Why Canada Abandoned Prohibition

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 507, 9 November 1928, Page 12

Why Canada Abandoned Prohibition

Mr. T. M. Wilford, M.P., Tells His Experiences

(Published by Arrangement) WELLINGTON, November 8. “ 'W HEX ’ in a Prollibitiou country, a Judge iu the Court ’* has a bootlegger himself, and is trying a bootlegger before a jury, at least half of whom have bootleggers, what can you expect?’ said Judge Avery to me in Canada. ’ Thus Mr. T. M. Wilford, M.P., opened an address before a crowded audience in Wellington on the subjeet of his experiences of the State Control of Liquor, as adopted in Canada, after that country had given prohibition a thorough trial.

HPHE VENERABLE ARCHDEACON WILLIAMS, President of the Licensing Reform Association, presided. He said that Mr. Wilford had acceded to the Association’s request to make public his experiences in Canada, so that the people of New Zealand might understand why that country had abandoned Prohibition, 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. (Applause.) Mr. Wilford. who was received with prolonged applause, said his personal experiences covered the principal cities of the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta. Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. He had not visited Prince Edward Island, which, with Nova Scotia, was still called a Prohibition province; but Prohibition existed there only in name. In Nova Scotia h© 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 officers, writers, business men, shopkeepers, clerks, manufacturers, and many C.N.R. officials, and at the end of his tour had come to the definite conclusion that Prohibition had utterly failed. His first visit in British Columbia had been to the home of Dr. McLean, the then Premier, 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, unenforcable, and a farce. Young people who had not thought of drinking before, had quickly became addicts, the Premier had said, and that vile decoctions, hitherto unknown, had been ; used when legally manufactured spirits could not be procured. The Premier had helped to repeal the Prohibition law, and to get State Control substituted, for Prohibition was not a deterrent. (Hear, hear.) PROHIBITION A SCANDAL In Vancouver Mr. Wilford had interviewed the heads of the enforcement system of State Control and the police chiefs. They informed him that they had voted Prohibition in the first place, and had originally hoped it would work, but before long found it impossible of enforcement. Bootlegging flourished, witnesses in liquor cases would not give evidence against offenders, and young men and girls as soon as liquor was made “forbidden fruit” started in to defy the law and drink as they had never drunk before. Prominent citizens like Dr. Gatewood, Mr. Burns, Mr. E. B. Cave and Mr. Fitzpatrick, 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, Mr. Wilford had interviewed the members of Parliament, and found one man only who said that lie 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 was 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. Gardner, Premier of Saskatchewan, another who had been an ardent Prohibitionist. He had agreed with Mr. Brownlee that the change to Prohibition was disastrously sudden, and that education must precede Prohibition. He had explained that local option was possible in districts under the Saskatchewan Law, so that 113 districts could each, if they liked, become dry. But he admitted that they had not become dry, and agreed that the people of the Province would not vote for Prohibition to-day. The shopkeepers of Regina had assured Mr. Wilford that conditions were better under State Control than under Prohibition. At the time of Mr. Wilford’s visit the Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Bracken, had been ill, but the speaker had seen Mr. Clubb, the Deputy-Premier, who while personally inclined to Prohibition had said that State Control had abolished 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. The speaker had interviewed 27 shopkeepers in Winnipeg, the capital of Manitoba, and not once did he bear a favourable 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 good liquor, and brings it home. Under Prohibition he went with his friends to bootleggers and sometimes didnt’ return at all. He wasn’t able to.” ELECTION FOUGHT ON REPEAL OF PROHIBITION In Ontario, Mr. Wilford stated, be had met Premier Ferguson, who had fought his recent election on the abolition of Prohibition and the institution of State Control. “He won,” said Mr. 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 five million dollars’ worth in one year. Bootleggers, defying the law, flourished, buying expensive mansions and cars, flaunting their wealth arrogantly in the public places, and selling thirty-five million dollars’ worth of liquor in twelve months. Smuggling could not be stopped. Bad liquor smashed homes, poisoned drinkers, and broke up families. Young men and girls 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 fibre of the people. Premier Ferguson had determined to bring this state of things to an end, and the people rallied to his aid in abolishing Prohibition and setting up State Control in its place. (Applause.) Canon Cody, a famous Anglican minister, went to Alberta to investigate State Control; he came back to Ontario convinced, and said so. Then Dr. McGilvray, a noted Presbyterian minister, investigated State Control in other provinces, and became converted. Father Burke, of the Roman Catholic Church, joined these two divines in the movement for the repeal of Prohibition and the people began to take an interest. Then Mrs. Emily Murphy, a police magistrate of Edmonton, 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 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 responsibility 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 Mr. Wilford “I was the guest of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Hon. Randolph Lemieux. I met all the pricipal men in the Parliament 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 socalled Prohibition. Speaking of the 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 “On every hand,” said Mr. Wilford, “evidence was forthcoming that under Prohibition drinking among young people had reached alarming proportions.” A leading police officer told him that under Prohibition the pocket flask brigade, or as the police called it: “The Mickey on the Hip Brigade,” had been a sorry sight. The people had been led to believe that when Prohibition came the old boozers would die off, and that the younger generation would never know the taste This police officer had said: “The exact' opposite occurred. Young boys and girls got the habit of drinking, and the scenes at public socials and dances were indescribable,” and had concluded by saying: “Everyone who had the welfare of the young people at heart should fight against Prohibition for it cannot be called temperance.” (Applause.) The same story could be 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 and 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 fine concrete roads, costing 24,000 dollars a mile, had been made out of the profits derived under the Government control of liquor. Premier Taschereau had told the speaker that the system was working splendidly and had proved a real measure of temperance reform. Premier Taschereau led a House of 75 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 honour 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 “When I reached the Province of Nova Scotia,” said Mr. Wilford, “I saw for the first time what is called Prohibition in action.” He had interviewed Mr. Rhodes, the Premier, who, when Nova Scotia carried Prohibition, sent for the Prohibition leaders and asked them to name a chief inspector. They had named the Rev. D. K. Grant, and when that gentleman had asked for two deputies the Government had given him eight, and backed this with the machinery for law enforcement. “What have they done?” said Mr. Wilford. “I interviewed the Rev. D. 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 searchlights, and no guns except one Ross rifle. The fast speed liquor boats could not be caught.” When asked what he intended to do he had replied that he had written to the Prime Minister asking him to try to obtain from the Britisli Government some fast revenue cutters and have them manned by ex- naval

