"4 FU RRAL EVIE SEDER EOHDER FES SPER AERIS TTY TR VOTE ROE We Oe 
 gu sevevoucetonrvoserseves vert etoe tir thl 
 Tee T ehh ceeded ch Lbmenedamamadsbdtdess tdebecaaabetdsesd 
 fepieticpeae tote 
 reteeensesen 
 
 
 
 
 
 NC hekachon 
 
 ? . yarwree ersess 
 ayereve 
 wlotics Darschiyemeeanpesness MPUPLTEPE INH FEAT SAR COS ESTA 
 i rte! ‘ 
 PRPRPTPRIE EDK FEE: 
 ePRoemenna it seher stary 
 
 a ee one toe . 
 apyepenvoerss eegustnt 
 eepene 
 peshtere 
 
 ees b 
 
 See 
 
 jee Py 
 ve pesesecasesesegat eee sesi 
 ing 
 
 x sSestaises 
 Seotmsegnen shry ra sugtyy Pus 
 Rrrrenrtnaress 
 eyelet! 
 
 : * 
 
 SANS R PRET EH HERR Te Te Tem eLe hye 
 bebo Se tadilehtahanhe poderterietdes 
 Sihcacledeban a 
 
 ob dodo pes bp 4ebp bh pesrtetew 4m 
 
 Sosceans 
 
 Teves ey ey ty re 
 
 i 5 
 
 +f 
 eesetelerererheseoe its cavagersanparaseinas ri suse 
 
 pA da tatgtg Maange 
 
 seer 
 
 pi 
 
 useeveasy 
 
 * 
 nero bed dle he eet: 
 
 oboe at sage 
 
 peri oeseesrocss: snarl 
 
 Freee bg 
 
 pega bsg [eh 
 I bye tenes 
 
 tet an 
 poet 
 
 wtapavotcendl jaf 
 
 ’ . ’ r 
 reaeTe ah > SF EHP AS OPREHER IE ARE RTRSD ERAT ET TY SEEPIRT HINER 
 
 
 
 Sls ataeedddatel 
 Lage craton nr esyr ne be ctr 
 
 
 
 ereristree sitet vue 
 400 
 RA TORETH Cp 9G Re DANES ited 
 
 oon tha F RIT | 
 
 Pryereeres: 
 
 har rereperteareet Nery eterey 
 
 vie eres Siocon steuseresaee 
 
 ete (ye rte be ae. 
 ab ibad face 
 
 ste eete tet ema, 
 
 Per itikoars 
 
 leheneheasnes 
 Lb eee e tee. 
 
 eweenans nee arr eer s 
 rere ewe pasngad menrasesnriscPeviyianepes 
 
 
 
 = ne neind ns 
 
 eattit 
 
 +4 sesteri(naashans 
 
 oon . - 
 lghayers eseeversyererismate net elated) 
 . 
 
 
 
 oe 
 
 eee 
 
 i eaavt et yeas 
 pogperesrsurees 
 
 sthbeer 
 
 rrivere raviretetetre 
 
 eereresere eter set 
 arenas +s 
 
Kon OF PRINGE %» 
 
 bs NOV 9 1926 | 
 
 Ley ww 
 LOGIGAL St¥ 
 
 
 
 
 Division HVSO89 
 Section . FS 4 
 

 

 
PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 & 
 
eine O«e 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 NEW YORK - BOSTON * CHICAGO = DALLAS 
 ATLANTA * SAN FRANCISCO 
 
 MACMILLAN & CO., Linrrep 
 
 LONDON + BOMBAY + CALCUTTA 
 MELBOURNE 
 
 THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Lrtp, 
 TORONTO 
 
PROHIBITION 
 acd bad fal De. debater 
 
 YN OV9 192 ¥ 
 e 
 x) OcroaL sew 
 
 
 
 
 IRVING FISHER 
 
 ts 
 PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, YALE UNIVERSITY 
 
 jQew Pork 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. 
 
 1926 
 All rights reserved 
 
CopyricutT, 1926, 
 Bry THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, 
 
 
 
 Set up and electrotyped. 
 Published September, 1926, 
 Reprinted, October, 1926, twice. 
 
 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
TO 
 THE MEMORY OF 
 
 CHARLES W. ELIOT 
 WHO, IN HIS FAR-SEEING LEADERSHIP, 
 DID NOT OVERLOOK THE MOVEMENT 
 OF WHICH THIS BOOK TREATS. 
 
“Wh 
 
 hou al ». 
 a 4) 
 
 Ray ea wk Gite 
 
 f ' 
 
 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This book is the outgrowth of my testimony at 
 the Hearings of the Sub-committee of the Commit- 
 tee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate in 
 April, 1926. 
 
 It embodies the notes which I have been collect- 
 ing on the alcohol problem for full twenty years— 
 during which time I have radically changed my 
 attitude toward Prohibition. 
 
 It also endeavors to cover all the important data, 
 on both sides of the controversy, which were pre- 
 sented at the Senate hearings. 
 
 For help in the preparation of the book I am 
 deeply indebted to many persons, especially to 
 Herbert B. Brougham, Robert E. Corradini, Karl 
 G. Karsten, and Emily F. Robbins. 
 
 IrRvVING FISHER. 
 
 Yale University, 
 New Haven, Conn., August, 1926. 
 
rte 
 Aare Peas i aN MAY A 
 
 Re Ly HARES A REPOS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f, ‘ 5 a ¥ 
 i v AIA é ANE kesh i va 
 i) if y Vee My 
 § : Vichy 
 \ 
 i) pata he fie 
 ) | ve i* tity aA A 
 ‘ ) iy 
 ; 4 Ha ne + 
 , ] Ny, vii 
 ; ty ? 
 t ' a? 
 { 
 , | SVAN 
 ty ‘ Ma TT 
 yay : : 
 Wark ry j 
 wx j 
 ht f 
 Pha a, 
 i sy 
 ey, 
 Wi? 
 iF % 
 : a 
 rt aay? 
 ; 
 Easy, 
 a) i\ 
 iat 
 j 4 rate 
 i) f ‘ 
 ae i 
 UN ; coh 
 ar 
 ‘ ey Loree 
 a } y hia 
 oh ey ; i 
 NE 
 Myre) 
 ae nyt 
 ay Heul 
 heuer ' 
 q ’ 
 . j H 
 aif i 
 } 
 We : nt he At 
 I , a 
 ve oS 7 ; 
 i / ‘ 
 MEL go J ‘ i 
 , A \ 
 ys 2 Pe 
 th 
 ; 
 iu f : | 
 rey i i) : 
 1) i 
 Paty : 
 7 
 be 5 
 q 
 E ’ 
 Pray : r ¥) 
 4 me | 
 % caTy 
 : \ ' i 
 : om 
 , p24 é 
 ; y 6 
 neat 
 Ly } 
 2 7. 
 it ‘ 
 Ti ‘ 
 Ai 
 ‘i Ae, : 
 ai Vee UL AWh Eh. ¥ 
 ‘ se af ( Vv 2 
 Bult 
 j i 
 ) a ae ‘ 
 F hi yh } 
 ie ee te ayia 
 Paty 
 
 
 
 ey Ai: Mis a CRM) 
 ) Ly fax Avy rad AST 
 
SUGGESTIONS FOR READERS 
 
 1. The numerical references in parentheses fol- 
 lowing quotations are to the “Index of Authors and 
 Titles” at the end of the book. 
 
 2. Those wishing merely to skim this book may 
 read the Charts only. They are self-explanatory, 
 even without the supplementary reading matter 
 below each. 
 
 3. The Charts should not be omitted by any 
 reader. 
 
 4, Those chiefly interested in the practical work- 
 
 ing and shortcomings of Prohibition should read 
 Chapters II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, XI, XIII. 
 
 5. Those chiefly interested in the “personal 
 liberty” argument should read Chapters XII, XIV. 
 
 6. Those chiefly interested in the New York 
 Referendum should read Chapter XVI. 
 
> ke 
 
 eae 
 es 
 
 eee 
 
 at 
 
 her 
 
 lA sae ta 
 
 4, 
 fy 7 
 A | 
 J 
 y 
 
 Ui ee 
 
 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 I. How I Became INTERESTED 
 
 II. New Recrurrs AMone DrINKERS FALL 
 Orr 
 
 III. Surerx, STATISTICIAN . eye 
 IV. FurtHer Errors or Mr. SHirkK . 
 V. -Drinkinc AMONG THE YOUTH 
 VI. Pusiic SENTIMENT 
 VII. Tue Passine or THE SALoon 
 VIII. AtcoHot anp LONGEVITY 
 IX. ALcoHoL A PoIson 
 X. Tue Hycrentc Goop 
 XI. THE Economic Goop 
 XII. Prrsonau anp Socrau LIBERTY 
 XIII. Tur Socrat Goop 
 XIV. “Prrsonau Liperty’—CoMMERCIALIZED . 
 XV. FurtTHeErR ACTIVITIES OF THE BREWERS 
 XVI. Proposaus OTHER THAN PROHIBITION 
 XVII. Prouririon Can Be ENFORCED 
 List or AuTHoRS, TITLES, AND PUBLISHERS 
 INDEX 
 
f 
 
 Wat iat Pa 
 hal ie AHS 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 ; j 
 4 ve 
 : ay 
 nt } 
 7 . 
 fa. 
 Peer icy ae 
 ed ix 
 Ak 
 rh) ‘ 
 its 
 2 
 ag 
 nA 
 ‘ 
 + 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iA : 
 ; 1h SAP ve a ae 
 an A ie j 
 | PEON Li bi: 
 ; aay ee Ae vig ti) Mae Rs Ae a ; 
 } ; 13) ‘ .\e Bf! h ity =e a 
 a i sae 
 
PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 

 
PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 How I Became INTERESTED 
 
 My Own Health 
 
 It is now twenty-five years since I was first 
 attracted to the alcohol problem. When starting 
 for Colorado in 1899 to repair my health I was 
 warned by Dr. Trudeau not to let the Colorado 
 doctors give me whisky; for at that time alcohol 
 was still regarded by many physicians as a valuable 
 medicine for numerous diseases. 
 
 While recovering my health I undertook a sys- 
 tematic study of how to get, and keep, well. In 
 the course of this study I soon found that, accord- 
 ing to the best evidence, alcohol is a physiological 
 poison, and out of place in the human body. This 
 conclusion is now commonly accepted by reputable 
 physiologists. Some of the evidence for it is given 
 in this book. 
 
 Having thus reached the conclusion that total 
 abstinence, rather than “temperance,” is the truer 
 ideal, I soon became, for the sake of my own health, 
 a teetotaler except for occasional sips of wine at 
 my friends’ tables. I also ceased to serve wine at 
 
 1 
 
2 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 my own table except when entertaining those WAGs 
 I knew, especially desired and expected it. 
 
 I next applied the results of this study to my 
 own professional subject, economics. I saw that 
 the use of alcoholics was economically costly and 
 wasteful to the nation, and in more ways than one. 
 
 Solution, Education of Youth 
 
 The problem of how best to reduce this waste 
 puzzled me, just as it is now puzzling many other 
 people. I was then far from thinking that Pro- 
 hibition was the best solution. I knew that all laws 
 affecting personal habits are resented by those whose 
 personal habits are thereby reflected on, and that 
 such laws are, therefore, difficult to enforce. I real- 
 ized then, as I realize now, that laws without suffi- 
 cient public sentiment behind them are apt to be- 
 come a dead letter and to lead to disrespect for law 
 in general. It was clear, therefore, that, even if 
 Prohibition were eventually desirable—which I did 
 not then believe—the first and most important step 
 toward the great objective (reduction in the flow 
 of alcohol down human throats) must be the educa- 
 tion of the public. I even hoped, with youthful 
 enthusiasm, that such moral suasion would be rapid 
 and effective, and tried to do my part. 
 
 It soon became apparent, however, that there was 
 a flaw in this program—the same flaw as in the pro- 
 gram of moral suasion as a sufficient solution of the 
 problem of narcotic drugs. In fact, the alcohol 
 
HOW I BECAME INTERESTED 3 
 
 problem shaped itself in my mind as simply a spe- 
 cial case of the narcotic problem. 
 
 The flaw in the moral suasion program as a com- 
 plete solution of the problem of narcotics, alcohol | 
 included, is that the will is weakened by the drug 
 habit. 
 
 Ordinarily, there is little or no use in preaching to 
 a dope-fiend or a drunkard. His reason is con- 
 vinced, but his will is not strong enough to follow 
 his reason. His will has been destroyed by the drug 
 habit and it is too late for the drug habit to be 
 destroyed by the will. 
 
 I had noted that, occasionally, strong religious 
 appeal does result in “conversion,” as the Salvation 
 Army is demonstrating every day. But no prac- 
 tical reformer expects any wholesale results from 
 confirmed addicts. On the other hand, to the mod- 
 erate users whose wills are only moderately impaired, 
 the appeal to become total abstainers is itself only 
 moderate. ‘The moderate user generally sees no 
 need of “reformation.” He does not realize the 
 subtle, steady damage being done to his body and 
 mind, nor the seriousness of the risk he is running 
 of becoming a confirmed addict. 
 
 Noting these things, I came to believe that the 
 only class left to appeal to is the young, who have 
 not yet reached even the half-way stages of the 
 moderate users. The teaching of the effects of 
 alcohol in the public schools, under the influence of 
 the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, seemed 
 
4 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 to me the basic educational fact underlying alcohol 
 reform in the United States. 
 
 Also Necessary to Outlaw Saloon 
 
 But such education, if not supplemented by legis- 
 lation, is painfully slow. Moreover, without help 
 from legislation, any such education of children is 
 sure to be largely offset by the examples of their 
 elders and the allurements of the saloon. It be- 
 came clear to me that it was the saloon which kept 
 up and increased the liquor habit. The real prob- 
 lem is the problem of new recruits. We may well 
 forget the confirmed addict of this generation if we 
 can prevent others from taking his place in the next. 
 The great objective is to break the chain by which 
 the custom of drinking is passed on from generation 
 to generation. The use of liquor is no more natural 
 than the use of opium. When either is once dis- 
 continued it can stay discontinued. 
 
