WHY CANADA ABANDONED PROHIBITION.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 9 November 1928, Page 4

WHY CANADA ABANDONED PROHIBITION.

ME T M. WIT,FORD, M.P., TELLS UIS EXPERIENCE'S. (Special Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, Nov. S. “ ‘When, in a prohibition country, a Judge in the Court has a bootleglogger himself, and is trying a bootlegger before a jury, at least half of whom have bootleggers, what can 1 yon expect?’ said Judge Avery t.o me in Canada.” Thus Mr T. M. Wilt'ord, M.P., opened an address before a crowded audience in Wellington on the subject of his experiences of the State Control of Liquor, as adopted in Canada, after that country- had given prohibition a thorough trial. The Venerable Archdeacon Williams, President of the Licensing Reform Association, presided. He said that Mr Wilford had acceded to the Association’s request to make public his experiences in Cauada, so that t-lic people of New Zealand might understand why that country had abandoned prohibition, and adopted State Control. He would urge the people of New Zealand to make use of the middle issue of Slate Control as an indication that they •wanted reforming legislation. (Applause). . .Mr Wilford, who wag received with prolonged applause, said his personal experiences covered the principal cities of the provinces of .British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan. Manitoba, Ontario/, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. 'He had not visited ' Prince Edward Island. ' which, with Nova Scotia, wa s called a prohibition province; but prohibition existed there only in name. In Nova '.Scotia he had * found that the amount of liquor sold for medicinal purposes would lead one to believe that the province was one great hospital. He had investigated matters concerning the drink question from Victoria on the west, to Halifax on the east; interviewing Premiers, police officers, writers, business men, shopkeepers, clerks, manufacturers, and many C.N.R. officials, aDd at the 1 end of his tour had come to the definite conclusion that prohibition had utterly failed. His first visit in British Columbia had been to the home of Dt. McLean, the then Premier, who told him that both he and his wife bad been prohibitionists, that they bad done all they could to get prohibition carried; but that they had found it, in operations, futile, unoe for cable and a farce. Young people who had not thought of drinking before, had quickly become addicts, the -Premic.r bad said, and that vile decoctions, hitherto unknown, had been used when legally, manufactured spirits could _not be procured. The Premier had helped to repeal the prohibition law, and to get State Control substituted, for prohibition was not a deterrent. (Hear, hear.) 'PROHIBITION A SCANDAL. In Vancouver Mr Wilford had interviewed the heads of the enforcement system of State Control and the police chiefs. They informed him that they had voted prohibition in the first place, and had originally hoped it would work, but before long found it impassible of enforcement. Bootlegging flourished, witnesses in liquor cases • would not give evidence against offenders, and young men and girls as soon as liquor was made “forbidden fruit” started in to defy the law and drink as they had never drunk before. Prominent citizens like Dr. Gatewood, Mr Burns. Mr E. B. Cave, and Mr Fitzpatrick, among others, had told him that the state of the city under prohibition' had been a scandal. Canned heat or methylated spirits were consumed by the old topers, and vile and poisonous liquor was -sold, even to boys and girls, by unscrupulous bootleggers. Ho had also interviewed employees of the Hudson Bay Stores, and in many shops. They all. agreed that State Control was miles ahead of prohibition. At;Edmonton, the capital of Alberta, Mr Wilford had interviewed the members of Parliament, and found one man only who said that he thought that fohibition cou»d be enforce.l. ITe had spent two hours with the Hon. J. E. Brownlee, the Premier, who intimated that' he had been, a life-long prohibitionist; but that public opinion could not be raised in the Province to-day to give prohibition a chance of success, if a poll or plebiscite was now taken. Statj? Control was working well. The Premier had stated that tbc change to prohibition was too drastic and that he was quite satisfied that no reversion from ft tat, e Control was now in sight. • At’ Regina, the capital of Saskatchewan, the speaker had had a long interview with Mr Gardiner, Premier of • Saskatchewan, another who had been an ardent prohibitionist. He had agreed with Mr Brownlee that the change to prohibition was disastrously sudden, and that education must precede prohibition. He bad explained

