PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT APPROPRIATION.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18201, 28 February 1929, Page 11

PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT APPROPRIATION.

To the Editor of the “Timaru Herald.

Sir.—The cable news that the United States Congress, both Senate and House, had passed an appropriation ot three million dollars for the enforcement of prohibition, instead of twentyfour million dollars, as advocated by the Democrats, indicates once again that the Government of that country docs nos deem «h© troubles arising from prohibition to be so great as claimed bv the antagonists of prohibition. In JJecembcr, 1926, the came news stated that Congress had appropriated 30,000,000 dollars for enforcement for the year 1927. This amounted to about 35 cents per head of population. From our files we find that Congress had before it the statistical information that for the year 1925 prohibition had saved the nation 380 dollars per headl ot population. In December, 1927, the cable news reported that tne ation fo rthe year 1928 was 13,000,000 dollars. The “wets” have frantically sought to show to the world that the great experiment is a disastrous failure, and the cause of constant troub to the country. In the case of the present cable news, the Democrats having run a “wet” candidate, Alt. Smith, at the recent election, and who was beaten in 43 out of the 48 States, have apparently sought to justify their election policy to “modify the Eighteenth Amendment,” as their campaign manager, John Raskob, described “that damnable infliction on the nation, prohibition ” lhe people gave their veidict on that question at the Presidential election, and now the Government has given its reply again in Cougress. The “wets” certainly are entitled to great admiration for persistency, and I venture to suggest that no prohibitionjsts anywhere m the world are so consistently persistent as the “wets” in U.S.A. Political experience shows that from 70 to 80 per cent, of the men who go to the polls on * “wot” ticket are defeated. lhe will of the people continues, however, to i be just as consistent as the “wets i propaganda, and no effort to contra--1 vene the dry laws meets with any . success. It can be assumed that the 1 people make their decision upon a comparison of. the existing conditions before and after the passage ot the drv laws. And as a prominent writer on the subject recently put tho case, “there is no hope that this generation will repeal those laws.” —I am, ete., 1 W. R. MACKE&Y. Timaru, February 27.