 As a practical student I reached the inevitable 
 conclusion that, besides education, there must be 
 some legislation to lessen, or abolish, the opportu- 
 nity of the saloon-keeper, the brewer, etc., to en- 
 snare new recruits. 
 
 Accordingly I studied the dispensary system and 
 other devices to remove or reduce the profit-motive 
 and diminish the advertising of liquors. These 
 devices have undoubtedly some value in Scandi- 
 navia, but are disappointing as a complete solution 
 of the problem. 
 
HOW I BECAME INTERESTED 5 
 
 Reluctantly Converted to Prohibition 
 
 At last I was reluctantly compelled to conclude 
 that Prohibition is the ultimate solution, when 
 public sentiment is adequate to enforce it. What 
 finally converted me was the experience of the West- 
 ern states which tried it. I was particularly im- 
 pressed by the experience of the State of Washing- 
 ton. Certain cities there voted against State Con- 
 stitutional Prohibition but were defeated by the 
 country districts. Later, however, when the inevi- 
 table attempt came to “modify,” and to permit so- 
 called “light wines and beer,” these same cities 
 voted dry! 
 
 The reason was the surprising prosperity which 
 followed State Prohibition. One city editor, who 
 had predicted business depression and had pointed 
 to definite saloon sites as destined to remain vacant 
 and for rent, had the manhood to confess his error 
 and advocate that Prohibition should remain unim- 
 paired. This sort of experience beat down my con- 
 servatism. I found then, as I have found since, that 
 we cautious Easterners have much to learn from the 
 venturesome West. 
 
 War Conference on Alcohol 
 
 A new impulse was given to my study of the 
 alcohol problem by the war. When the war broke 
 out, I offered my services to the Council of National 
 _ Defense. I expected to be assigned to some strictly 
 
6 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 economic task; but was asked to call a conference 
 on Alcohol to meet with the conference being called 
 by Colonel Snow on Venereal Disease, since Alcohol] 
 and Venereal Disease are always the twin obstacles 
 to the soldiers’ fitness to fight. 
 
 Accordingly, I called such a conference of leading 
 economists and physicians at the New Willard Hotel 
 in Washington in April, 1917. The conference rec- 
 ommended two war measures: 
 
 (1) The establishing of a Dry Zone around each 
 Army Cantonment, and 
 
 (2) War-time Prohibition. 
 
 The first recommendation was transmitted, 
 through various sub-committees, to the Council of 
 National Defense; was approved by the Council, 
 and was finally enacted into law. It was, I believe, 
 a very important factor in keeping up the efficiency 
 of our soldiers. 
 
 Brewers Block War-time Prohibition 
 
 The second recommendation, that for War-time 
 Prohibition, was likewise approved by the four suc- 
 cessive committees through which it had to pass on 
 its way to the Council of National Defense. Then 
 something happened! 
 
 The recommendation was scheduled to be pre- 
 sented to the Council on April 17, 1917, together 
 with that for a Dry Zone around the Cantonments. 
 The spokesman to present the matter was selected. 
 The small sub-committee that had it in charge met 
 
HOW I BECAME INTERESTED 7 
 
 a half-hour before the Council convened in order to 
 rehearse the program. 
 
 We were to have been met by Dr. Franklin Mar- 
 tin of the Council. He did not appear, however, 
 until the half-hour had expired. He then said, 
 cryptically, that only the Dry Zone recommenda- 
 tion could be presented. Thus War-time Prohibi- 
 tion went by the board—for the time. 
 
 Afterward, on inquiry, I learned what had hap- 
 pened. In the course of sounding out public opinion 
 I had sent several hundred telegrams to business 
 leaders and others, asking whether they favored 
 War-time Prohibition. Most business men, and 
 practically all economists, approved of Prohibition 
 as a war measure. It so happened that one of the 
 telegrams, reaching a business man who disapproved 
 of the proposal, was handed to a brewer. 
 
 The brewers’ forces had long been superbly organ- 
 
 ized for action and they proceeded at once to train 
 their machine-guns on the members of the Council 
 of National Defense. One member, Mr. Gompers, 
 I was told, received fifty telegrams in a single day, 
 protesting against any War-time Prohibition. Inti- 
 mations or threats were made that, if any such 
 action were taken, the Council of National Defense 
 would be put out of business. 
 
 Daniel Willard, chairman of the Council, though 
 personally favorable to Prohibition, felt it unwise, 
 as did others, to permit the matter to be presented, 
 and Dr. Martin was requested to call it off. 
 
8 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 The special interest of the brewers won against 
 the general interest of the nation. 
 
 Later, a permanent Sub-committee of the Council 
 was appointed on Alcohol, and I was made chair- 
 man. This Committee also favored War-time Pro- 
 hibition. But its recommendations had no chance 
 even to reach the Council. The brewers had effec- 
 tually blocked any such action. 
 
 Blocked Again by Filibuster 
 
 The result was that those favoring War-time Pro- 
 hibition—including the members of the Sub-commit- 
 tee just mentioned, namely, Dr. Haven Emerson, 
 Dr. Eugene L. Fisk, Professor Alonzo Taylor, Rev. 
 Charles Stelzle, and myself—took steps to press the 
 matter directly with Congress. This had already 
 been independently undertaken by the Anti-Saloon 
 League. 
 
 The importance of War-time Prohibition for food 
 conservation was conclusively proved, when Profes- 
 sor Alonzo Taylor showed that the barley used in 
 beer production destroyed potentially eleven million 
 loaves of bread a day. 
 
 In Congress the brewers’ opposition again pre- 
 sented itself. But, at last, Congressman Randall 
 succeeded in so amending the Lever Food bill as to 
 provide for War-time Prohibition. 
 
 This food bill, with the War-time Prohibition 
 amendment attached, passed the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, but was blocked in the Senate by the 
 brewing influences. The instant the House passed 
 
HOW I BECAME INTERESTED g 
 
 the bill, literally a trainload of brewers swarmed 
 into Washington. As was subsequently brought 
 out by a Senate investigation, the Washington 
 Times was bought almost overnight by a well- 
 known editor with money “loaned” to him, without 
 interest, by C. W. Feigenspan, President of the 
 United States Brewers Association (4, pp. 9-10). 
 Senator Penrose of Pennsylvania, a notorious Wet, 
 und others threatened to prevent the passage of the 
 food bill until, or unless, the War-time Prohibition 
 clause was eliminated, and they sought to conceal 
 their own guilt in delaying that measure by trying 
 to cast the responsibility for delay on the other side. 
 On one occasion Senator Penrose made a speech defi- 
 nitely accusing the Drys of delaying the passage of 
 the bill, whereupon Senator Sheppard, for the Drys, 
 stated that his side was ready for a vote then and 
 there, and moved for unanimous consent to take the 
 vote immediately. Senator Penrose looked sheep- 
 ishly around to find some friend willing to object to 
 such unanimous consent. But his friends merely 
 smiled at his predicament and he was forced, amid 
 laughter, to object himself and thereby to accept 
 the responsibility for delay. He knew that to pre- 
 vent a vote was, in fact, the only way to defeat War- 
 time Prohibition, for there were plenty of votes in 
 the Senate to pass it if it could be brought to a vote. 
 What was happening was what so often happens 
 in our Senate, with its antiquated rules making it 
 _ possible for a minority to block legislation by fili- 
 buster. When, as in war time, quick action is essen- 
 
10 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 tial, an unpatriotic and selfish minority has the 
 country by the throat. 
 
 It was imperative that the Lever Food bill should 
 be passed at once. The War-time Prohibition fea- 
 tures of the bill were important, but not so impor- 
 tant as other features. 
 
 It soon appeared that, in view of the attitude of 
 the Wets in the Senate, the food bill would be 
 delayed indefinitely unless the prohibition clauses 
 were eliminated. Accordingly, President Wilson re- 
 quested the Drys, through a letter addressed to the 
 Anti-Saloon League, to withdraw these prohibition 
 clauses. 
 
 I remember sitting up most of a June night in 
 1917 laboring with the Anti-Saloon League leaders 
 to persuade them to accede to the President’s re- 
 quest, in the interest of immediate food legislation, 
 and in the expectation of bringing up War-time 
 Prohibition again as a separate measure. 
 
 As is well known, the President’s request was 
 heeded. War-time Prohibition once more went 
 down to defeat. 
 
 It was the brewers, primarily, who had won; for 
 their influence had caused the filibuster that im- 
 pelled the President to make his request. 
 
 Brewers Hoist with Their Own Petard 
 It was as an indirect result of this second defeat of 
 War-time Prohibition that Constitutional Prohibi- 
 tion came about! The brewers found that, unwit- 
 
HOW I BECAME INTERESTED 11 
 
 tingly, they had jumped out of the frying pan into 
 the fire! 
 
 Personally I had been very reluctant to see Con- 
 stitutional Prohibition tried until War-time Prohi- 
 bition had been tried first. To me, Prohibition was, 
 and is, merely an experiment in the long fight 
 against alcohol; and I feared to see that experiment 
 tried permanently and irrevocably until after it had 
 been tested temporarily. 
 
 My own program and that of the committees with 
 which I had worked was to get War-time Prohibi- 
 tion enacted on its merits as a war measure for the 
 duration of the war, and for one year thereafter. 
 
 Then, on the basis of the record of War-time Pro- 
 hibition, and after all war hysteria was over, Per- 
 manent Prohibition might properly be submitted 
 to the people for their deliberate and final de- 
 cision. 
 
 But we all know what happens to the best laid 
 plans of mice and men. Neither my plans to take 
 one little step first, nor the brewers’ plans to crush 
 out all Prohibition, were to be realized. 
 
 National Prohibition Comes Too Soon 
 What actually happened was that Constitutional 
 Prohibition came first. The resolution submitting 
 it to the States passed the Senate August 1, 1917, 
 and the House December 18, 1917. 
 War-time Prohibition did come eventually. But 
 when it came not only had Constitutional Prohibi- 
 
12 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 tion been provided for, but the war itself was over} 
 President Wilson signed the bill November 21, 1918, 
 and the law became operative July 1, 1919. One 
 could scarcely imagine a more illogical program. 
 
 The reason was that the Senators who had acceded 
 to President Wilson’s request to withdraw the War- 
 time Prohibition clauses from the Food Act thereby 
 so disappointed and angered their dry constituents 
 that these Senators felt constrained to do something 
 to set themselves right. 
 
 And the Anti-Saloon League very astutely took 
 advantage of the situation to propose the Act sub- 
 mitting the Eighteenth Amendment. Other im- 
 portant agencies which helped to bring that 
 Amendment about were the Women’s Christian 
 Temperance Union, the various church temperance 
 organizations, especially the Methodist, the Metho- 
 dist Church South, the Baptist, and the Presby- 
 terian, the Order of Good Templars, and the Prohi- 
 bition party. 
 
 It was easy even for wet Senators to let this act 
 pass, on the theory that it did not really enact Pro- 
 hibition, but merely submitted it to the States, 
 
 The Act was passed and Constitutional Prohibi- 
 tion was on its way. 
 
 When three-quarters of the States had ratified, the 
 Amendment became a part of the Constitution. 
 But under it Prohibition was not to be effective until 
 one year later, namely, January 17, 1920. 
 
HOW I BECAME INTERESTED 13 
 
 War-time Prohibition After War Time 
 
 Meantime, the measure for War-time Prohibition 
 had been slowly making progress in Congress, in 
 spite of all the opposition and delays; and after the 
 Eighteenth Amendment was adopted and ratified 
 by the States that opposition became helpless. 
 
 The result was that, though the war was over, the 
 long pending War-time Prohibition bill was finally 
 passed as a means of filling in the gap between the 
 adoption of Constitutional Prohibition and its tak- 
 ing effect. 
 
 This was pretty hard on the brewers, who had 
 counted on a year’s breathing space; but the brewers 
 received and deserved scant sympathy at that junc- 
 ture. | 
 
 At a meeting in Atlantic City soon after these 
 events, Wayne B. Wheeler paid me the somewhat 
 doubtful compliment of having “done more to bring 
 about War-time Prohibition than any other man 
 who wears shoe leather.” ‘“War-time” Prohibition, 
 as such, never really existed. Nor did the act finally 
 passed, and called War-time Prohibition, ever serve 
 as a preliminary experiment by which we might 
 judge of the value of Permanent Prohibition. 
 
 Evidently Constitutional Prohibition came on 
 the country somewhat prematurely. That is to 
 say, it came before certain sections, notably the 
 East and the great cities, were prepared for it by 
 education. 
 
14 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 Why Turn Back Now? 
 
 But while, according to a logical program, Con- 
 stitutional Prohibition was premature, can we and 
 ought we, as a practical proposition, at this late 
 date, go back and begin all over, only to end, in 
 all probability, in Prohibition again at a later time, 
 after the uselessness of other, halfway, measures 
 shall have been demonstrated anew? 
 
 May it not be more practical to go forward instead 
 of backward, and to do now the educating after 
 Prohibition, which, by rights, should have been done 
 before Prohibition? 
 
 Certainly, before taking any radical step, we 
 ought to weigh carefully the facts presented to us 
 during the last six years. We must “face the facts” 
 —the facts good and bad, favorable and unfavor- 
 able, and be led by what they reveal. 
 
 That is the object of this book. If Prohibition 
 at its worst, during these first trying years when 
 New York, for instance, was far from ready for it, 
 and when, consequently, it has proved so bewilder- 
 ing and offensive to many good people, is neverthe- 
 less actually accomplishing its main purpose of sup- 
 pressing the saloon and lessening the use of alcohol, 
 we may well think twice before giving it up until 
 it is tried out further. 
 