that local option was possible in dist'.icts under the .Saskatchewan. .Law, so that 113 districts could each, if they liked, 'become dry. But he admitted that sthev had not become dry, and agreed that the people of the Province | would not vote for prohibition to-day. j The shopkeepers of Regina had assureu | Mi- Wilford that conditions were better' under State Control khan under pro-, hibition. ■ . | At the time of Mr Wiltord s visit the j Premier of Manitoba, Sir Bracken, had , been ill. but the speaker had seen Mr j Clubb, the Deputy Premier, who while personally inclined to prohibition, had said that State Control had abolished bootlegging and the unspeakable evils that went with it; and had agreed with the other Premiers that no vote taken to-day would repeal Control for Prohibition The speaker had interviewed twentyseven shopkeepers in Winnipeg, .the capital of Manitoba, uni not cnee «•'.* ..h e hear a favourable word for prohibition. 'One woman had said to him “Give me Control, not prohibition. Under Control my husband goes to the store, buys a bottle of good liquor, and brings it home. Under prohibition he went, with friends to bootleggers aud sometimes didn’t return at all. He ivasn ’t able to. ” ELECTION FOUGHT ON REPEAL . OF PROHIBITION. In Ontario, Mr Wilford stated, he had met Premier Ferguson who bad fought his recent election on the aboillion of prohibition and tbo institution of State Control. “Ho won,” said Mr Wilford, “with a majority of about a quarter of a million votes.’’ (Applause.) Premier Ferguson had told him how, under prohibition, doctors issued prescriptions for five million dollars’ worth in one year. Bootleggers, defying the law, flourished, buying expensive mansions and cars, flaunting their wealth arrogantly in the public places, and selling thirtyfive million dollars’ worth of liquor in twelve months. /Smuggling could not be stopped. Bad liquor smashed homes poisoned drinkers, and broke up families. Young men and girls had sought, forbidden ’'fruit and schemed for liquor where formerly they hadn’t thought of it. The ease of manufacture and huge profits readily made, smashed the moral fibre of the people. Premier Ferguson had determined to bring this state ’.if things to an end, and, t.hc people rallied to his aid in abolishing prohibtion and setting-up State Control in. its place. (Applause). Canon Cody, a famous Anglican Minister, went to Alberta to investigate State, Control; he came back to' Ontario convinced, and said so. Then Dr. McGilvray, a noted Presbyterian Minister, investigated State Control in other provinces, and became converted. Father Burke, of the Roman Catholic Church, joined these two divines in the movement fur the repeal of prohibition and the people began to take an interest. Then Mrs Emily Murphy, a Police Magistrate of Edmonton, made a public statement in which she said she had opposed State Control in Alberta on platform and by pen before it became law; .but that, after several years administering it she had found her fears had proved unfounded, for the State Control law was well conceived and well enforced. Premier Ferguson had told the speaker that when scores of the leaders in every walk of life throughout,'the province had joined this movement, and publicly stated that the responsibility of the home, the school, and the Church, called- for the repeal of prohibition the people of Ontario followed their lead.' (Applause.) •STATE CONTROL BETTER. “At Ottawa,” continued Mr Wilford “I was the guest of the 'Speaker of the House of Commons, the Hon. Randolph Lemie'ux. I met all the principal men in the Parliament there, and had opportunities of discussing this matter with some of those who had been prominent in the prohibition movement of .the past. I never found oho who approved of the operations of so-called prohibition. Speaking of the prohibition regime one lady said that, she had gone to a University where she was astounded to find that the students had a special bootlegger who supplied them with liquor.” All w«v* agreed that open dealing within the law was bettor than prohibition and illicit dealing w'th bootloggers. Another lady had said that ii(r°doiibt the trouble at the polls in New Zealand was that the .people had not experienced the evils 0 f prohibition as had been the case in Canada. (Hear, hear.)

PROHIBITION CORRUPTS YOUTH “Ou every hand.” gaid Mr-Wilford, “evidence was forthcoming that under prohibition drinking amongst young people had reached alarming proportions.” A leading police officer told him that under prohibition the pocket flask brigade, or as the police called it: “The Mickey on the Hip Brigade,” had -been a ’ sorry sight. The people had been led ,to believe that when prohibition came tbc old boozers would die off. and that the younger generation would never know the taste of it. This police officer had said: “The exact op-

posite 'occurred. Young boys and 'girls got the habit of drinking, and the scenes at public socials and dances were indescribable” and had concluded by saying: “Everyone who had the welfare of the young people at heart .should fight aga'inst prohibition for it cannot be called temperance.” (Ap-, plause.) The same story could be heard .from coast to coast in Canada. The speaker had asked Sir Henry Thornton, 0 f ,the Canadian National j Railway, what lie thought, of prohibi- j tion, and his reply had been that it} was a sham and a delusion, and could: not be enforced, that no country havj ii«v had prohibition and then State Control would ever return to prohibition, and that 'the statement that prohibition would be beneficial 'to the young would, only be accepted by people 1 who had never experienced prohibition. In the province of Quebec the fine concrete roads, .costing 24,000 dollars per mile, had been made 'out of the profits derived under the Government control of liquor. Premier Taschcreau had j told the speaker that the system was working 'splendidly and had proved a. real measure of temperance reform.' Premier Taschereau led a House of, seventy-five members in which the opposition party onlv numbered nine; thus proving that the Government had the whole-hearted support of the pcoplt Premier Baxter, of New Brunswick, had endorsed the opinions of the other Freipiers. After experiencing prohibition be had felt that the only thing for a man of honour to do was to put into effect a law, which, although trot claimed to be perfect, could be observed. (Applause.) SO-CALLED PROHIBITION IN ACTION. I “When I reached the Province of■ Nova Scotia,” said Mr Wilford, “I saw j for the first time what is called pro- J hibition in action.” He had interview- j ed Mr Rhodes, the Premier, who, when ' Xovkt Scotia carried prohibition, sentfor the prohibition leaders and asked j them to name a chief inspector. They had named the Rev. D. K. Grant, and, when that gentleman liad asked for j two deputies the Government had given him eight, and backed this with the machinery for law enforcement. | “What have they done?” said Mr Wil-; ford. “I interviewed the Rev. D. K. j Grant, the chief enforcement official. He admitted he could not enforce pro-j hibition. The coast line made it im-s possible. Their revenue cutters .were j too slow and had no search lights,, and no guns except one Ross rifle. The j fast speed liquor boats cjould not be I caught.’’ When asked what he intend-, ed to da ho had replied that he had; written to the Prime Minister asking him to try to obtain from the British Government some fast revenue cutters and have them manned by ex-naval men, ami also see that they were pro-' vido.d with .proper search lights and' guns. The 'speaker had asked, “AViIU von get them from the British Govern- 1 juent? ” and the chief enforcement 'offi-l cor, after hesitating, had Said, shrug-j ging his shoulders, that he hoped s'o. j (Laughter.)' The Rev. Grant had admitted that tremendous quantities of liquor were sold by the Governmentstores ostensibly as medicine, and that some doctors gave prescriptions too' readily. - “I left 'the Rev. Grant,” said Mr Wilford, “realising that he himself had, but little hope of successful enforcement, and when I made enquiries outside I understood why. In one street alone in the town of Halifax, every third house was a sly grog shop. That was admitted, by the police, and not denied by Mr Grant.” 'The speaker described how the fishing towns on the sea coast ran a large , number of schooners in the liquor | trade. When a schooner was built they \ floated stock on the share plan, halt j to the public and half tp the promoters. By the time thel'e were a hundred or 'two schooners running there was a pretty strong combination. of interested people in the illicit liquor; trade. . i

