WHY CANADA ABANDONED PROHIBITION

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16797, 9 November 1928, Page 4

WHY CANADA ABANDONED PROHIBITION

AIR. T. At. WILFORD, ALP . TELLS 11IS EXPERIENCES

(Special Correspondent.) Wellington, St k November. “ ‘When, in a prohibition country, a. Judge in the Court has a bootlegger himself, and is trying a bootlogger before it jury, at least half of whom have bootleggers, what can you expect ’’ said Judge Avery to me in Canada.” Thus Air. T. AL Wilford, M.P., opened an address before a crowded audience in Wellington on the subject of his experiences of the Slate Control of Liquor, its 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 Air. Wilford had acceded to the Association’s request to make public his experiences im Canada, so that the people of New Zealand might understand wily that cuntry had abandoned Pro- • hi bit ion, and adopted State Control.' He would urge the people of New Zealand to 'make use of the middle issue of State Control as an indication that, they wanted reforming legislation. I (Applause.) | Mr. Wilford, who was received with : prolonged applause, said his personal experiences covered the principal cities of the provinces of British-Columhiu, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. He had not visiled Prince Edward Island, which, with Nova Scotia, was still called a prohibition province; but, prohibition exist- , ed 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 officials, writers, business men, shopkeepers, clerks, liianu- ] facturers, and many C.N.11. officials,' and at the end of his tour had come to the delinitc conclusion that prohibi- j lion had utterly failed. iHis first visit i in British Columbia had been to the home of Dr. McLean, the then Premier, j who told him that both he and his | wife had been prohibitionists, that they had done all they could to get prohibition carried; but that they had found it, in operation, futile, unenforce iblc, and a farce. Young people who had not thought of drinking before, had quickly become addicts, the Premier had said, and that vile decoctions, i hitherto unknown, had been used when legally manufactured spirits could not be procured. The Premier had helped to repeal the prohibition law, and to got State Control substituted, for prohibition was not a deterrent. (Hear,

j hear.) I PROHIBITION A SCANDAL. J In Vancouver Air Wilford had interi viewed the heads of the enforcement 1 system of Stato Control and the police I. chiefs. They informed him that they had voted prohibition in the first place, and had originally hoped it would work, and before long found it impossible of enforcement. Bootlegging flourished, witnesses in liquor cases ; would not give evidence against offen--1 dors, ahd young men and girls as soon ' as liquor was made “forbidden fruit” I started in to defy the law and drink as they had never drunk before. Prominent citizens like Dr. Gatewood, Air. , Burns, Air. E. B. Cave, and Air. Fitz- ' patrick, 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. -He 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, Air. Wilford had interviewed the members of Parliament, and found one man ' only who said that he thought that prohibition could be enforced. He 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 were now taken. State Control was working well. The Premier had stated that the change to prohibition was too drastic and that he was quite satisfied that no reversion from State 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 Air. Brownlee that the change to prohibition was disastrously sudden, and that education must pre- | cede prohibition. He had explained that local option was possible in districts under the Saskatchewan law, so that 3.13 districts could each, if they I liked, become dry. But he admitted that they had, not; become dry, and

i agreed that the people of the Province j would not vote for prohibition to-day. I The shopkeepers of Regina had assured Air. Wilford that conditions were beti ter pnder State Control than under i prohibition. j At the tintp of Air. Wilford’s visit the (Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Bracken, had been ill, but the speaker had seen Air. Clubb, the Deputy Premier, who, I while personally inclined to prohibition I had said that State Control had abol- ' ished 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, j The speaker had interviewed t wentyseven shopkeepers in Winnipeg, the capital of Manitoba-, ami not once did ho heat' a, favorable 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 g -oil liquor, ami brings it home. Under prohibition he went with friends to bootleggers and sometimes didn’t return at all. He wasn’t able to.” election FOUGHT ON REPEAL OF PROHIBITION. In Ontario, Miv Wilford staled, he had met Premier Ferguson who had fought his recent election on the abolition of prohibition and the institution of State Control. ‘ ‘ He won, ’ ’ said Air 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 live million dollars’ worth in one year. Bootleggers, defying the law, flourished, buying expensive mansions and cars, flaunting their wealth arrogantly in (lie public [daces, and selling thirtylive 'million dollars’ worth of liquor in twelve months. .Smuggling could not be stopped. Bail 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 iibre of tho people. Premier Ferguson had determined to bring this state of things to an end, and the people rallied to iiis aid in abolishing prohibition anil setting up State Control in its place. (Applause.) Canon Cody, a famous Anglican .Minister, went to Alberta to investigate State Control; lie came back to Ontario convinced, and said so. Then ].)r. AleGilvray, a noted Presbyterian minister, investigated State Control in ntiier -provinces, and became converted. Father Burke, of the Roman Catholic Church, joined these two divines in the movement for the repeal of prohi bit ion and the people began to take an interest. Then Airs Emily Alurphy, a Police Alagistrate of Emonton, 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 responsibilities 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 Air. Wilford, “I was the guest of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Hon. Randolph Lemieux. I met all the principal men in the Parti ament 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 one who approved of the operations of so-culled*prohibition. Speaking of tho 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 were agreed that open dealing within the law was better than prohibition and illicit dealing with bootleggers. Another lady had said that no doubt the trouble at the polls in New Zealand was that the people had not experienced the evils of prohibition as had been the case in Canada. (Hear, hear.)