 The most important question of fact is whether 
 the new recruits among the youth are more or less 
 numerous under Prohibition. In Chapter II new 
 evidence, never before presented, will be given on 
 this question. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 New Recruits AMonGc Drinkers FAuu OFF 
 
 Enter the Moderation League 
 
 During the last six years in which we have 
 been under National Prohibition, its imposition by 
 the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act 
 have won distinguished foes. The Moderation 
 League, which presented to the Senatorial Sub-com- 
 mittee on the Judiciary in Washington during 
 April, 1926, “A National Survey of Conditions under 
 Prohibition, 1925” (1, pp. 339-365),* unlike earlier 
 societies opposed to measures prohibiting or restrict- 
 ing the liquor traffic, is not made up of brewers 
 and distillers. However they might unwittingly be 
 subjected to the influences of the brewers, and, as 
 I shall show later, be used in their interest, the 
 eminent gentlemen of the Moderation League are 
 personally above reproach. 
 
 The chairman of the board of the Moderation 
 League is Austen G. Fox. On its executive committee 
 are able and distinguished men—E. N. Brown, Pres- 
 ident of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Com- 
 
 *For full references see “List of Authors and Titles” at end 
 
 - of book. 
 15 
 
16 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 pany; Franklin Remington, chairman of the board 
 of the Foundation Company, and George Zabriskie. 
 Among its members are John G. Agar, an eminent 
 lawyer; Dr. William H. Welch and Dr. Llewellys F. 
 Barker, of Johns Hopkins; Dr. Charles L. Dana, 
 neurologist; Gano Dunn, President of the J. G. 
 White Corporation; William N. Dykman, President 
 of the New York State Bar Association; the Right 
 Reverend Charles Fiske, Bishop of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church of Central New York; Haley 
 Fiske, President of the Metropolitan Life Insur- 
 ance Company; Dr. Samuel W. Lambert, formerly 
 Dean of the faculty, College of Physicians and Sur- 
 geons; Henry 8. Pritchett, President of the Car- 
 negie Foundation for the Advancement of Teach- 
 ing; James Speyer, banker; William C. Redfield, 
 Secretary of Commerce under President Wilson; 
 Dr. George David Stewart, President of the New 
 York Academy of Medicine, and Elihu Root, Sec- 
 retary of State under President Roosevelt (1, pp. 
 340-341). 
 
 This group of representative men has done a cour- 
 ageous thing, and what they have to say in separ 
 rating themselves from the position of support of 
 National Prohibition that is taken by the great 
 majority of the churches and their leaders, heads of 
 educational institutions, captains of finance and of 
 business, and administrative officers of the states 
 and nation, for their own sakes and in the public 
 Interest, merits careful attention. They state their 
 
NEW DRINKERS FALL OFF 17 
 
 aim to be, “The restoration of temperance” (1, p. 
 340). 
 
 In pointing to the admitted abuses under the Pro- 
 hibition law, they state that it lacks public support. 
 And they quote this pronouncement of Arthur 
 Twining Hadley, President Emeritus of Yale Uni- 
 versity: 
 
 When the people as a body are of an orderly 
 and law-abiding disposition and the methods of 
 government are defective, it is often more im- 
 portant to focus public opinion on these defects 
 and correct them than to try to persuade the 
 nation to accept laws which do not have public 
 opinion behind them (1, p. 341). 
 
 Moreover, they present the following passage 
 from the address by President Calvin Coolidge to 
 the American Bar Association, August 10, 1922: 
 
 In a republic the law reflects, rather than 
 makes, the standard of conduct. The attempt 
 to dragoon the body when the need is to con- 
 vince the soul will end only in revolt. 
 
 And they cite this conclusion from the report of 
 the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in Amer- 
 ica (2, p. 65), dated September, 1925: 
 
 If infractions of the law incident to the retail | 
 trade in liquor should continue on the present 
 scale, nothing but a sweeping change in public 
 opinion can prevent the effectual nullification 
 of the National Prohibition Act* (1, p. 341). 
 
 * This Report was not accepted by some of the largest Denom- 
 inations of the Federal Council of Churches, notably the Metho- 
 . dists and Baptists. 
 
18 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 The eminent gentlemen of the Moderation 
 League, and the important body of public opinion 
 in all walks of life to which they appeal, may not 
 have observed with patience, or at all, the later dec- 
 laration made by the administrative committee of 
 the Federal Council of Churches, in October, 1925: 
 
 That the policy of Prohibition is the delib- 
 erately and permanently established policy of 
 this nation; that this policy has not failed, but 
 on the contrary has already yielded results 
 which fully justify its adoption; that the liquor 
 traffic and the saloon must not come back again; 
 and that the churches must set themselves with 
 new purpose to see that Prohibition is enforced 
 by law and sustained by the national conscience. 
 
 “Face the Facts” 
 
 The Association Against the Prohibition Amend- 
 ment and the Moderation League tell us to “face 
 the facts.” So be it. To be mentally honest, we 
 must frankly face all the facts. Some of these are 
 not pleasant for Prohibitionists to face; others are 
 not pleasant for its opponents. There seem to me 
 to be nine great facts, or groups of facts, to face. 
 These constitute the outline of this book: 
 
 (1) The present situation of imperfect enforce- 
 ment is intolerable. 
 
 (2) Conditions are not, however, as bad as com- 
 monly represented. 
 
 (3) Prohibition has accomplished much good, 
 hygienically, economically, and socially. 
 
NEW DRINKERS FALL OFF 19 
 
 (4) The “personal liberty” argument is largely 
 illusory. 
 
 (5) We cannot accomplish what the opponents 
 of Prohibition really want by amending the Vol- 
 stead Act, without thereby violating the Eighteenth 
 Amendment. 
 
 (6) To repeal the Eighteenth Amendment is out 
 of the question. 
 
 (7) To nullify it would mean disrespect for law 
 of the most demoralizing kind. 
 
 (8) Therefore the only practicable solution is to 
 enforce the law. 
 
 (9) Enforcement is a practical possibility. 
 
 I shall take up these nine points in their order. 
 As to the first point—that is, the seriousness of the 
 present situation—I have nothing to add to what the 
 Moderation League presented in its summing up 
 before the Senate Sub-committee on the Judiciary, 
 together with such facts as were brought before 
 the Sub-committee as to defects in law enforcement. 
 These were presented by Federal District Attorney 
 Emory R. Buckner, Senator William C. Bruce of 
 Maryland, Senator Edge of New Jersey, and others. 
 When referred to in these pages these facts will not 
 be scanted. 
 
 The Moderation League Exaggerates 
 
 We turn here to the second point. What the 
 public most lacks is sufficiently striking evidence 
 
20 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 that an exaggerated impression has been created 
 as to the alleged failure of Prohibition. Some peo- 
 ple now imagine that we actually have more drink- 
 ing, drunkenness, crime, vice, corruption, and dis- 
 respect for law than before Prohibition. These 
 people have certainly been misled, and I have care- 
 fully ascertained in what manner they and the emi- 
 nent members of the Moderation League have been 
 misled. It is unfortunate that the League’s mem- 
 bers failed to consult a professor of mathematical 
 statistics before lending the prestige of their names 
 to the figures of Mr. Shirk. 
 
 Stanley Shirk, research director of the Moderation 
 League, is a lawyer who evidently needs statistical 
 training. The chief exhibit of his report, as spon- 
 sored by the Moderation League, charts the arrests 
 for drunkenness in 350 cities and towns of the 
 United States from 1914 to 1920, inclusive. The 
 curve of Mr. Shirk’s chart covers the period of the 
 licensed saloon from 1914 to 1916, inclusive; of war- 
 time restrictions of alcoholic beverages from 1917 
 to 1919, inclusive, and, under the National Prohibi- 
 tion law, of the first five full years of its applica- 
 tion. With the extent of accuracy of this chart and 
 of companion exhibits, I shall deal in the next 
 chapter. 
 
 Repeaters and First Offenders 
 Among all of his exhibits and charts Mr. Shirk 
 has failed to separate the records of first convic- 
 tions for drunkenness from those of confirmed 
 
NEW DRINKERS FALL OFF 21 
 
 drunkards—old rounders and “repeaters” who may 
 be expected to persist in their potations under any 
 and all difficulties until they sink into pauperdom 
 and death. These habitués will get bootleg liquor 
 anyhow, if it can be got at all. 
 
 But what about the first convictions of offenders 
 —mostly young offenders—during the years of war- 
 time restriction and National Prohibition? Do the 
 court records show that they have increased or 
 diminished? 
 
 I am indebted to Karl G. Karsten, one of the 
 best American statistical authorities, for suggesting 
 a very simple test as to the effectiveness of Pro- 
 hibition. In New York, which many account the 
 wettest city in the United States, with a population 
 greater than that of several states, computations, 
 made for me, from data of the Fingerprint Bureau,* 
 
 New York City Magistrates Court, show a steady 
 
 *Tt is fortunate that the fingerprinting of all this class of 
 offenders became the invariable practice in Greater New York, 
 beginning with the year 1913; for it gives a consecu‘ive record 
 through the three important periods of the licensed saloon, war- 
 time restrictions of the sale of alcoholic beverages, and National 
 Prohibition, as charted by Mr. Shirk. We have thus a record of 
 first, second, and third convictions for drunkenness throughout 
 these periods, which becomes increasingly valuable as the years 
 progress. It is conceivable that this record might be affected by 
 the inclusion, as “first convictions,’ during 1913 and immediately 
 succeeding years, of offenders who had really been convicted for 
 drunkenness prior to the inception of fingerprinting. That would 
 add to the totals of first convictions during the first years, making 
 the contrast too sharp with the lessening of first offenders under 
 war-time restrictions and National Prohibition. But a series of 
 technical statistical tests indicates that this influence (the listing 
 under first convictions of some who had been convicted prior to 
 1913) had substantially disappeared by 1916, 
 
22 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 and pronounced decrease of first offenders (as indi- 
 cated by convictions for drunkenness for the first 
 time), from 24 per 10,000 population for the year 
 1914, to only 6 per 10,000 population for the year 
 1925! 
 
 They show that, for the year 1916, the number of 
 first offenders per 10,000 population of New York 
 City was 19. Then the war-time restrictions came. 
 The number of first offenders fell to 14 per 10,000 
 population in 1917; to 7 in 1918, and 6 in 1919. In 
 1920, the first year of National Prohibition, the first 
 offenders were 7 per 10,000 population; in 1921, 7; 
 in 1922, 9; in 1923, 9; in 1924, 8, and in 1925, as 
 already stated, they fell below 6 per 10,000 popula- 
 tion (see Chart 1). 
 
 The confirmed drinker is a focus of infection 
 spreading the drink habit. Yet every repeater in 
 the record of arrests for drunkenness is revealed 
 during this period as a steadily weakening factor 
 of such infection up to 1925, the last year avail- 
 able. 
 
 In 1916 the number of first offenders was 10,126 
 in a population of 5,312,000; in 1925, the population 
 had grown to 6,252,000; yet the number of first 
 offenders fell to 3,517; while the total number of 
 convictions in these two periods was 16,355 and 
 6,816, respectively. 
 
 Out of every 100 convictions for drunkenness in 
 the year 1916, 62 were of first offenders and 38 of 
 repeaters; but in 1925, out of 100 convictions, only 
 
2 
 
 80. | 
 
 otto tate® 
 
 70. |: 
 
 PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
 
 
 
 
 
 bh Ae te Sad, bax et LAr aD omy tons tt ea Del it pad pt pier fa ee CICELY Be See to B hd etd ot ing flr pt 
 SLIT ISL ISLET TESS TEEPE LEE PLP ELE Ske set hE Po PA Pi 
 ePIC EIA PI EE Soil te DP AA at 
 
 *-.. 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 
 Number of First Convictions 
 12585 1135110126 7789 4076 38460 3854 4118 5276 6152 4687 36517 
 
 Rate per 10,000 population 
 and per cent of the 1916 Level (19.1) 
 PTAC o 1 1A AY F245 1662.06.38 Tid VE8L98 8.8 7.67 15.6 
 (128)(113)100 75 39 832 836 37 47 45 40 29 
 
 i. DRUNEENNESS DIES DOWN AMONG FIRST 
 OFFENDERS 
 in New York City 
 
 (First convictions for offense of intoxication per 10,000 population. 
 thd Fingerprint Bureau, City Magistrates Court, New York 
 ty. 
 
 This chart shows that the spread of intemperate drinking is dying 
 down among those who are not already addicted. Recruiting for 
 the army of habitual drunkards is falling off and this is the great 
 fact to be remembered about Prohibition. The addicts themselves 
 are also dying out rapidly. 
 
24 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 51 were first offenders, while 49 were of recidivists, 
 that is, repeaters. 
 
 Even Repeaters Are Fewer 
 
 The number of repeaters as shown by the number 
 of convictions for drunkenness for the second time, 
 fell from 2,290 in 1916 to 1,138 in 1925, while, in 
 proportion to population, the fall was even greater. 
 
 The number of third convictions is of less impor- 
 tance, but also shows a decline during this period, as 
 there were 1,139 convictions for drunkenness for the 
 third time in 1916 and only 530 in 1925. © 
 
 Will the eminent gentlemen of the Moderation 
 League ponder these figures? Could a more typical, 
 complete, and convincing single demonstration be 
 nade of the rapidly weakening influence of the liquor 
 traffic and the liquor habit upon the much-maligned 
 flaming youth of this country, including our girls, 
 than this record achieved in wet New York City? 
 For there it was that the Old Guard of the liquor 
 traffic succeeded in 1923 in hamstringing enforce- 
 ment by the repeal of the Mullen-Gage law, sadly 
 impairing any local codperation with the Prohibi- 
 tion officers of the Federal Government. 
 
 If, under the severe tests obtaining in New York 
 City, we find no justification for the loud claim that 
 drunkenness in general, youthful drunkenness, and 
 female drunkenness are increasing; but, instead, 
 find that first offenders or first convictions have 
 dwindled to less than a third of the pre-prohibition 
 
NEW DRINKERS FALL OFF 25 
 
 numbers, and even convictions of old offenders di- 
 minished from 1916 to 1925, by more than one-half 
 —the main contention of the Wets collapses at the 
 start. 
 
