THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1922. THE PROHIBITION ISSUE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18674, 2 October 1922, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1922. THE PROHIBITION ISSUE.

The one new factor which enters into the prohibition controversy at the present time in the dominion is that associated with the experience of the United States under the prohibitory law of that country. For more than three years the United States has been supposedly “bone-dry.” The blessings which America has enjoyed, and is enjoying, under the now dispensation are now being described to the people of New Zealand by a much-heralded visitor in the person of Mr W. E. Johnson. It is with no object, it seems, other than that of spreading the glad tidings of the success of prohibition in the United States that Mr Johnson is amongst us. What is done about prohibition in this country is, he says cjuite truly, not his business, but the business of the people of the country, and for that reason he disclaims any desire to interfere in New Zealand affairs. No doubt he can explain to his own satisfaction why it is in those circumstances that he has come to Nmv Zealand in the year of the prohibition poll and why ho proposes to remain in New Zealand until the prohibition poll has been taken. We heg to suggest to him that it would have been more fraim on his part if ho had admitted that it was his hope that the electors of New Zealand might be influenced by his description of the operation of prohibition in the United States to vote in favour of the introduction of prohibition in this dominion. But when he tells his story of what prohibition

has done in America he disarms criticism to a large extent by the modesty of the claims which ho makes. He doe.s not venture to say that America is “bone-dry.” He leaves assertions of that kind to persons who have never been in America. The supplies of liquor that were laid in by wealthy persons in America—as supplies will be laid in by wealthy persons wherever the threat of prohibition obtains, and not necessarily only by opponents of prohibition—have not yet been exhausted, and Mr Johnson says that until they arc exhausted there will be a certain amount of drinking. A somewhat heavy demand is made on the credulity of a public which is expected to believe that the drunkenness in the United States at the present time is to be attributed to the consumption of the liquor that remains in rich men’s cellars. Mr Johnson seems to ignore wholly and conveniently the notoriously extensive importations of liquor that are being smuggled into the United States and the illicit manufacture on a vast scale cf inferior liquor. Anyhow, he tells us, no law is “100 per cent, effective,” and the prohibition law is enforced better than the licensin': law's w'ere enforced in the pro-prohibi-tion days. As he declares that the licensing system in the United States utterly failed, it will be seen that it is an extremely small claim that he puts forward for the effectiveness of the prohibitory laws. Yet in almost tho same breath he declares that by the abolition of licenses the people of tho United States have solved the problem which the liquor trade has presented to them. When we> know of the enormous appropriations which Congress is invited to provide for the enforcement of the prohibitory laws, we are tempted to doubt whether the problem has been solved quite so effectively as Mr Johnson would have us believe Nor, if we may accept the informal plebiscite conducted by tho Literary Digit as a guide, can we accept as conclusive the suggestion that the American people are opposed both to the repeal and to the modification of the Volstead Law. This plebiscite, in fact, in which over 900,000 persons participated, showed that more than 60 per cent, of the voters do not favour the continuance and strict enforcement of the law. Public opinion in the United States, as expressed in this particular poll, does not support the claim that prohibition has proved a success. Moreover, it may be questioned w'hether America is not confronted with another great problem. It is impossible to legislate successfully in advance of public opinion. The testimonies from the United State? that are most emphatic in their claims for the success of prohibition do not disturb the conviction that the country was not ripe for the social revolution that is entailed in the effort to make it “bone-dry.” Prohibition is not actual in the United States. Officially it is in operation, but it is easy to see that the resentment which has been excited against the law is widespread and violent. Nor is the contempt that is shown for the Volstead Act confined to any one section or any one class of the public. When a law fails to command the respect of at least a substantial minority of the community which is subject to it and when that law is vigorously defied—when the flouting of it is carried on upon a scale that warrants its comparison to a business —tho entire fabric of the legal system of the country is placed in jeopardy. It may possibly serve as an illustration of this point that there is an appalling amount of crime in tho United States. We are familiar with the retort that a wave of crime has been passing over the world—a wave which is mysteriously associated with tho tragedy of the storm that raged with devastating effect for more than four years. But that explanation does not apply io the case of the United States with anything like the force with which it is applicable to the case of countries that bore the brunt of the Great War. It does not sufficiently account for the volume and the gravity of the crimes that have been giving the United States an unenviable reputation. According to the report of the Committee on Law Enforcement, which was submitted to the American Bar Association at San Francisco a few weeks ago, “the criminal situation in the Luiited States, so far as crimes of violence are concerned, is worse than in any other civilised country.” To say that the occurrence of crime on a large scale is directly attributable to the nominal operation of prohibition is scarcely reasonable, although necessarily the offences against the Volstead Act do swell the number of prosecutions enormously. But it does not seem to be an extravagant assumption that the resentment excited by the effort to enforce prohibition upon a people which is not prepared to submit to such a drastic interference with age-long customs; has engendered a spirit of lawlessness that is reflected in the general record of crime.