men and also see that they were vided with proper searchlight.' Pr °- Suns. Tho speaker had asked you get them from tho British r" ernment?" and tho chief enforced'' officer, after hesitating, hed em(nt shrugging his shoulders, that ho k** W ' so. (Laughter.) The Rev.GrantT' 1 admitted that tremendous quantlo of liquor were sold by the Governs stores ostensibly as medicine, and th”! some doctors gave Prescriptions , ** readily. "I left the Rev. Grant,” said v Wilford, -realising that he binW had but little hope of successful forcement. and when 1 made'i nillli ?' outside I understood why. Jn street alone in the town 'of llalif"* every third house was a sly grog a ' That was admitted hv the police . 11 not denied by air. Grant. - * ' ai!, i The speaker described how the ing towns on the sea coast ran a laiL number of schooners in the ’ trade. When a schooner was fault they floated stock on the share n? half to the public and half to the motors. By the time there were hundred or two schooners runni.* there was a pretty strong combina i 7 tr f ad n e. ereSted people in ** Mr. Wilford related an amusing cident that occurred just after he arived at the principal hotel at HaJif-V The bellboy had brought beer a , whisky to the speaker’s bedroom. aU, when informed that it had not rS ordered said that he must have *5 the wrong number. (.Laughter ) j order to test the system of Prohibitioa he had asked a policeman in the ma,'‘ street of Halifax where he could whisky. The officer told him to » to the Government vendor’s store n Bedford Row. On Mr. Wilford askir was it not necessary to have a doctor' prescription the officer had smiled an told him just to mention his nam which he gave him. (Laughter "When 1 got into the building’* sa> Mr. Wilford, “I found it to be* a bi - store filled with liquor. There wer seven men at the counter, waitin their turn. They all got liquor, and ; never saw one of them put down ai prescription. When it came to •». turn, I said, ’A flask of gin, plea* The man answered. One dollar seventy.’ (Laughter.) I put down two dollars. He gave me 30 cenL change and put a small square flask on the counter. He asked no questions. I waited and asked him wrap it up. He said, ‘Put it in youipocket.’ I did (laughter), and brougp it to New Zealand, paid 3s 5d dutv on it here, and have it now in n, possession unopened. A shipmato J mine, when I told him the story, iovno time in buying a bottle of wiiiskv at the same place. (Laughter.) aul they call that Prohibition.

Tho speaker continued that richthroughout Nova Scotia the bootlegger with his smuggled liquor, by evading Customs duties, was selling his fiiicii wares more cheaply than be don, under a legal system. Prohibition m Nova Scotia had failed to destroy th 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 sincerity. Even the Rev. Grant had admitted to the speaker that a great deal of bootlegging was going on, that there were many stills, and that he had knowledge of a bootlegger selling liquor to boys and girls at school. Thin 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 um taking these cases before juries, because juries will not convict.” CORPORATE 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 give 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 we are advancing rapidly to that stage 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 Government representation might prove a better system. Under that scheme the limitation of private profit and tlie distribution of all earning*; over 10 per cent, to public purposes was an attractive proposal. There was no doubt 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 peoph-. however, had left to them on the ballot paper a middle issue at the approaching poll, and they should use it to express their desire for better conditions “Whatever is done,” said Mr. Wilford. “at least I am convinced that this country will do harm to itself, and to its young people especially, if it eve carries Prohibition.” (Applause.)