 The startling fact stands out, of primary impor- 
 tance, that, even in New York City, Prohibition 
 has succeeded in weakening, if not breaking, the 
 chain of tradition by which the alcohol habit has, 
 for ages, been handed down from each generation 
 to the next. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 SHIRK, STATISTICIAN 
 
 A Chart Without a Base-line 
 
 I have intimated that Mr. Shirk’s judgment and 
 skill in presenting a statistical survey of the record 
 of National Prohibition are faulty, and I have given 
 a crucial case of the curbing of the liquor traffic 
 and liquor habits in New York City during the 
 periods of war-time restriction and National Pro- 
 hibition. I have shown that the new recruits, of 
 the rising generation, no longer swell the drink army. 
 If the experience of that great city can be regarded 
 as affording a cross-section of the good and bad of 
 Prohibition enforcement in the nation, then Mr. 
 Shirk’s figures and conclusions are very sadly at 
 fault, and exaggerate his case exceedingly; for the 
 conclusion he draws from his chart of arrests for 
 drunkenness in 350 cities and towns of the United 
 States is that 
 
 “during the severe bone-dry years of the Vol- 
 stead act, there was such an astonishing increase 
 that drunkenness just about reached the level 
 of the old saloon years by 1924” (1, p. 342). 
 
 Mr. Shirk’s chart (Chart 2), is perhaps uninten- 
 tionally deceptive because it lacks a base-line; thus 
 26 
 
‘ . 
 APRS SW Oe ee ofthe 
 
 ACN ATIONALOR ELV EY OF Chan ore1ONy bolts 
 
 ~-CRUNKENNESS ON TSE UNITED STATES: 
 ac 3 
 
 ZHERESTS FOR ONTOR'Z ATION OR BHO PL es 
 
 OO a wE— 
 
 © Moderahous League (ined. lheorearatee si 
 
 Aas 8 
 Nes Sar 
 
 time: ‘Pine restoration of tert cen. « 
 
 
 
 2. MISLEADING DIAGRAM PRESENTED BY THE “WETS” 
 Before the Senatorial Investigators at Washington 
 
 (Reprinted from page 340 of “fhe National Prohibition Law,” report 
 of hearing before the Sub-committee of the Committee on the Judi- 
 Soak) United States Senate, 69th Congress, First Session, April 5-24, 
 1926. 
 
 The population of the United States keeps growing at the rate of about 
 14% a year; each decade it increases almost 15%. For the urban 
 population, because the cities are growing more rapidly, this increase 
 is probably even greater, and any comparison of arrests for drunken- 
 ness at the beginning and end of a decade is misleading which does 
 not take into account this normal growth of population. The Modera- 
 tion League has presented just such a misleading picture in the diagram 
 reproduced above. It may be added that the chart is also misleading 
 because the zero line has been omitted and the lower half of the 
 chart is cut away, so as to give the impression that the low point in 
 the curve is a much smaller quantity compared with the high points 
 before and after than it really is. The third count against this 
 exhibit is that it includes statistics for about fifty cities, which have 
 not been authorized and in some cases have been definitely repudiated 
 by the local police authorities, 
 
28 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 the curve for the period of war-time restrictions and 
 for the first year of National Prohibition makes the | 
 arrests seem to come down at first, to almost no 
 arrests for drunkenness, whereas in actual fact these 
 fell only somewhat below one-half. Thereafter, in 
 the years 1921 to 1924, Mr. Shirk draws the line of 
 arrests much higher than it should rise, because he 
 fails wholly to allow for increase in population dur- 
 ing this interval. 
 
 No Allowance for Increased Toxicity 
 
 Another factor might be emphasized as affecting 
 his conclusion. ‘The intensely poisonous qualities 
 of bootleg liquor, as attested at the Washington 
 hearings by Assistant Secretary Andrews, in charge 
 of Federal Prohibition enforcement, by Senator 
 Reed of Missouri, and generally by the wet wit- 
 nesses, must result in a greater number of cases 
 of intoxication in proportion to the total number of 
 drinkers than in the pre-prohibition period. I 
 understand that the ratio of toxicity of bootleg 
 liquors to that of medicinal liquors dispensed by 
 government permit is being worked out by Professor 
 A. O. Gettler of Bellevue Hospital, New York City, 
 under the auspices of the Federal Prohibition 
 authorities. Pending publication of this ratio, I am 
 credibly informed that a very conservative reckoning 
 would set the poisonous effects of bootleg beverages 
 as compared with medicinal liquors at ten to one; 
 that is, 1t requires only a tenth as much of bootleg 
 liquor as of pre-prohibition liquor to produce a given 
 
SHIRK, STATISTICIAN 29 
 
 degree of drunkenness. The reason, of course, is 
 that bootleg liquor is so concentrated and almost 
 invariably contains other and more deadly poisons 
 than mere ethyl alcohol. It would seem to follow 
 that the drinker of bootleg liquor, blissfuly unaware 
 of its composition, drinks much more poison than he 
 realizes. “Temperance” is all but impossible and 
 drunkenness all but inevitable. If, say, out of a 
 given number of drinkers twice as many now get 
 drunk on bootleg liquor as used to on pre-prohibition 
 liquor, we should expect twice as many arrests as 
 formerly even if the number of drinkers were the 
 same. Put in another way, even if the number of 
 drinkers were reduced one half by Prohibition, the 
 number of arrests for drunkenness would remain the 
 same. 
 
 The same tendency (for a greater number of 
 arrests out of a given number of drinkers) is evi- 
 dently brought about by the well known fact that 
 Prohibition has been more effective in suppressing 
 the drinking of beer than of whisky. Other things 
 equal, more arrests must result from the stronger 
 drinks. We know that in spite of this shift, rela- 
 tively, from beer to “whisky,” and in spite of the 
 increased toxicity of the “whisky,” there has been a 
 great reduction in the number of arrests for drunk- 
 enness. It follows, therefore, since the arrests to- 
 day represent a larger fraction of the drinkers, that 
 there has been a still greater reduction in drinking. 
 
 Manifestly, then, Mr. Shirk’s conclusions as to the 
 actual number of drinkers per arrest for drunken- 
 
30 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 ness must be radically altered by this factor of ten- 
 fold toxicity. 
 
 His Original Data Untrustworthy 
 
 Finally, I have special evidence as regards the 
 accuracy of Mr. Shirk’s original data. Aside from 
 the figures of 300 cities and towns which he accepts 
 from the World League Against Alcoholism, he has 
 gathered independently records of arrests in 157 
 more cities, some 50 of which are mingled with the 
 original 300 in this chart, and all of them in sub- 
 sidiary charts. When I caused inquiries to be sent 
 to the police departments of these 157 extra cities 
 and towns as to the accuracy of Mr. Shirk’s figures, 
 in a large percentage of cases the police heads 
 declared them to be inaccurate and unverifiable. 
 Specimen testimony to this effect is reproduced in 
 facsimile, in Exhibit I. 
 
 Ordinarily a conscientious statistician would reject 
 figures the accuracy of which is largely questioned 
 at their sources. But for the sake of argument, I 
 shall next present the record as the Wets see it 
 at its worst. I shall take the statistics prepared, 
 or sponsored, by the eminent gentlemen of the 
 Moderation League, and show what becomes of 
 them when correctly set forth. 
 
 No Allowance Even for Increased Population 
 Passing over the omission of a base-line and 
 the factor of increased toxicity, and passing over 
 
‘IMOYS O10 SOFMBYO Of} OPEUI SAVY SJOIO 9dI10d oT, ‘WONMVOYIIOA Joy JSonbal B YAK SJoryo sdtfod oy} 
 0} JU0S T9Y} VIOM SUIIOJ OUT, ‘“SMIIOJ Av[NSe1 UOdN SuljJAMpuvy Ul potojus dle SoInsy YIIYS ey ‘ssouusayuNap 
 AO} §$}8011B JO saIn3y HIyY_ og} Jo Aovinoowe oy} SulUssou0I SopAinbuy 0} Sjoryo sojjod mous Seljder AUB Jo OAL, 
 
 I LISIOXS 
 
 POTYEBMT YOY Lraam ; 
 Fost ANT. pos rr 
 
 *OWOTIPIOTA STJswrL *uoTs 07x04 OE ‘Geervy ty *SUOTAPTOTA OFIZVIS PuoTEBOTTOzuy *gosnea Ilv 
 'mu0d re ONL Ad gavn eismae Ey i 
 
 tgouog HOITOL SAL Aa COMM Sismmy: 
 j 7 Ay W. aie pager bai o3939 
 ’ 
 4, 
 
 
 
32 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 the fact that the data are, in many cases, unveri- © 
 fiable and repudiated at the source, I believe the 
 gentlemen of the Moderation League cannot object 
 to my subjecting Mr. Shirk’s crude figures to one 
 simple, ordinary statistical rule of correction; 
 namely, that for increase of population during the 
 period of years they cover. Chart 3 shows arrests 
 for drunkenness, according to Mr. Shirk’s figures, 
 after making correction for this single factor. It 
 will be seen that it changes immediately the curve 
 of arrests from 1914 to 1924, inclusive, showing a 
 net decrease per 100,000 of population. 
 
 No Allowance for Stricter Enforcement 
 
 The next correction is one which I will not insist 
 on, although it is based on an estimate* of a known 
 increased severity of arrests for drunkenness dur- 
 ing the periods of war-time restrictions and National 
 Prohibition and, without such a correction, Mr. 
 Shirk’s figures are of little statistical worth. The 
 question as to whether the police are now more 
 thorough in their task of arresting drunken persons 
 under Prohibition than in the free-and-easy times of 
 
 * Robert E. Corradini estimates the percentage of arrests for 
 drunkenness, as attested by police heads, at 40 per cent in pre- 
 prohibition years, and 90 per cent during the latest years of 
 National Prohibition. As Mr. Corradini’s statistics of drunken- 
 ness arrests, gathered from the police departments of 626 Amer- 
 ican cities and towns, are generally regarded as standard, I have 
 
 adopted this estimate, provisionally, in correcting the totals of 
 arrests in Mr. Shirk’s tables. 
 
100. 
 
 
 
 
 90- 
 
 80. 
 
 70- 
 
 60- 
 
 50- 
 
 40. 
 
 30- 
 
 20- 
 
 PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
 
 10- 
 
 
 
 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 19. 
 Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
 607 607 6539 521 406 298 226 3807 413 484 499 
 
 Arrests per 1000 population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (19.0) 
 LOLOL. OTL G.e (hoe Ose) I eekit oan 42.81 U4 SIA 
 100 97 103 96 73 52 37 49 65 75 "4 
 rer ree err a aD 
 
 3. ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS ARE MUCH 
 BELOW OLD LEVEL 
 in 349 cities selected by the Moderation League 
 
 (Total number of arrests in 349 cities selected by the Modera- 
 tion League based upon reports from police departments in 
 about 300 cities and reports collected by the Moderation 
 League in about 50 cities. The statistics of the number of 
 arrests are Shirk’s and cover 350 cities including Chicago, 
 where disorderly conduct is not separated from drunkenness. 
 The figures of arrests per 1000 population and the chart 
 have been corrected to exclude Chicago.) 
 
 Per capita drunkenness is falling off at a rate which is only 
 hinted at by this chart, which compares only arrests before 
 the war (when perhaps two out of five persons were 
 arrested) with conditions at present (when nine out of ten 
 are being arrested.) Yet even in this obviously unfair com- 
 parison it is clear that Prohibition has reduced the number 
 of drunken persons arrested upon our streets by one out 
 of every four that used to be arrested. Previous charts 
 have already shown that a growing proportion of these 
 arrests are for ‘‘repeaters’—habitual drunkards—and that 
 the new recruits to this class of offenders are rapidly dis- 
 appearing, 
 
34 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 the licensed saloon, seems never to have occurred 
 to Mr. Shirk. 
 
 In Exhibit II appear fac-similes of the signed 
 statements of police heads of various cities, testi- 
 fying to the increased severity of arrests for drunk- 
 enness during the Prohibition period. 
 
 Chart 4 has been prepared to give the most prob- 
 able picture of the statistics of arrests for drunken- 
 ness in their relation to the changed habits of the 
 American people, as based on the figures of Mr. 
 Shirk’s report for 350 cities and corrected for the 
 factors of increased population, and increased police 
 severity in making arrests. 
 
 Shirk on Indiana 
 
 Next let us scrutinize some of Mr. Shirk’s special 
 favorites among his statistics. In the report of the 
 survey which he conducted for the eminent gentle- 
 men of the Moderation League this passage occurs: 
 
 Indiana is a sample of one of these re- 
 strictive states. Until 1918 the state was partly 
 under license and partly under local option. In 
 April, 1918, there became effective a statewide 
 semi-prohibition law under which it was lawful 
 to make wine and cider and to bring liquor into 
 the state for personal use. Conditions were 
 comparatively good. Drunkenness was prac- 
 tically stationary in 1914 and 1915, increased 
 with the war boom in 1916, and then dropped 
 sharply with the war-time restrictions. But 
 under the drastic Volstead act drunkenness in- 
 
iy yyy yyy 
 
 PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
 
 
 
 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 
 Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
 507 607 5389 6521 406 298 226 3807 413 484 499 
 
 Arrests per 1000 population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (19.0) 
 DSC ASO L008 18.0) 1 O00 9.0) else) Oo. ont Locos a 4.0) 04.2: 
 OO Coe k0o gn on tony Da are S00 GS 75 Tee 
 
 Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
 Havoc wos Pebas (ba TOS OS 6479790 90 
 Probable total cases of Intoxication 
 (per 1000 population) 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level ee ade 
 Pomeauwe ota OD 8 260 18138 Se eb 16 O16 
 i00 98 103 97 73 52 837 41 44 48 ae 
 
 4. DRUNKENNESS LESS ar ae ONE HALF OF 
 WHAT IT WA 
 in 349 cities selected by the Moderation League 
 
 (Arrests for intoxication in 349 cities selected by the Modera- 
 tion League, as reported by the police departments in about 
 300 cities and by the Moderation League in the remaining 
 cities. Also probable number of cases of intoxication in 
 these cities, as computed from Robert A. Corradini’s esti- 
 mates of the percentage arrested of all cases of intoxication. 
 For the previously “wet” states this is 40% in 1920 and 
 previously, 55% in 1921, 75% in 1922, and 90% in 1923 
 and thereafter; for the previously “dry” states it is 90% 
 throughout. The percentage here used is a composite series 
 proportionately adjusted to the wet and dry cities in the 
 group.) 
 