Mr Wilford rebated an amusing incident that occurred just after lie arrived at the iprincipal Irate 1 at 'Halifax. Tlie bellboy had brought beer and -whisky to the speaker’s bedroom, and when informed that it had not been ordered said that he must have got the wrong number. (Laughter.) In order to test the system of prohibition he h'ad asked a policeman in the main street of Halifax where lie could get a whisky. The officer laid him to go to (he Government vendor's store in Bedford Row. On Mr Wilford asking was it not neces. sarv to mention his name, which he gave him. (Laughter.) “When I got iuto the building.” said Mr Wilford, “I found it to be a big store ifilied with liquor. There were seven men at the counter waiting their turn. They all got liquor and I never saw oue of them put down any prescription. When jt came to my turn I said, “A flask of gin. please.*’ The man answered, 1 ‘One dollar seventy. ’ (Laughter.) I put down two dollars. He gave me thirty cent's change and ‘put a small square flask ou the counter. He asked no questions. I waited and asked him to wrap it up. He said ‘Put it in your pocket.’ T did (laughter), and brought, it to Xew Zealand, paid 3s 5d duty out here .and have it.now in my possession unopened. A shipmate of mine, when T told him the story, lost no time in buying .a bottle of whisky at the same place. (Laughter.) And they call that, prohibition.” The speaker continued that right throughout Nova .Scotia the bootlegger with his smuggled liquor, by evading Customs duties, was selling his illicit wares more cheaply than could be done under a legal system. Prohibition in Nova’Scotia had failed to destroy the liquor traffic. It had effected no moflal reform. It, had not imposed abstinence oii the people, nor hail it stopped economic waste in any way! It was, in effect, hypocrisy masquerading as sin. eerily. Even tins .Rev. Grant had admitted to the speaker that a gre'at deal of bootlegging was going on, that there were many stills, and that he had knowledge of a bootlegger selling liquor to boys and girls at school. This chief enforcement official, nominated by the prohibitionists, .and himself a .prohibitions!;, had admitted that contain magistrates would not convict in liquor cases. He had sad, “It is no use taking these cases before juries, because juries will not convict.'” CORPORATE CONTROL A SOLUTION. Mr Wilford summed up his conclusions derived from his investigations in Canada as being—(l) That prohibition is not temperance. (2 ) That prohibition cannot be eiP forced, add that the only way to eliminate .bootlegging is to give people who want liquor a system whereby 'they can obtain it within the law.

“I am satisfied.” said iMr Wilford. “that only education and the force of public opinion will make for a sober people. Comparison of the conditions of twenty years ago with those 'of today indicate that we am advancing rapidly to that stage when public contempt and disgust mill end -the abuse of liquor.” The speaker' concluded by

saying that he did not claim that State Control Was, perfect nor the, only solution. 'Corporate Control with a business board and a preponderance of Government representation might prove a better system. Under' that scheme the limitation of private profit and .the distribution of all- earning! over ten per cent, t.o public purposes was an attractive proposal. There was no doubt that Corporate Control would make for better accommodation, - better service, better liquor, and would lead to temperance. That proposal would 'certainly seem better suited to the conditions' of Now, Zealand than complete State Control. The people, however, had. left to them on the ballot-paper a middle issue at the approaching poll, and they should use it to express their desire for better conditions. ‘‘Whatever is done, ’ ’ said Air Wilford, “at hast. T am convinced that this country will do harm to itself, and to its young people especially, if it, ever carries prohibition.” (Applause.) M2