CORRESPONDENCE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 4 January 1923, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE.

j . $ DOES AMERICA DISLIKE PROHIBITION? To the Editor. Sir, —It would be instructive to know on what facts Archbishop O'Shea based j his reported views on American pro-! hibitiom They conflict so strangely j with authoritative information in*our possession that the evidence on which they are based should be circulated. Is it a fact, for instance, that American employers of labour managed to foist the prohibition law on to the working people? If it be so, it is obvious that a capitalistic class has been able to alter the American constitution so as to promote its own interests, and \ that constitution can no longer be dei scribed as "democratic." Detailed j information supplied by a recent Araei rican mail will enable your readers to ! form a judgment on this question I which will be sound. We now know how the people of the U.S.A. voted on the question at the November elections. It has been stated that a proposal to permit the manufacture and sale of light wines and beers was submitted to the electors of four States, and that three of the four voted for a I restoration of liquor. If the statement were accurate, it might be fairly taken to suggest that the people had ; never wanted prohibition. A cursory ' examination of the facts will reveal its ; inaccuracy. What are the facts? A referendum was held in the State of Massachusetts, but not on a wine and , beer proposal. Voters were asked to ' approve or disapprove of an enforcement law which the State Legislature had passed. lt was disapproved by a majority; but neither the repeal nor amendment of the prohibition law was voted upon. In California a similar issue—an enforcement issue—was submitted. While the returns were incomplete a victory for non-enforcement was claimed, but the full returns showed a majority of 60,000 for enforcement. Two years previously this State had given an adverse vote of 65,000. 1 A great victory is claimed by the brewers in Illinois. The issue there was a twofold one—a proposal fo amend the State law by permitting beer and wine and a proposal to amend the national 1 law. It is to be noted that this vote j was merely advisory; it had no binding power. It was what Americans I call a "straw" vote. For this reason the Anti-Saloon League advised all its supporters to abstain from voting. The ', outcome was a victory for the "wets" !of no practical value. Only in the State of Ohio was a referendum taken 1 on the straight-out issue of prohibition j versus light wines and beers. Had I the latter been adopted it would have been legal to manufacture and sell J liquor which contained 2.7,5 per cent. alohol, and the new law would have come into operation immediately. A tremendous contest took place between j the rival forces, and prohibition won by the huge majority of 175,000. Only 6 of 88 counties voted for beer and wine. No more emphatic endorsement of prohibition by the people themselves could be desired by any democrat. And we are entitled to ask how such avyote would be explained by Archbishop O'Shea. A similar situation is disclosed in the election of ''wet' and "dry" Senators and representatives, lt has been asserted that the elections generally showed a great change in pub- , lie opinion during the last three years adverse to prohibition. Where is the evidence? Tlie facts speak for themselves. " Briefly summarised, the "drys" gained three seats in the Senate, lost probably not more than seven in the House of Representatives, won on a direct vote on the question of restoring beer, and increased their voting strength in a number of doubtful legislatures. If this is a misrepresentation of the actual results, I shall be glad to receive other information. We want the truth. The results are interpreted by the prohibitionists of America as an emphatic repudiation of the "wets" claim that the prohibition law is in disfavour* with the people. They predict that the "wets" will become weaker during the next two ' years, with the prohibition law held mii tact, enforcement conditions constantI ly improving, and the "dry" forces steadily increasing in strength. And I it must be admitted that cable news | received since the elections supports | their view of the situation, although the struggle may become fiercer before ! final victory is achieved. It is sigI nificant that about the time of Arch- | bishop O'Shea's visit, an eminent Britisher, Sir George Paish, was investigate | ing the effects of prohibition on the national life of U.S.A. Sir George edits the Statist, a leading financial journal of Great Britain, and is an economist second to none in England. On his return he declared that "prohibition had become essential to the prosperity of Great Britain." He believes Great Britain also "will be dry in a few years, when the success of America's experiment is assured. ' He bases his belief in prohibition on economic grounds, holding that liquor drinking is "bad business," and that prohibition would provide Great Britain with practically all the capital she requires. The working people of the country, he says, crjild provide it, un-' der prohibition, and still spend at,200,----000,000 on amusements. 0 Such a statement from such an authority deserves consideration.—l am, etc., ! A.L.