 The number of arrests for drunkenness has little signifi- 
 cance except as it throws light on the actual extent of 
 drunkenness, that is, the total number of cases of intoxi- 
 cation. When the change in the_ percentage actually 
 arrested before and after Prohibition is taken into account, 
 the marked improvement after Prohibition is clear. 
 
Tae 
 phe ye 
 
 fie 
 OOH 
 
 pple wt pt A aE eaa! £ 
 t& ao isa anes 
 
 “WA ‘DENGNOSIMUYH AC ALID 
 LNSBWL2HNVd3Sa 35170d 
 
 
 
 kon, JT exunsp yng LRomsARDg soaie 4rz 0 03 tere 238 8 aaa 40 on 
 NOO S4uem{tude, EOF [Or eye ACTITQHNOTT 03 TOT. 
 vt I zz Sy 4 ive 0 
 eguz aiet se TZ TUIA SMOSTSTD SHY CT HOTIT zodoad ay execs 
 = e 
 
 9 
 ee poahe a h “aotaernotee 
 Zee T Ue ony 4¥ Lop B Tarp ost 3a8 6M BKOOTES OST : 
 "oa 
 Dey em [I6t FF BIST "Putas OOT V¥R OM ETST 09 sOTIZ 
 
 ce thes eel tay0 peas tfec #3939 
 
 ‘smos19d weyUNIp prvMo. dsaTTod 
 6q} Jo Adyjod pesueqd 04} 0} BUTAJI}ISO} SOTZID SNOIIBA Ul ad1]0d Jo SjorqO WOdJ 819}}9] [BoTdA} ANOJ Jo uoPJONpordel 9 
 
 IX LIMIBSS 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pa Lee T7 OF Sry ane ag neseshfaxt Se 
 
 ow 2 SF py toy 809g 0H" aa UW 
 
 Lore vr si € segert) 77 F21 SLE etvt 
 
 AER 
 
SHIRK, STATISTICIAN 37 
 
 creased by 1924 far above anything ever known 
 in Indiana before (1, p. 348). 
 
 Mr. Shirk’s spurious curve of increased drunken- 
 ness arrests for Indiana is reproduced in Chart 5. 
 The upward trend of the curve for the National Pro- 
 hibition period is by no means wholly due to Mr. 
 Shirk’s habit of failing to apply the factors of cor- 
 rection for population and police severity of Prohibi- 
 tion arrests. Omitting the figures for arrests in In- 
 dianapolis, Chart 6, which shows totals of arrests 
 for drunkenness for the whole state of Indiana out- 
 side that city, entirely reverses Mr. Shirk’s picture. 
 
 Shirk on Chicago 
 
 Mr. Shirk’s figures of arrests for drunkenness in 
 Chicago also were scouted by Mayor Dever of that 
 city (1, p. 1380), as only indicating, according to the 
 mayor’s testimony, “how worthless such figures are. 
 There are no such records as arrests for drunkenness 
 in Chicago,’ he went on to say. “And disorderly 
 conduct is a dragnet for almost everything—neigh- 
 borhood brawls, quarrels, and even traffic law viola- 
 tions, as well as larceny, assaults, and everything 
 along that line is termed disorderly conduct and 
 punishable as such. We have no records of drunk- 
 enness at all.” Yet Mr. Shirk’s total of 86,000 arrests 
 for disorderly conduct in Chicago in 1924, although 
 tagged by himself “disorderly conduct,” are never- 
 theless entered as drunkenness arrests in his aggre- 
 - gate totals, on which his chart is based! 
 
Endiana is 8 sample of one of ah -e 
 
 i fntil 1918 the: State 
 
 p: urtly under license and partly an er 
 alo ition, In April, nite ee he 
 
 ornativalive sti nary: in 1914: eee “1915 
 
 e reased. ‘with the war. boom in 1916; and: | 
 d-sharply: with thewar-time —} 
 But under od 
 
 
 
 5. ANOTHER MISLEADING DIAGRAM PUBLISHED BY 
 THE MODERATION LEAGUE 
 
 (Chart, and comment thereon, submitted to the Senatorial Investigating 
 Committee by Stanley Shirk and published in “The National Prohibi- 
 tion Law,” page 343, Hearings before the Sub-committee of the Com- 
 mittee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-ninth Congress, 
 First Session, April 5-24, 1926.) 
 
 This chart is deceptive and misleading in the same way as the other 
 chart shown by Mr. Shirk. The data for the chart include the city 
 of Indianapolis, and for this city Mr. Shirk’s figures allege that 
 arrests for intoxication are nearly five times as great as they were 
 before Prohibition. These amazing figures which would seem to mark 
 out Indianapolis as a city without parallel in the United States, 
 appear to have no official support whatever, the police department of 
 that city claiming that no figures are available. Moreover, the author 
 of this chart has failed to convert his data to a per capita basis, in 
 order to allow for normal population growth. lLastly, the chart fails 
 to show the zero line; by omitting more than half of the lower part 
 of the chart, an exaggerated impression of the relatively slight changes 
 which have taken place is given. The accompanying text is exhibited 
 here also in order to show the misleading comment and the interpreta- 
 tion which was made of this chart. Ben if Mr. Shirk’s figures were 
 correct, and correctly presented, they certainly could not be considered 
 a fair “sample” of “restrictive states” or anything else. They are 
 freak figures and how Mr, Shirk came by them is 2 mystery, 
 
190. 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 GAIN SINCE PROHIBITION 
 
 = 
 
 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 920 1921 1922 1923 1924 
 Arrests in thousands 
 Bi4g 4 Ont eG. 4 4a Ome Om 2. 41a 4. eG, 4.4. 
 
 Arrests per 1000 population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (17.1) 
 Gta oo LO Om Leb 950m bot. 0l 9 6.0m 11 466 42 
 —96_ 93 111 103_53_ 30_29 35 _64 85 _83_ 
 
 Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
 LOR eO a0 a4 Ob OV GO eiTO> VS Ose 90 900 9.0 
 
 Probable total cases of Intoxication 
 (per 1000 population) 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (42.6) 
 £10040.) 48 44). °18 8 7 8 LoL GUS LG 
 SG6Ne0G ne L117 1039) 42)° 20) 1718) 29) 238" .S7 
 
 6 DRUNKENNESS PROBABLY RECEDES IN 
 INDIANA 
 
 omitting Indianapolis, for which figures are unavailable 
 
 (Arrests for intoxication in 12 cities having an aggregate 
 population of 402,000 in 1920, as reported by police depart- 
 ments in 8 cities and compiled by the Moderation League 
 in 4 more. Also, the probable total cases of intoxication 
 in these citics.) 
 
 Correcting Mr. Shirk’s figures for Indiana by omitting 
 Indianapolis, we find that the state has followed the usual 
 course after Prohibition, at first with a great reduction in 
 the number of arrests; then, as police activity becomes more 
 drastic, an increase in the rate of arrests per capita, 
 approaching but not reaching the Pre-prohibition Level, with 
 a peak in 1923 and a renewed decline thereafter. Applying 
 very moderate estimates of the percentage arrested shows 
 us that the probable total cases of intoxication in this state 
 is doubtless no greater than in neighboring states, and 
 probably amounts to no more than 40 per cent. 
 
40 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 The conclusion is forced upon us that Mr. Shirk’s 
 statistics are unreliable as well as wrongly treated 
 and interpreted. 
 
 His Main Chart, Corrected 
 
 As his main exhibit consists of the statistics of 
 arrests for drunkenness in 350 cities, I will close this 
 criticism by referring to Chart 3 for those 350 cities, 
 and emphasize its teachings. 
 
 Chart 3 tells us that, without taking into account. 
 any correction except that for increase of popula- 
 tion between 1914 and 1924, inclusive, we have the 
 following striking results: 
 
 With the population of the 349 cities (excluding 
 Chicago) increasing from 24,000,000 in 1914 to 
 29,000,000 in 1924, on this reckonmg there were 
 189 arrests per 10,000 of population for drunken- 
 ness in 1914 in these 349 places; 185 arrests in 1915; 
 195 in 1916; 183 in 1917; 138 under war-time restric- 
 tions in 1918; 98 in 1919, during half of which War- 
 time Prohibition prevailed; 71 in 1920, and 141 in 
 1924.* 
 
 If the ratio of arrests for drunkenness during 1916, 
 the last year of the saloon era, had prevailed dur- 
 
 * Dr. Clarence True Wilson, General Secretary of the Board of 
 Temperance, Prohibition and Public Morals of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, has anticipated me in presenting a similar 
 correction of a smaller group comprising the principal American 
 cities, which had been offered as a damning array by Senator 
 
 Bruce of Maryland before the Senate Sub-committee (1, p. 
 1151-2). 
 
SHIRK, STATISTICIAN 41 
 
 ing the period of the Volstead Act, according to this 
 single correction for population instead of the total 
 of 1,928,081 arrests given in Mr. Shirk’s table, there 
 would have been 2,730,000 arrests, or 801,019 more 
 arrests than the total claimed by Mr. Shirk. 
 
 With this single correction of its main exhibit, 
 overlooking stricter enforcement, I believe the mem- 
 bers of the executive committee of the Moderation 
 League would hardly have authorized Mr. Shirk 
 to spread it upon the records of the United States 
 Senate as evidence against the effectiveness of the 
 Volstead Act during the first years of its application. 
 
 _ Corradini’s Figures 
 
 Leaving Mr. Shirk entirely, and substituting for 
 his statistics those of Mr. Corradini, a careful statis- 
 tician, I present Chart 7. 
 
 Chart 7 gives a truer picture of arrests for drunk- 
 enness in the United States during the period cov- 
 ered by Mr. Shirk’s chart of 350 cities; for Chart 7 
 uses the verified totals of arrests for drunkenness in 
 626 cities gathered by Mr. Corradini for the World 
 League Against Alcoholism. Within the dotted line 
 of this chart is the estimate of drunkenness in these 
 cities corrected for increased police severity in 
 arrests. 
 
 What is not debatable is: 
 
 1. That there has been a very substantial reduc- 
 tion in arrests for drunkenness and 
 
 2. A still greater reduction in drinking. 
 
42 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 How Much Alcohol Is Really Consumed? 
 
 Mr. Emory R. Buckner, United States District 
 Attorney in New York, presented estimates to the 
 Sub-committee Hearings in Washington, purport- 
 ing to show that the illegal diversion of industrial 
 alcohol probably reached 60,000,000 gallons a year. 
 
 This was unexpected and of course was good 
 “news” for the press! 
 
 Dr. J. M. Doren, chief chemist of the Bureau of 
 Internal Revenue and in charge of the department 
 dealing with this phase of the situation, presented a 
 most excellent and elaborate analysis of Buckner’s 
 erroneous reasoning and also a study showing the 
 diversion of industrial alcohol for beverage pur- 
 poses to be between ten and fifteen million gallons 
 a year and probably between thirteen and fourteen 
 million (1, p. 1313), or only eight to nine per cent 
 of the pre-war consumption of beverage alcohol. 
 
 It must also be remembered that not all of the 
 alcohol diverted is consumed. Between one and two 
 million gallons have been recaptured and confis- 
 cated (5). Leakage, breakage, and evapora- 
 tion will account for almost as much more. The 
 result is that probably illegal consumption of alco- 
 hol from diverted industrial alcohol is less than eight 
 per cent of pre-prohibition legal consumption, and 
 therefore still less than eight per cent of the total 
 pre-prohibition consumption (legal and illegal). 
 
 To this must, of course, be added the alcohol 
 smuggled into the country and distilled or brewed 
 

 
 
 
 : Wy Ly 
 
 GAIN SINCE PROHIBITIO 
 
 . 
 
 4 
 yO i 
 * 
 
 Porcent 
 $ 
 
 (20 
 
 OOOO) 
 
 (t0- SESE SFIS NATION, : 
 
 10 “1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1916 1919 1920 1923 1922 1923 1924- 
 
 Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
 $14 851 886 441 445 453 614 532 382 290 194 267 362 429 432 
 Arrests per 1000 population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition th (17.8) 
 
 15.8 16.8 17.9 18.9 18.3 17.9 19.1 18.4 13.4 9.9 , SS 2S11.71 15.0. 40.0 
 _89_ 94 101 106_103 101_107 103_75_ 56_87_ 49_60, 77__76 
 
 Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
 Beha 6 sero 2b3 6 63) 0S) 63.6) 53/53) 53> 264" 79 90 90 
 
 Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 
 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (33.6) 
 SOU ena n Gin Sé. 4) S400 86036 0 25.)19 9) 221456 16) 16 15 
 89 94 101 106 103 101 107 103 75 56 37 41 44 45 45 
 
 Deena ce aL 
 
 7. ENTIRE COUNTRY SHOWS PROBABLE REDUCTION OF 
 DERUNEKENNESS 
 in records of 626 Cities 
 
 (The aggregate number of arrests for intoxication in all cities for which statis- 
 tics authenticated by the local police department are available. For 1924, these 
 comprise 626 cities with a total population of 32,000,000 persons scattered over 
 44 states; in 1910, they comprise 514 cities with a total population of 19,800,000 
 persons scattered over 40 states. The broken line on the chart shows index 
 numbers of the per capita rate of these arrests. While the 350 cities of the 
 previous chart were largely in formerly “wet” territory, about one quarter of 
 the population of these 626 cities comprises formerly “dry’’ population and the 
 figures of percentage of persons arrested are accordingly modified. The full line 
 shows the probable total cases of intoxication.) 
 
 Far more reliable evidence of the results of Prohibition is to be found in the 
 statistics for 626 cities than in the figures for 350 cities, particularly as all of 
 the data for these 626 cities are based upon actual police reports. The above 
 chart therefore shows the grand total statistics for more than one quarter of 
 the Ned alee Se of the United States, including more than one half of the urbam 
 population. 
 