PROHIBITION CORRUPTS YOUTH. “Ori every hand,” said Air Wilford, | ('evidence was forthcoming that under I prohibition drinking amongst people had reached alarming proportions. ” A leading police officer told 1 Him that under prohibition the pocket flask brigade, or as the police called it, “The Alickey on the Hip Brigade,” had been a sorry sight. The people had been led to believe that when prohibition came in the old boozers would die off, and that the younger gencra- ' lion would never know tho taste of it. This police officer had said: “The exact opposite occurred. A ouug boys ami girls got the habit of drinking, and tho scenes at public socials and dances were indescribable,” and had concluded by saying: “Everyone who lmd the welfare of the young people at heart should light against prohibition for it cannot be called temperance.” i (Applause.) The same story could bo ; heard from coast to coast in Canada.

The speaker had asked Sir Henry Thornton, of the Canadian National Railway, what he thought of prohibition, and his reply had been that it was a sham and a delusion, and could not be enforced, that no country having had prohibition ami 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 who had never experienced prohibition.

In the province of Quebec the line concrete, roads, costing 21,000 dollars per mile, had been made out of the profits derived under the Government control of liquor. Premier Tasehereau had told the speaker that the system was working splendidly and had proved a real measure of temperance reform. Premier Tasehereau led a House of seventy-live members in which the opposition party only numbered nine; thus proving that the Government had the wholehearted support of the people. Premier Baxter, of New Brunswick, had endorsed the opinions of the other Premiers. After experiencing prohibition he had felt that the only thing for a man of honor to do was to put into effect a law which, although not claimed to be perfect, could be observed. (Applause.) SO-CALLED PROHIBITION IN ACTION. y “When I reached the Province oft Nova Scotia,” said Air. Wilford, “I saw for the first time what is called (prohibition in action.” He had interviewed Air. Rhodes, the Premier, who, when Nova Scotia carried prohibition, sent for the prohibition loaders ami asked them to mime a chief inspector. They had named the Rev. 1). K. Grant, and when that gentleman had asked for two deputies the Government h«d given him eight, and backer, this with the machinery for law enforcement. “What have' they done'?” said Mr. Wilford. “ I interviewed riio Rev. D. I K. Grant, the chief enforcement official. He admitted he could not enforce prohibition. The coast line made it impossible. Their revenue cutters were too slow and had no search lights, and no guns except one Ross rifle. The fast speed liquor boats eeuld not be caught. When asked what lie intended to do lie 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, and also see that they were provided with proper searchlights and guns. The speaker had asked, “Will you get thorn from the British Government? ” and the chief enforcement officer, after hesitating, had said, shrugging his shoulders, that he hoped so. (Laughter). The Rev. Grant had admitted that tremendous quantities of liquor were sold by the Government stores ostensibly ,as medicine, and that some doctors gave proscriptions too readily. “1 left the Rev. Grant," said Mr. Wilford, “realising that he himself had-but. little hope of successful enforcement, and when I made enquiries outside 1 understood why. In one street alone in (he town of Halifax, very third house was a sly grog shop. That was admitted bv the police, and not denied bv Mr. Grant."

The speaker described how the fishing towns on the. sea coast ran a largo number of schooners in the liquor trade. When a schooner was built they floated stock on the share plan, half to the public and half to the promoters. By the time there were a hundred or two schooners running there was a pretty strong combination of interested people in the illicit liquor trade.

Mr. Wilford related an amusing incident that occurred just after lie arrived at the principal hotel at Halifax. The 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 tesl the system of prohibition he had asked a policeman in the main street of Halifax where he. could get a whisky. The officer told him to go to the Government, vendor’s store in Bedford Row. On Mr. Wilford asking was it not necessary to have a doctor’s prescription the officer had smiled and told him just to mention His name, which he gave him. ('Laughter.) “When 1 got into the building," said Mr. Wilford, “I found it to be a big store filled with liquor. There were seven men at the counter waiting their turn. They all got liquor and I never saw one of them put down any prescription. When it came to my turn I said, “A flask of gin, please.’ The man answered, ‘One dollar seventy.’ (Laughter.) I put down two dollars. He gave me thirty cents change and put a small

square flask on the counter. He asked no questions. I waited and asked him to wrap it up. He said, ‘Put it in your pocket.’ I did (laughter), and brought it to New Zealand, paid 3s od duty on it here and have it now in my possession unopened. A shipmate of mine, when I 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 moral reform. It had not imposed abstinence on the people, nor had it stopped economic waste in any way. It was, in effect, hypocrisy masquerading as sincerity. Even the Rev. Grant had ad-' mitted to the speaker that a great deal of bootlegging was going An, that there were many stills, and that he had knowledge of ’ a bootlegger selling liquor to boys find girls at school. This chief enforcement official, nominated by the prohibitionists, and himself a prohibitionist, had admitted that certain magistrates would .not convict in liquor cases. He had said, “It is no use taking these cases before juries, because juries will not convict. ’ ’

COR BOR ATE 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 enforced, and that the only, way to eliminate.bootlegging.is to gi.ve people who want liquor a system whereby they can obtain it within the law. - “I am satisfied," said Mr 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 wc are advancing rapidly to that stuge when public contempt and disgust will 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 Govern-

ment representation might prove a better system. Under that scheme the limitation of private profit and the distribution of all earnings over ten per cent, to public purposes was an attracVtivp proposal. There was no doubnt 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 New Zealand than complete State Control. The people, however. had left to them on -the ballotpaper a middle issue at the approaching poll, and they should use it. tp express their desire for better conditions. <‘ Whatever is done, ’ ’ said Mr. Wilford, ‘‘ at least T am convinced that this country will do harm to itself, and to. its young people especially, if it ever carries prohibition." (Applause.) ***; ' *'