 9

PROHIBITION IN AMERICA.

TO THE EDITOR, Sir, —Your review of the operation of Prohibition in America, while it may not be very cheerful for that type of Prohibitionist who, it is alleged, hoped to see “bone-dryness” as a result of that law, is, on the other hand, anything but comforting to th© “Wets,” and shows that Prohibition, with all its fau u s, still satisfies the American people, who are obviously those best able to judge of its good or bad effects, and weigh one against the other accordingly, On that hard, undeniable fact every argument for the return of liquor in America and its retention elsewhere is completely wrecked. ; , ’ You say that if the American people could “ have realised what was to hap'pen to their country in the next decade tlvre would never have been a majority in favour of the Eighteenth Amendment.” For the belated admission in the Press that there really was a majority in favour of the Eighteenth Amendment in America we thank you. Ithasbeen very hard to secure the admission- But does it not appear strange that a country which was three-quarters “dry”_ before Prohibition came into national' effect should not be able to “ realise ” what was to happen in the next; decade?” Most people would, I think ? say that none should be able to realise better than those who for forty years and lesser periods had lived under _ Prohibition . To mV way of thinking that realisation, based upon their own “ dry ” experience, constituted- the most weighty reason why they gave a majority in favour of its national extension. Furthermore, it is evident that absolutely nothing hinders the American people from giving a majority against Prohibition now if they are so minded to do. But they repeat their “ dry majority. Why? The disturbing nature of the question is stressed, by you, but that hardly constitutes a valid argument, since, aa we all know, the disturbance is owing to the efforts of the “wets” to again secure the sale of liquor legally in America. An outcry which does 'not proceed from the people comprising the nation, but is- fathered, sponsored, and augmented by the wealthy liquor interests of Europe and America can hardly be seriously taken as the most disturbing factor to-day, that is, if we give such advertising efforts their due as regards origin and purpose. A widespread undeniable disturbance or outcry from the .people would certainly be a* disturbing factor, but not such “Press agent” efforts as are now being made. And then, as already pointed out, there would be no heed for an outcry or disturbance from the people either. The silent ballot would do the work very effectively. The cost of enforcement also comes in for mention in your leader, but, as usual, no allowance is made for the heavy amount of money in fines, seizures, etc., which returns to Government coffers and which materially aids to reduce the “cost” of this reform—that is, assuming that the financial “cost” of such humane work i# to be seriously considered. I did not think it should be. Then, again, while the sums spent for Prohibition enforcement look large and do run into considerable figures, they cannot be judged properly until we learn just how much it takes for enforcement of the liquor laws when liquor is freely sold. New Zealand’s _ experience shows that the cost of liquor to a country can be large, and no doubt the cost of the licensed liquor traffic in America once upon a time was enough to stagger those who inquired. Hence (probably) the “ majority in favour of the Eighteenth Amendment.”—l am, etc., Libebtt. January 21.