44 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 at home. How much these amount to no one knows 
 absolutely; but all experts agree that, all put 
 together, they constitute a minor part of illegal 
 liquor, far less than that from diversion of industrial 
 alcohol, that is, far less than eight per cent of pre- 
 prohibition consumption. 
 
 From all this it is evident that the total consump- 
 tion of alcohol today in beverage form is less than 
 16 per cent of pre-prohibition consumption and 
 probably less than 10 per cent. 
 
 An entirely independent estimate has been made 
 by Corradini. This is based on the assumption that 
 the samples seized by the Treasury Department 
 represent a true cross-section of the liquor on the 
 market, of which the legal portion is known. 
 
 This calculation has not yet been published; but 
 - all experts who have seen it can find no serious flaw 
 in it, except the possibility that the samples seized 
 are not representative. Corradini’s result indicates 
 _ that the total consumption is less than three per cent 
 of pre-prohibition consumption! Corradini’s esti- 
 mates are shown in Chart (69). 
 
 It seems safe to conclude that the total consump- 
 tion to-day is certainly less than 16 per cent of pre- 
 prohibition consumption, probably less than 10 per 
 cent, and possibly less than five per cent. 
 

 
 
 d 90. |: z GAINSINCE PROHIBITION 
 : Uf 
 
 Q 70-[:: pees RRR NOOR Yi 
 
 f F 
 
 c OF 4 
 
 SG 40-f: 
 
 ul 
 
 Boo} a 
 ao} cl wae ee // 
 
 it As PO Sih t re ear rtn Ol pita) 
 steletete Ree eo 
 
 oc 5 tet : “ne est ttesteleatentestateatastestot tate ttt: Me 
 QS10 41911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 
 Estimated Aggregate Consumption of Absolute Alcohol (millions of gallons) 
 Logs 2O2) 160) 168.166 152)154 170.118 °85. 041) 119.8) 7:5). 7.2) 4.4573.9 
 Estimated Per Capita Consumption (in gallons) 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (4.72) 
 4.74 4.92 4.79 4.97 4.86 4.38 4.38 4.78 3.27 2.33 1.11 .516 .198 .185 .113 .099 
 
 100 104 101 105 103 93 93 101 69 49 24 11 42 39 24 2.1 
 
 8 BEVERAGE ALCOHOL REDUCED BY MORE THAN NINE TENTHS 
 (Corradini’s Estimate for U. S.) 
 
 (Computed by R. A. Corradini from data in Federal Reports) 
 
 A shrewd estimate of the consumption of absolute alcohol in beverage form by the 
 American public has been made by Robert A. Corradini from data of the Federal 
 Government, showing (1) the distribution of liquor for industrial purposes from the 
 licensed distilleries, and (2) the percentage this alcohol comprises of all alcoholic 
 beverages seized by the Prohibition and revenue agents. From these two sources it 
 is, of course, possible to estimate the total volume of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Cor- 
 radini has checked this estimate by an entirely independent computation in which the 
 various amounts of liquor smuggled over the borders from different countries and the 
 probable quantities produced illegally in this country, or manufactured legally and 
 illegally diverted, have all been estimated. This computation closely checks the 
 figures shown in the chart above. It would seem clear from the data shown in the 
 text that the present consumption of absolute alcohol must be less than 16 per cent 
 of the pre-war quantities, that it is probably less than 10 per cent, and is perhaps 
 less than 5 per cent, as Mr. Corradini estimates it above, 
 
 . 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 FurtTHER Errors oF Mr. SHIRK 
 
 His “Dry” State Figures 
 
 The inaccuracy of the main exhibits against Pro- 
 hibition offered by Mr. Shirk in behalf of the gen- 
 tlemen of the Moderation League, his failure to ap- 
 ply the ordinary statistical correctors to his crude 
 figures for arrests for drunkenness in 350 American 
 cities and towns, and my acceptance of these tables 
 for the sake of argument, with all their inaccuracies 
 —but subjected, in the end, to merely a single obvi- 
 ous corrector, namely, that for increased population 
 during the period considered—furnished, in the last 
 chapter, Instances of exaggeration by the Modera- 
 tion League as to the non-enforcement of Prohibi- 
 tion in the country as a whole. 
 
 In fact, Mr. Shirk’s own inferences from the rec- 
 ord of arrests were shown actually to reverse his 
 case and to record a measure of enforcement that 
 should be heartening to these eminent gentlemen 
 who are devoted to “the restoration of temperance.” 
 Further, as was to be expected, this demonstration 
 harmonizes with the findings of the first chapter, 
 as to the exemplary reduction of convictions for 
 
 46 
 
FURTHER ERRORS OF MR. SHIRK 47 
 
 drunkenness of first offenders in New York City, 
 during the period of war-time restrictions and Na- 
 tional Prohibition. 
 
 But among Mr. Shirk’s minor exhibits is a table 
 which prompts him to say: 
 
 One of the interesting things disclosed by the 
 survey is that, while conditions in former “wet” 
 states are now about the same as in 1914, in 
 former ‘‘dry” states—+.e., states which had some 
 form of state Prohibition or semi-Prohibition 
 law before the Eighteenth Amendment was 
 adopted—conditions are worse to-day under 
 the bone-dry Volstead Act than they formerly 
 were under their own state dry laws (1, p. 342). 
 
 Indiana is represented as one of these dry states, 
 and we have seen how the figures for arrests for 
 drunkenness in Indiana were distorted in the survey 
 of the Moderation League. Abandoning, therefore, 
 the untrustworthy tables of Mr. Shirk and relying 
 on the standard tables compiled by Mr. Corradini, I 
 have prepared Charts 9 and 10, the former showing 
 that, after National Prohibition, there has actually 
 been a lowered rate of arrests for drunkenness in this 
 
 group. 
 
 State Prohibition Reduced Arrests 
 
 But because this is obviously not the proper way 
 to compare the results of Prohibition in these states, 
 which were dry before the National Prohibition 
 _ period, I have also shown in Chart 11, a compari- 
 

 
 
 
 at]. eo. — 8 
 ee es ee 
 
 -PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
 a 
 ? 
 
 OF; 
 & 
 aS 
 
 FER CE 
 
 
 
 y 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 
 
 Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
 57.9 61.2 70.8 71.2 68.0 75.6 81.4 78.0 54.9 42.0 41.0 55.9 64.6 73.4 75.2 
 
 Arrests per 1000 population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibkition Level (19.0) 
 17.9 18:1 20,1°19.5 17.9, 19.2° 20.0 18.6.12.6: 9.4 °'8.9 11.8 13 271462 te 
 —94_ 96_106 103_94 101 106 98 66 49_47 62 70 77 __76 
 
 Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
 90,90 «90° 90 *90.° 90% 90'°.90." 90° 790 (90-90-4907 sGom oe 
 
 Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 
 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (21.1) 
 20. 202208 2205" ORV 21 O22 27 ea Oe TO 2 aie a ee 
 94 96 106 103 94 101 106 98 66 49 47 €2 70 77 #=*''6 
 
 9. MAREED IMPROVEMENT ete NATIONAL PEROHIBITION 
 
 VEN 
 in states formerly dry 
 
 (Arrests for drunkenness in 67 cities with total population in 1920 of 4,616,000, 
 in 24 Dry States where statistics are available, from 1910 to date, as reported 
 
 eV ne departments. Full line shows probable number of cases of intoxi- 
 cation. 
 
 Since Prohibition came to the Dry States at various dates, we cannot so easily 
 apply a correcting factor for police stringency, nor estimate the total number of 
 drunken persons from the data of arrests. But even assuming that the same 
 stringency prevailed in these states before 1920 as after, the record of National 
 Prohibition shows improvement, 
 
Percent 
 
 
 
 ok ‘ 5 eaea sto Catocieenes be been Orr's ae beater preiaartd pare ee 
 1910 L911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 
 Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
 228 238 244 260 256 #246 268 266 203 154 95 186 188 218 226 
 
 Arrests per 1000 population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (19.6) 
 Sead bse A Gy os bDs8 1.0 160014 5.0111.4 8.80 6.8 7,0) 10259107 12:0 
 —98_ 100_100 104 101 96 _102 100_73_ 56_34 48 66 75 __77_ 
 Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
 Seep AO rA0 400) 40 40040 94051400) 4077-56 78). 90). 90 
 
 Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 
 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (39.1) 
 Pence eee ST AON SO 28M 22 eB 14) bah TB TE 
 96 100 100 104 101 96 102 100 73 56 34 35 35 33 £434 
 
 10. PROBABLY TWO THIRDS OF THE DRUNEKENNESS HAS BEEN 
 ELIMINATED 
 in the “wet” states 
 
 (Arrests for Drunkenness in 436 cities [with total population in 1920 of 
 17,810,000] in 14 states, as reported by police departments. Also probable total 
 cases of intoxication.) 
 
 That the former wet states are three times as sober as they were is one of the 
 most significant facts about Prohibition. The importance of the wet states group 
 is that in them we have a clean-cut picture of the effects of National Prohibition, 
 whereas in the total U. S. the influence of states already dry before 1920 
 operates to blur this picture. The number (per capita) of arrests has been 
 reduced by about one quarter and this in itself is a substantial benefit, but it 
 must be remembered that police severity is much greater than it was, so that 
 where formerly only a small part of the arrestable drunken persons were actu- 
 ally arrested (the others being helped home), the police now have to arrest 
 nearly everyone who is intoxicated, partly on account of public opinion and 
 partly to prevent deaths from bootleg poison. Of this change in police policies 
 there is widespread evidence but the exact percentages arrested now and formerly 
 are of course unknown. It would seem to be a very cautious estimate to say 
 that probably more than 90 per cent are arrested to-day and less than two out 
 of every five were formerly arrested. From these figures we see that the total 
 drunkenness (whether of those arrested or escaping arrest) is probably only 
 one third of what it used to be. If less conservative percentages were to be 
 used, the fraction would of course be still smaller! 
 
Percent 
 wn 
 =) 
 
 
 
 CO PT VE ot We PPR TCL eH IP RT erg Set hha ME YD Nt Be BE a St ate ET a ae are et Oar ea ee Gh oe Sat fet 
 
 
 
 Years before and after State Prohibition 
 —5 —4 —3s —2 —1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
 
 Arrests per 1000 population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (18.4) 
 17.2 19.0 19.4 18.6°18.2, 16.2. 14.0,10.6 9.2./9.8° 11.3 14:1 15:0 16-3 °16.6yi2-4 
 —93_ 103_105 100_99_ 88 _76_ 57_50_ 53_62 76_81_ 83_90 70__ 
 
 Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxication 
 40, -40.4°40:..-40 640) (40', 50) - 60). 70° 1780 2690) 5909902 900s S0meeao 
 
 Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (46.0) 
 AS) 474148 465 (465) 406°) 28) TS 1800 195 FB Sted oe te ee 
 937103, 105' 100°. 99. S861 87 28) B87 a7 29. SG mi Si mee eek 
 
 ll. AFTER STATE PROHIBITION, PROBABLY THREE QUARTERS OF 
 DRUNKENNESS DISAPPEARED 
 in the states formerly dry 
 
 (Arrests for intoxication in 56 cities having a population in 1920 of 4,198,000, in 19 
 States. which had State Prohibition before 1920, as reported by police departments. — 
 Full line shows the probable total cases of intoxication.) | 
 
 No clear picture is afforded of what happened in the dry states unless all statistics 
 for these states are brought together, relative to the dates when each went dry by 
 adopting State Prohibition. _This chart gives the story of the results of State Pro-- 
 hibition wherever it was tried more significantly than the previous chart comparing — 
 the states before and after the coming of National Prohibition. After National Pro- 
 hibition not much improvement is shown since they were already dry before National — 
 Prohibition. It is interesting to note that these states reached a peak in the seventh, — 
 eight and ninth years after going dry, and in the tenth year begin to show further 
 peduction of drunkenness, 
 
 & 
 : 
 ! 
 ¢ 
 
FURTHER ERRORS OF MR. SHIRK 51 
 
 son of arrests.for drunkenness during the first five 
 dry years in all states having statewide Prohibition 
 from the time the Prohibition law of each became 
 effective, with the arrests for drunkenness during 
 the last five wet years in those states. In this way 
 only can the effects of Prohibition in this group of 
 states be clearly set forth. 
 
 Allowing merely for increase of population, Chart | 
 10 shows a falling curve of arrests for drunkenness 
 during the five-year dry period. 
 
 Improvement in Wet States Clean Cut 
 
 In Chart 10 the improvement in drunkenness 
 arrests, per 100,000 population, is clearly observable 
 for the wet group of states before and after Prohibi- 
 tion. 
 
 This is a clean-cut picture of the results of Na- 
 tional Prohibition in that group of states which were 
 wet until the Eighteenth Amendment became effec- 
 tive. As compared with this chart, all nationwide 
 charts that include wet and dry states together give 
 pictures that are indistinct and blurred. But this 
 chart tests Prohibition where it was new. This 
 chart also follows the standard procedure of correc- 
 tion for increased severity of arrests during Pro- 
 hibition. 
 
 A Crucial Test, Connecticut 
 
 But a severer test may be found in the case of the 
 single state of Connecticut, which did not ratify the 
 
52 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 Kighteenth Amendment. The Volstead law has been 
 administered in that state in the teeth of active 
 opposition from the Press and from all agencies 
 opposed to its enforcement. In what follows I am 
 indebted to my colleague, Professor Henry W. 
 Farnam (1, pp. 1032-1040) of Yale University, 
 who compiled the data and presented it to the Sen- 
 ate Judiciary Sub-committee at the hearings in 
 Washington, April, 1926. 
 
 Connecticut.is an industrial state, with an alien 
 intermixture of people from countries where wine 
 and beer are commonly drunk. This state has an 
 ideal seacoast for smuggling. It is influenced by the 
 wetness of metropolitan New York. During the 
 entire period of National Prohibition the Press of 
 this state has actively opposed the application of 
 the Volstead act. Within its area obstacles to its 
 enforcement are undoubtedly great for both Fed- 
 eral and state enforcers. 
 
