AMERICA’S LIQUOR.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 10712, 9 October 1928, Page 6

AMERICA’S LIQUOR.

“A HUGE JOKE”

Sir, —My attention has been called to a statement . by Mr Tom Heeney on the subject of Prohibition in the U.S.A. The statement is headed “A Huge Joke” a very appropriate title for such a statement considering the authorities that can be quoted against it, . authorities, moreover, who have lived, in .the U.S.A., not for two years, but for all' their lives. I would say, incidentally, that, if Mr Heeney has been doing all the drinking that he leads us to infer whilst he wqs in the U.S.A.. it is small wonder that he was defeated by the total abstaining champion. Mr Heeney makes the following, contradictory statements: “Anybody could, to my knowledge, get as much drink as he wanted.” “Unless the visitor is accompanied by someone known to the proprietor, it is hard to gain admission.” “Beer in America is much harder to get than whisky”. “In each bath were numerous bottles of beer, surrounded with ice.” These conflicting statements are in themselves sufficient to show how little Mr Heeney knows about it.

O'ne does not expect a professional prize-fighter to move in circles where he would have a‘n adequate opportunity of judging the effects of Prohibition as a whole. Mr. Herbert Hoover, Republican presidential candidate, will be admitted by all to be a better judge than Mr Heeney of what Prohibition Has done, especially as he is Mini,ter for Commerce. Elarly this year, Secretary Hoover said: ‘‘‘There is no question, in my opinion, that Prohibition is making America more productive. There can lie no doubt of the economic benefit of Prohibition. I think increased temperance over the land is responsible for a good share of the enormously increased efficiency in production, which statistics gathered from the Department of Congress show to have followed passage of the dry law.” Professor Thomas Nixon Carver, of Harvard University, one of the foremost economists, says: “Anyone who attempts to explain all these amazing signs of prosperity among our working classes without mentioning Prohibition seems to me as extreme as the one who would 1 explain them on the ground of Prohibition alone. I cannot explain them except by bringing in Prohibition as a contributing factor.” The late Judge Elbert H. Gary, chairman of the U.S.A. Steel Corporation, employing hundreds of thousands of men, said: “Since giving you an opinion which, was published about three years ago. I have not changed nor modified my views in regard to Prohibition. I am more and more satisfied tbat the Prohibition legislation should have been passed and continued without amendment, and that it should be more rigidly imposed. I am .also satisfied from experience that it is a good thing for this country.” Henry- Ford, who also employs hundreds of thousands of men. says: “Prohibition is a good thing for the country, and it should be continued. I am in a position to know that it has been of untold benefit to the working man. Surveys made in my own plant show this. The conditions among working men now, compared with the period before Prohibition, are as different as is night from day. The country is better off with Prohibition. Alcohol is no good for anyone.” The. great Protestant churches, numbering millions of members, unite in praising the Prohibition law and demanding its strict enforcement. The social welfare agencies testify to improved conditions as a result of Prohibition; the Salvation Army, again and agaih7 lias declared that its “drunk” problem has disappeared since National .Prohibition began; the great majority of heads of colleges and universities testify to the beneficial influence of Prohibition upon the youth of the nation. Buildings and loan associations. wholesale and retail traders, manufacturers of all kinds, also unite in telling of the benefits that have followed the abolition of the liquor traffic. In New York City, the Fingerprint Department of the Magistrate’s Court shows that firsttime offenders for drunkenness have been reduced to approximately onefourth of what they were. The U.S.A. Government has declared in an official report, that, despite increased police vigilance, drunkenness', convictions have been reduced 500,000 per annum; the same official report credits Prohibition with saving 1.000,000 lives in five years. I' could fill considerable space in your columns with actual quotations from official documents that make Mr Heeney’s statement look very silly indeed. Even he has to admit that the people will not vote for the restoration of the liquor traffic, Anybody who knows anything .at all about politics knows that, if the Prohibition Lav/ was producing the effects that Mr Heeney professes, the two great political parties would not have adopted planks pledging themselves to strict enforcement of the Prohibition Lav/.—l am. Yours etc., J. MALTON MURRAY, Executive Secretary N„Z. Alliance. Wellington. Oct. 4, 1928.

TOM HEENEY AND HIS GLASS OF ALE.

INDISPENSABLE TO HIS training:

An interesting sidelight on his training for the world’s championship battle was shed by Tom Heeney in the course of the complimentary dinner tendered him by the Gisborne Boxing Associat on. Since his return to the Dominion, said the championship contender, it had Keen suggested by some supporters of Prohibition that' he might have done better if he had not taken any ale at all in the course of his training operations. Those who favored that viewpoint had, however, no idea of the value of a glass of beer to an athlete in the circumstances in which he had found himself. It was, he thought, not generally understood that the weather was, at times, unbearably hot in the district in wh.ch his camp was located. After a hard day’s training he had found it absolutely necessary to have a* “tonic” to assist him to enjoy his dinner. Unless an athlete could partake of-..-a good meal at the close of the day’s work-outs his training would be ot little avail. What had to be remembered, continued Tom,' was that, \y,hen 'he started training, he was carrying a good deal of superfluous condition and', on some trying dayb in the early stages ,he had lb£t . two or three pounds in weight. He had found at the close of. the .day that he could not do justice.to his meal unless he had a glass of ale. Now and again he ,had done without Hie ale and'" he had, found that he did not enjoy the meal with relish, had been a ca-se of a little pick-at this and at that. When, however, he had! beforehand a refresher in . the shape of a glass of beer ho-, had found that he was able to eat heartily and ho was much the better for the meal. • , , • - ... , • It was all nonsense, continued Tom, for anybody to suggest that he might have done better if he had gone “on the water-waggon.” He was certain that if; he had eschewed ale altogether he would never have got . himself into such good shape. . COonid. at Foot of Next Column.)

I i was not Buffi cient' for a "boxer to get ,his weight down he must teel strong and enjoy his meals and If® sleep; Dempsey, .G.reb and other world-renowned boxers had used ale in moderation- just as he-had done when .they were preparing tor big - fights. No sensible person 'could /say ’ that, in the 'circumstances, he had not studied! his own interests, and under like' conditions 'he would, without . the slightest hcs'tation, carry out a lilt© dietary programme agaic. ' •' ■ ,