AMERICAN PROHIBITION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18899, 27 June 1923, Page 7

AMERICAN PROHIBITION.

SEIZURE OF LIQUOR. AN OEFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT. Press Association —By Telegraph—Copyright WASHINGTON, June 25. The Prohibition Bureau has anounced that foreign ships wliich bring liquor into American waters will not be seized for the present, as the Government considers that tho seizure of the liquor alone is sufficient, because the foreign steamship lines are only seeking to make a legal test M the law. The Government also desires not to cause any serious complications with foreign Powers.—A. and N.Z. Cable. PRESIDENTIAL STATEMENT VOLSTEAD LAW TO STAND. NEW YORK, June 26. (Received June 26, at 8.30 p.m.) President Harding, speaking at Denver, said that the prohibition issue was fast coming to be recognised not as one between the “wets” and the “drys,” but as involving the question whether the country’s laws can and will bo enforced. Ho Quoted his previous declarations that the Government means to enforce it, and declared his conviction that not only would the prohibition amendment to the Constitution not bo repealed, but that whatever changes might be made they would represent effective enforcement rather than a moderation of the general policy.—A. and N.Z. Cable. THE FRENCH ATTITUDE. SATISFIED WITH LEGAL TEST. PARIS, Juno 25. The French Government will not take predetermined action to _ deal with the American liquor-seizing incidents. The Government desires to avoid even a- minor quarrel, or it would have protested against Prohibition itself, which hit the hrench wine trade. The official views "are that America is not taking deliberate antiforeign action, but is driven to it by the law. There will probably be a formal protest if the liquor is seized, but it is doubtful if it will be pressed far.—The Times. Discussing the situation in April, tho Ottawa correspondent of the Manchester Guardian said that in more than one province in Canada the prohibition system would face a very serious attack before long. Ho said tho “notorious and almost farcical administration” of tho prohibition laws of many provinces and the amazing growth of the popular industry known as “bootlegging” have generated in the minds of many intelligent people who disliked the old liquor system a fear that the cause of real temperance reform is not promoted by rigid prohibition laws, which, imposed upon the community by a zealous minority, do not command general public support, and are therefore incapable of strict enforcement. Certainly the “bootlegging” industry has attained enormous dimensjons, and a veritable literature about its comic aspects bus developed. It is stated that last year the Federal Treasury’s most generous contributor of income tax from Western Canada was the leader of the “bootlegging” profession in Winnipeg, and the writer has heard on very credible authority a story of a young Scotch sergeant, who lately returned to his native land with 200,000 dollars accumulated since the armistice by alcoholic enterprise on the Pacific coast. But what more than anything else has aroused hope in anti-prohibition bosoms is subtle encouragement received from politicians distracted with the problem of balancing provincial budgets and the protests of exasperated taxpayers. Here is the Provincial Treasurer of Quebec, who secured a revenue of 4,000,000 dollars from the Government liquor system last year and expects to get 7,500,000 dollars this year, happy in an abundant surplus, and there is his colleague in British Columbia, tho other province which has not adopted prohibition, rescued from grave financial cm-, barrassments by welcome liquor revenues. Between them live four provincial treasurers, who are at their wits* end for money, and after exhausting every source of taxation are piling up fresh debt every year. They would be only human if they cast eyes of envy upon their more fortunate compeers and the sources of their ease and happiness. The financial problems of the provincial Governments, in short, are providing tho anti-temperance forces with the opportunity which they seek, and they have not neglected it. Tho result is that the people of Manitoba will be asked in June by the Bracken Govornment to review their judgment upon the liquor question through tho medium of two referenda. On Juno 4 they will vote upon a law sponsored by tho Moderation League which aims to establish Government sale of liquor. On Juno 25 a second plebiscite will be taken upon a Bill fathered by the Beer and Wine Longue, which seeks to permit the sale of wine and beer bv licensed hotels “for beverage purposes with meals.” The local Government will remain strictly neutral In the,contest, but the sympathies of tho Provincial Treasurer, a Scot from Kilmarnock, will not be obscure. The Progres slve Government in Alberta has decided to follow Manitoba’s example, but arrangements for the referendum there have not been completed. The Saskatchewan Government has rot shown its hand, but its official organ, the Regina Leader, has been for tho past three months conducting a vigorous campaign of criticism of tho prohibition laws which it claims are demoralising the whole life of the province. In tho Ontario x'rovincial election, which is nowfixed for June, prohibition will play a considerable part, and many leading Conservatives would like their party to commit itself to a “beer and wine” programme. The impression of detached observers is that the prohibitionists will have a very hard fight before them in Manitoba, and have more prospects of boating off the attack in Alberta.