 Professor Farnam finds, however, using figures 
 furnished by the state authorities and police of 
 Connecticut’s cities and towns, that the drunkard 
 population in Connecticut jails was reduced by more 
 than half by Prohibition, being, for instance, 6,754 
 in 1916 and 3,909 in 1925; that the death rate of 
 infants per 1,000 fell from 100 in 1916 to 68 in 1924 
 and 73.6 in 1925; and that cases of alcoholic insanity 
 admitted at the asylum at Middletown were 72 for 
 the year ending June 30, 1915, and only 23 for the 
 year ending June 30, 1922. In specific towns and 
 cities the facts are as follows (1, p. 1040): 
 

 
 RE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
 
 _ 
 
 GAIN SINCE 
 TO 
 
 ROHIBITION 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 wae 
 
 RR PRO Ch A pe i ee “. 
 
 Ochrars 
 
 - 1910 1913 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 192) 1922 1923 1924 
 Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
 ct 4.8) 1216.0 096.8 6.8) .-8,.9.8.0 6.0 8.3.2.0 38.0 3.9 4.6 4.2 
 Arrests per 1000 population, 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (15.3) 
 13.4 13.3 13.8 15.8 14.9 14.5 21.7 19.1 14.0 7.5 6.7 6.5 3.3 9.6 8.6 
 
 Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
 BOS 4058040... 40) 540.5140 .40 4 40° 40) 40° BBO 75. 90. 90 
 Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (38.4) 
 Dee none eens 937860) h4 486 86 119.17 013 1 old 10 
 88__ 87 _ ~90 103 97 95 142 125 91 49 44 31 29 28 25 
 LS SSeS 
 
 
 
 ¥ 
 
 12. THREE QUARTERS OF PRE-WAR DRUNKENNESS HAS 
 PROBABLY DISAPPEARED 
 in Connecticut 
 (Number of arrests for intoxication in 7 cities, having a total population in 1920 
 of 446,169 as reported by police departments. Full line shows probable total 
 cases of intoxication.) 
 
 Connecticut is an excellent example of prohibition at its worst, because in this 
 state the sentiment against prohibition was so strong that the amendment was 
 mever ratified by the state. Nevertheless it is clear that this state has 
 benefited greatly by prohibition. The number of arrests for drunkenness has 
 been cut almost in two, and the number of drunken persons is probably only one 
 quarter of what it used to be prior to 1917, 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 LLL, LLL A LLL A t Z LO 
 Gj LLL EGS Ze AA 
 ZA PROHIBITION Z 
 LEILA 
 LLL 7 
 
 oe 
 
 
 
 
 es 
 
 SS ah 
 
 Percent 
 $ 
 
 SAAR mae DALAL CT oN cies sopndpessebipeonsepate pci ea cosaciacacaaas anda snepetaapepatacaaiad 
 
 ‘1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1937 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 -1923-—1924 
 Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
 
 AT AT 4 656 0 48 1 4G ST 222 ee es 
 
 Arrests per 1000 population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (18.0) 
 LS TSC OM Oo LS hod Cine a PS te gs 7 8 10) 4T 40 oe 
 00. 83 11). T11.100:)\'94: 100° 89 72 S99 44 66 7a ea ee 
 
 Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
 40 94004 40), 1°40 (7/400 240 9'40)) 401-8 40) 940.0) 40 So 5G. Ceo eee 
 
 Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 
 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (45.0) 
 45. (88°60!) 560 (46.042. 45) 940) 1 88) DB 208 aS eee 
 100 83 111 111 100 94 100 s9 782 39 44 Sd 42 42 42 
 
 13. DRUNEENNESS PROBABLY LESS THAN HALF OF WHATIT WAS 
 in Pennsylvania outside Philadelphia 
 
 (Arrests reported by the Police Departments of 6 cities having a total popula- 
 tion in 1920 of 800,000 inhabitants. The full line shows the probable total 
 cases of intoxication.) 
 
 The State of Pennsylvania has seen probably 58 per cent of the usual pre-war, 
 Pre-prohibition drunkenness eliminated since 1918. The present level of drunken- 
 ness in that state has been so consistently maintained as to suggest that the 
 humber of new recruits to drinking is very slight. Arrests for drunkenness 
 have risen under Prohibition until almost as many are arrested now as before, 
 owing to the increased vigilance of the police with respect to intoxication. In 
 this state two favorable circumstances are pictured, namely the low level of 
 {runkenness and the increasing police activity. 
 

 
 1910 1911 1912 1913 1923 1924 
 
 Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
 28.7 30.5 34.8 39.3 36.5 33.2 39.2 33.6 26.0 16.8 14.3 21.9 36.3 45.2 47.8 
 Arrests per 1000 population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (20.7) 
 TROP Le ela etl LO nto. ti oac9 LOO 4. 1 9a) ToD 21-8" -19.8°93;8 24.8 
 —89_ 93 _104 116_92 95_110 93 71 45_38 57 93 115_120 
 Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
 Soe eee 20. 40 0400 40°40) 09 40" 40 400555 76 90 90 
 Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (51.8) 
 SOc ees 4) 349.0057. 48 8728) 20 226» 626. 88 
 89 93 104 116 92 95 110 93 71 45 38 41 #50 #51 =#«53 
 
 14. EVEN UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS DRUNKENNESS 
 PROBABLY HAS DECREASED 
 in Philadelphia 
 
 (Total population in 1920 was 1,823,779. Computations made from data fur- 
 nished py the police department. Full line shows probable total cases of intoxi- 
 cation. 
 
 Philadelphia shows so great an increase of arrests in the last few years 
 that the rate of arrests per capita is actually higher than it was before Pro- 
 hibition. This is the natural result of a marked increase in police vigilance with 
 respect to drunkenness. The probable number of intoxications can be computed 
 from this. If it be assumed that the increase in police vigilance has been no 
 greater than elsewhere, then drunkenness would seem to be only about half of 
 what it used to be; but if there be assumed a greater increase than usual in 
 police vigilance, under General Butler, then the decline in drunkenness will be 
 6een to be even more pronounced, 
 
jj 
 
 Ss 
 3 
 Zz 
 2 
 
 Percent 
 3 
 
 
 
 o PPO yer eUr ei aa OP Or er PCCP UE ROR oer : iy ? i & saan ey ofes "oe. 
 
 “$930 1913 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1923 38922 1923 1924 | 
 Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
 
 95.7 99.0 98.7 104.9 108.2 106.1 116.7 129.5 92.8 79.2 37.2 59.6 75.7 84.3 85.9 
 
 Arrests per 1000 population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (29.6) 
 28.4 28.9 28.4 29.8 30.4 29.4 31.8 34.8 24.6 20.8 9.6 15.2 19.1 21.1 21.4 
 —96_ 98 _96_101_103, 99 _108 118 _83_ 70 _32_ 51_65| 71 __72. 
 
 Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
 40° 40. 1.400740 ‘'' 40) (40:53:40 5°40 °° 40) 9°40 24057 056-0975 7 eaten 
 
 Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 
 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (74.0) 2 
 TL TD ATL Ta C6 TA BOR ST G20 52 ek eee oa 
 96 98.96 101 103 99 108 118 83 70 32 37 34 32 $32 
 
 15. TWO THIRIS OF DRUNKENNESS HAS PROBABLY 
 DISAPPEARED 
 in Massachusetts 
 
 (Arrests in 357 cities having a total population of 3,852,356 people in 1920, 
 Full line shows probable number of cases of intoxication.) 
 
 No state in the Union affords so complete a picture of the results of Prohibition, 
 from the statistical point of view, as the formerly ‘‘wet’’ state of Massachusetts, 
 for in this state alone reports of arrests for drunkenness can be had from the 
 extraordinary total of 357 cities and towns, or from more towns and cities than 
 in all the rest of the United States combined. It is in such large numbers 
 of reports, each individually well authenticated, that safety lies for drawing 
 conclusions, as the influence of special conditions in any one locality is less 
 likely to distort the picture of so large a total. In this chart the contrast is 
 striking between the very regular and consistently high level before Prohibition 
 and the equally regular and consistently low level after Prohibition, 
 
O86G0000 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Percent 
 g 
 
 Bert ee er 
 
 ene enes terete eter eel 
 
 Pa SESE rhe ee he at Pr FE erie Ped POP tt Oe ,, 
 CHORUSES ORCA Or Pie 
 
 10 ole . . AG 
 1910 1833 912 1913 1918 1919 1920 1923 18922 1923 1924 
 
 Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
 47.7 46.4 49.8 55.0 59.2 57.8 65.1 73.4 54.9 35.5 21.8 31.0 37.6 39.6 39.5 
 
 Arrests per 1000 population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (78.2) 
 71.1 68.2 72.2 79.6 84.6 81.4 90.4100.6 75.3 47.9 29.1 40.8 48.8 51.4 50.6 
 —9L_ 87 _92_ 102_108 104 _115 129 96 61 _37 52 62, 66_ 65 
 
 Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 55 75 90 90 
 
 Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (196.0) 
 Lise etS eloon 21 Oe 204 226 m252 0188 20m 18s 4s ebb 1b7.2256 
 91 87 92 102 108 104 115 129 96 61 37 838 33 29 29 
 
 
 
 16. DRUNKENNESS DROPS FROM LARGE AND INCREASING 
 FIGURES TO SMALL, ee ee PROPORTIONS 
 in oston 
 
 (Total population in 1920 was 748,060. Computations made from data furnished 
 by the police department. Full line shows probable total cases of intoxication.) 
 
 Boston is typical of many large cities in which the trend of drunkenness was 
 rising rapidly before Prohibition, only to drop to very small proportions as 
 s00n as Prohibition came, and continuing to diminish thereafter. 
 
Pheer ar ng er See ROR BO MMe et ha er (Y 
 
 ORO ee) . 
 eetyte ' . ecerels ere) ee 8 wy ‘ 
 COR PG EEO tae PLM RCN Lid CN Reh Mon re 
 
 { settee nies 1 wae wa Gh OS 
 W9ll 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 921 {922 1923 1924. 
 
 Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
 3.8 4,9 5.7 5.7 8.9 9.8 9.4 9.7 6.9 6.7 p 86 ae 5.4 6.4 8.1 9.0 
 
 Arrests per 1000 population 
 - and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (18.7) 
 11.5 14.4 16.3 15.8 24.0 25.1 23.5 28.6 16.4 15.6 7.0 11.7 18.6 16.9 18.4 
 62_ 77 _87_ 85 _128 134 126 126 88 83 _37 63 73 90__98. 
 
 Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
 405° 400/-40'0°405" 40:61'40 140540 9940" 40 80405 oe oe o 
 
 Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 
 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (46.7) 
 29.) 869 148 405,60 9 6S 78926 BOAT 239 eS ee 
 62 77 87 $85 128 134 126 126 88 83 37 45 39 40 44 
 
 17. DRUNEENNESS PROBABLY BUT HALF OF WHAT IT WAS 
 in Washington, D. C. 
 
 (Total population in 1920 was 437,571. Computations made from data furnished 
 by the police department. Full line shows probable total cases of intoxication.) 
 
 The experience of the nation’s capital is typical of many cities, where arrests 
 for drunkenness had been rapidly rising, showing a steady increase in the 
 amount of drunkenness, prior to the Prohibition Amendment. Since Prohibi- 
 tion, the number of arrests has not been as great, while the probable amount 
 of drunkenness these represents is less than 50 per cent of the average for 1910 
 to 1916, and only one third of the 1914-1916 average. If the rising trend before 
 Prohibition be taken into account, it will be seen that the benefits of Prohibition 
 are even greater than here indicated. 
 
 
 
 i 
 
FURTHER ERRORS OF MR. SHIRK 59 
 
 Rockville: Arrests for drunkenness fell between 
 1917 and 1928, 66 per cent. 
 
 Wallingford, for the same period, fell one-half. 
 
 Willimantic, for the same period, fell more than 
 half. 
 
 Torrington, for the same period, fell nearly 60 
 per cent. 
 
 New Britain, for the same period, fell 33 per cent. 
 
 Danbury, for the same period, fell 21 per cent. 
 
 Stamford, between 1917 and 1925, fell slightly 
 less than 30 per cent. 
 
 Norwich, between 1915 and 1925, fell about 33 
 per cent. 
 
 New Haven, between 1915 and 1925, fell 30 per 
 cent. 
 
 In the case of New Haven, Professor Farnam pre- 
 sented the figures of arrests for drunkenness by 
 months, showing that arrests fell from 371 in Janu- 
 ary, 1919, to 52 for the corresponding month of 
 1920; in February, 1920, they were 45, and rose to 
 90 in March. The arrests went up after that, but 
 the total for 1920 was considerably below the total 
 for 1919 (1, p. 1036). 
 
 “These figures show very clearly,” Professor Far- 
 nam states, “what has been observed elsewhere, that 
 when the law first became effective it was expected 
 that it would be enforced, and the liquor dealers 
 were apparently ready to observe it. The bars 
 really were closed. Then the weakness of the ad- 
 ministration became apparent. People saw that the 
 
60 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 penalties imposed were light. They found that 
 many newspapers attacked the law as a violation of 
 ‘personal liberty’; that they had no word of censure 
 for those who violated Prohibition, and no word of 
 approval for the police who enforced it. It was 
 natural, therefore, that there should be a reaction.” 
 
 Enforcement Slackened, 1921-23 
 
 These things, which were true with respect to 
 Prohibition enforcement in Connecticut, were largely 
 true for the three years following 1920 throughout 
 the Union, as reflected in most of the charts appear- 
 ing in this book of figures denoting a lessened down- 
 ward curve, in some cases tending upward in 1921- 
 23, as compared with 1920, and reflecting a rela- 
 tively slack enforcement of the Prohibition law. In 
 1924, the curve of slackened enforcement moderates 
 in all these charts, indicating a recently resumed 
 period of increased observance of the law. In all 
 these cases the shaded portion of the charts indicates 
 the solid and continuing Prohibition gains, despite 
 the temporary reaction, as compared with the pre- 
 prohibition level. 
 
