EFFICIENCY GREATER

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12425, 20 April 1926, Page 7

EFFICIENCY GREATER

UNDER PROHIBITION REGIME BIG INDUSTRIALISTS EMPHATIC LAW CAN BE. ENFORCED By Telegraph —Press kssn.—'Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. . (Received April 19, 7.15 p.m.) NEW -YORK, April IS. Mr Wayne Wheeler, of the AntiSaloon League, has published a series of statements made by noted industrial leaders on the effects of prohibition. Mr Henry Ford said that troublesome drinking among his employees had decreased from 100 of each 5000 to ten. “Our men are working better, wasting less, and saving more,” he said. “I favour only enforcing the Volstead Act—and it can be en-t forced.” Mr W. Storey, president of the Santa Fe Railway, said: “We feel there has been less drinking among our rank and file since prohibition was effected, though there is still a great deal of bootlegging.” Mr John D. Rockefeller, junr., said there had been a very general impression that the effect of prohibition has been a great increase in morale. IMPROVEMENT IN WELFARE. Judge Elbert Gary, of the United States Steel Corporation, said:. “I have no hesitation in saying, with emphasis, that the Volstead Act has been very beneficial to industry in the United States, and to workmen and their families. There has been a noteworthy decrease in the number of people ill gaols, asylums, and hospitals. There has been a large increase in savings bank deposits. The health of the people has improved, and there has been a general improvement in their welfare.” Giving evidence before the Senate Committee, Professor Irving Fisher, economist, of Yale University, said prohibition had created a defiant attitude among college students, but had saved the United States 600,000,000 dollars, merely through increased industrial energy. Therefore it should be maintained. EXPERIENCE OF CANADA Mr W. Raney, former AttorneyGeneral m Ontario, told the Senate Committee that the light beer legislation in Ontario had been a failure. The “Wets” were dissatisfied because they considered light beer insufficient, an! the “Drys” opposed the weakening of the enforcement experiment. Other Canadian provinces, with Government distribution of hard liquor, had likewise fallen into disrepute. Mr Raney charged Quebec with fostering the drinking habits of tho people rather than discouraging them. He deolared that a recent police investigation in Montreal revealed sensational conditions, prostitution, and protection of crime and wrongdoing, but resulted in little change in the number of convictions. Violations of tlia Narcotic Act during 1924 numbered 581 in British Columbia and 225 in Quebec. Both were Government controlled, whereas there were only 100 in Ontario, where there was prohibition. Witness said Manitoba’s gaol population had increased when the regulations succeeded prohibition.