 Referring to the period 1921-23, as reflected by the 
 lull in the downward course of the curve of enforce- 
 ment, I recall, according to a recent article in the 
 North American Review, that Secretary Mellon was 
 asked whether, in his opinion, Prohibition was re- 
 sponsible for the recurrent spirit of lawlessness. 
 He replied: 
 
FURTHER ERRORS OF MR. SHIRK 61 
 
 I think not. I believe it to be due, at least 
 in part, to the general let-down and disorgani- 
 zation following the war. Of course, the Pro- 
 hibition law has suffered in the general break- 
 down in common with other laws. Unbiased 
 opinion everywhere supports this view. 
 
 That such opinion is correct is amply substan- 
 tiated by the facts thus far set forth in the charts 
 of arrests for drunkenness in the cities of the Union 
 as a whole, in New York City with respect to first 
 offenders and confirmed drunkards, in the groups of 
 wet and dry states, and in a typically hostile wet 
 state like Connecticut. 
 
 New York City Again 
 
 The authentic figures of total arrests for drunk- 
 enness per capita in New York City, are represented 
 in Chart 19. This chart, for the wet city of New 
 York as a whole, tells much the same story as the 
 New York City charts for convictions of first of- 
 fenders, and from them nothing can be gained tv 
 confirm the impression of Mr. Shirk and the gentle- 
 men of the Moderation League that New York is 
 generating a crime wave due to Prohibition, or that 
 its youth are becoming corrupted by Prohibition 
 influences. 
 
 Shirk’s Tale of Drunken Drivers 
 
 Another minor exhibit prepared by Mr. Shirk 
 stresses the increase of arrests for drunken driving 
 
100. 
 
 
 
 YW mT 
 
 = GAIN SINCE PROHIBITION | 
 
 Yf 
 
 
 
 
 Percent 
 ot 
 2 
 
 \ 
 . 
 ‘ 
 
 Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
 44.4 43.8 44.9 47.9 49.3 45.9 48.4 44.7 30.1 21.0 18.6 21.5 26.1 36.3 36.6 
 
 Arrests per 1000 population, 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (7.25) 
 7.83 7.10 7.15 7.49 7.57 6.93 7.19 6.54 4.83 2.97 2.59 2.95 3.58 4.83 .4.80 
 101_ £8 _99_103_104 $6 _99_ 90 _60_ 41 36 41 _49 67 66 
 Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 55 7 90 90 
 
 Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (18.1) 
 
 TSR TS VLSI Del SO TNs Br ean T 7 6 6 5 5 5 
 
 101 98 99 103 104 96 $39 90 60 41 36 31 29 30 329 
 
 18. DRUNKENNESS IS CUT TO PROBABLY LESS THAN A THIRD OF 
 WHAT IT WAS 
 in New York State 
 
 (Number of arrests for intoxication in 29 cities, including New York City, having 
 a total population in 1920 of 7,182,573, as reported by police departments, 
 Full line shows the probable total cases of intoxication.) 
 
 For all its exaggerated reputation to the contrary, New York State can be seen 
 to be no worse than its neighbors, for the rate of arrests per capita in the total 
 population has apparently already passed its peak, and drunkenness itself is 
 probably now less than 380 per cent of what it used to be prior to 1917. 
 
100-} 
 
 Percent 
 Qa 
 oO 
 
 40.}: 
 
 
 
 SeIOE IOLA Nam igwisia, are 3 1916. i my 1923 1924 
 Number of Arrests (in thousands) 
 mits ee0.G 128.0 20.3, 20:2 17.1) 18.8 ) T15)-b.6>, 28.9). 6.2)8.6,'10.6°10.9 
 
 Arrests per 1000 population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (4.1) 
 eee Cee th aoe AP Sh WW Oia eas O yl, aeOle vb hO Esbo BTS OLS 
 W115_110_102 105_98_ 95 _78 63 _32 24 24 27 37 44 44 
 Hypothetical Percentage Arrested of all Intoxications 
 Coe som a0 ano 40. 40) .40) 640) 40. 40/940). 85 TE» 90: 90 
 
 Probable total cases of Intoxication (per 1000 population) 
 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (10.3) 
 Laem 10 108) 80 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 
 20 Oe LOZ LOS 98) 995 078) 96S 32.024 0.24 1.19). 19) 519) 419 
 
 19. FOUR FIFTHS OF DRUNKENNESS APPARENTLY ELIMINATED 
 in New York City 
 
 (Total population in 1920 was 5,620,048. Computations made from data fur- 
 nished by the police department. Full line shows the probable total cases of 
 intoxication. ) ; 
 
 Few cities are so widely criticised and so closely watched by the rest of 
 the nation as is New York City. Here, too, the large foreign element makes for 
 a strong ‘wet’ sentiment, which brought about the repeal of the Mullen-Gage 
 law giving local codperation to the federal “dry” forces. In New York City the 
 arrests for drunkenness are now less than half as many as before Prohibition. 
 To estimate the total amount of drunkenness, the same hypothetical percentages, 
 representing increased police severity, are employed as in the country in general— 
 simply for lack of any special estimate for New York City although probably 
 the increased severity is not as great there as elsewhere, 
 
64 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 of motor cars in the chief cities of the United States 
 since the enactment of the Volstead act. He 
 says: 
 
 The increases under the Volstead act have 
 been enormous. In New York City, for example, 
 the arrests from 1916 to 1919 averaged 161. In 
 1920, the first dry year, they rose to 334, 
 dropped slightly in 1921, and then skyrocketted 
 to 944 by 1924, resulting in an increase of 484 
 per cent above the pre-prohibition level. 
 
 Chicago, our second largest city, shows sub- 
 stantially the same result. Arrests there were 
 282 in 1919 and 1,523 in 1924, an increase of 
 440 per cent. 
 
 Washington, our national capital, shows 53 
 arrests for drunken driving in 1918, and by 
 1924 had reached 616, an increase of 1,062 per 
 cent. 
 
 In Milwaukee, arrests were 10 in 1918 and 
 11 in 1919. They reached 292 in 1924, which 
 is a rise of 2,554 per cent (1, p. 345). 
 
 Mr. Shirk, allowing for the increase of motor 
 vehicles in the United States, from 1919 to 1924, 
 notes that this was only 132 per cent, “whereas 
 drunken drivers increased in the same period about 
 304 per cent on the average. The difference of 222 
 per cent is clearly attributable to the Volstead 
 act” (1, p. 346). 
 
 Undoubtedly there has been an increase in the 
 relative figures of arrests for drunken driving. Mr. 
 Shirk accounts for it by saying that drinking before 
 Prohibition was largely done indoors—in the 
 
FURTHER ERRORS OF MR. SHIRK 65 
 
 saloons—and after Prohibition, from a flask on the 
 road: 
 
 This is a motorized age, and the automobile 
 is a dangerous instrument which must be kept 
 out of the hands of intoxicated people; there- 
 fore, ban intoxicants. 
 
 The result of this, one of the strongest arguments 
 for Prohibition, 
 
 unfortunately, has been precisely the contrary 
 to what the prohibitionists intended and 
 prophesied (1, p. 346). 
 
 Implicit in this criticism is the advocacy either of 
 the return of the saloon wherein men may do their 
 dangerous drinking, or the return of beer and wine 
 —which amounts to the same thing. 
 
 The transportation industry maintained an effec- 
 tive prohibition against just this sort of thing when 
 it instituted the rule of total abstinence among all 
 of its employees, to whom it intrusted the lives of 
 the public traveling upon its trains. Instant dis- 
 missal from the service was the penalty, and it was 
 effective. 
 
 Non-Professional Drivers Increase 
 
 But in the case of drunken drivers of motor cars, 
 we have to deal with a phenomenon that has noth- 
 ing to do with the imposition of the Prohibition law, 
 namely, the acquirement by the masses, especially 
 - during the last seven years, of machines potentially 
 
66 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 as dangerous as the locomotive. With it has come 
 the licensing, on a gigantic scale, of amateur drivers, 
 out of all proportion to the licensing of professional 
 chauffeurs. 
 
 Not only is there a pronounced increase of ama- 
 teur drivers, but the character of the population that 
 has come universally to own and drive cars is radi- 
 cally different from that of the class to whom this 
 form of recreation was originally accessible. The 
 automobile has fallen into the hands of reckless and 
 dangerous elements, unskilled and given to the 
 coarser pleasures, seeking relaxation in drink. Pro- 
 fessor Thomas Nixon Carver of Harvard (3, pp. 
 63-64), in a recent book has fully analyzed the con- 
 sequences of the recent wide diffusion of prosperity, 
 which has put purchasing power into the hands of 
 irresponsible men and women of low mentality. 
 
 This has created a market for the sale of all kinds 
 of goods and services, including a flood of cheap 
 literature, tabloid newspapers and magazines, the 
 more sensational types of film plays, and so on, 
 including advertisements of a sort designed to appeal 
 to people of this character. Of course, the automo- 
 bile offers as much attraction to them as to anybody. 
 It may quite possibly prove, ultimately, the means 
 of diverting their pleasure-seeking into more whole- 
 some channels. But inevitably the arrests for 
 drunken driving would increase for a considerable 
 period, with the cheapening of the manufacture of 
 automobiles by new invention and large-scale pro- 
 
GAIN SINCE PROHIBITION: 
 UL, 
 
 
 
 
 PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
 
 MP iraetrnige ac edephicatecete eters eee, Meercte nae ste geabrer hiv eata te lan 
 
 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 
 
 Arrests for Drunkenness (in thousands) 
 POMS CL CaO eT RO noe Wik ies AE 
 Arrests for Traffic Violations (in thousands) 
 58 65 73 111 #156 153 184 210 261 
 Arrests for Drunkenness per 100 Arrests for 
 Traffic Violations 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level 
 
 (135) 
 135 109 76.7 32.4 18.0 26.2 33 
 
 2 35.6 30.3 
 100 sl 57 24 13 19 25 26 22 
 
 20. TRAFFIC OFFENDERS VS. 
 DRUNEKARDS 
 in ten cities 
 
 (Arrests for intoxication and for all traffic 
 offenses as reported by the police departments, 
 in ten cities, including five cities in Ohio; and New 
 York City; Dallas, Tex. ; Washington, D. C. ; Phila- 
 delphia, Pa. and Baltimore, Md. These are in 
 five states and the District of Columbia, and 
 have a combined population of 8,770,000.) 
 
 In these ten cities, with nearly one twelfth the 
 total population of the United States, the arrests 
 for drunkenness have become almost negligible 
 as compared with the arrests for traffic violations. 
 The usefulness of this comparison arises from 
 the fact that the increase in police activity of 
 enforcement has probably proceeded in like ratio 
 for each class of offenses. 
 
68 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 duction, and the maintenance of high wages in the 
 United States. 
 
 Increased Probability of Accidents 
 
 There is another important consideration which 
 should not be overlooked. ‘This is that the acci- 
 dents from automobile driving, which, in most cases, 
 lead to arrests for drunken driving, tend to increase 
 far faster than the mere increase in the number of 
 automobiles. Rather, they increase with the num- 
 ber of times automobiles pass each other—which is, 
 probably, approximately as the square of the num- 
 ber of automobiles. If there are 100 automobiles in 
 a city, each has the possibility of colliding with the 
 other 99. That makes 100 x 99, or 9,900 possible 
 collisions. But if there are 1,000 automobiles, ten 
 times as many, the number of possible collisions is 
 1,000 x 999 or 999,000, which is not ten times as 
 many but about a hundred times as many! 
 
 I do not know whether automobile accidents have 
 or have not increased as the square of the increased 
 number of cars, as this computation of possible col- 
 lisions suggests; but 1f this is the case, an increase 
 in the number of cars of 132 per cent (2e., an 
 increase in the ratio of 2.32 to 1.00) would naturally 
 result, other things equal, in an increase in the 
 number of accidents (and in the number of arrests) 
 of 2.32) x (2.382) or 5.88 fold, 2.e., an increase of 
 438 per cent instead of the 354 per cent which Mr. 
 Shirk finds. 
 
FURTHER ERRORS OF MR. SHIRK 69 
 
 These considerations should bring the figures of 
 arrests for drunkenness among drivers more nearly 
 into line with the demonstrated facts concerning de- 
 creased totals of arrests for drunkenness in general 
 among the states and cities of the country. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 DRINKING AMONG THE YOUTH 
 
 At the Nation’s Capital 
 
 The exaggerations as to increased drinking among 
 the youth of the country are next in order to be 
 considered. And here Mr. Shirk is found not want- 
 ing in willingness to contribute to the testimony as 
 to their corruption. 
 
 He declares that while there is little that is 
 authoritative on the subject, records of arrests of 
 young people for drunkenness are furnished by the 
 police department of Washington, D. C. He reports: 
 
 Arrests of persons under 22 years old aver- 
 age 44 a year for the four pre-prohibition 
 years 1914-1917. A bone-dry law was enacted 
 for Washington before National Prohibition 
 became effective, and immediately youthful 
 drunkenness increased. In 1918 it rose to 73 
 and by 1924 had reached 282, an increase of 
 540 per cent above the pre-prohibition level. 
 
 . This condition in Washington merely con- 
 firms what is known to exist in the rest of the 
 country (1, p. 346). 
 
 Now it wculd be interesting to learn the propor- 
 tion of young people in Washington to total popula- 
 70 
 
DRINKING AMONG THE YOUTH 71 
 
 tion in war time and during the years following the 
 war, as compared with the years from 1914 to 1917. 
 No sooner was war declared than the capital of the 
 nation became a vast encampment, surrounded by 
 army concentration camps and filled with young 
 men in newly created civilian stations drawn from 
 every part of the country. Washington was imme- 
 diately a city charged with the excitements of mob- 
 ilization, war preparations, organization of indus- 
 tries and all manner of activities on a national scale, 
 and it became a Mecca for the youth of the country. 
 The doubling and trebling of the government per- 
 sonnel remained to a large extent even after the 
 war, because the bureaus and commissions had 
 become permanently enlarged. The artificial atmos- 
 phere and stimulations of the nation’s capital might 
 easily produce among certain of the youth who 
 flocked there a record of excesses that would hardly 
 be typical of conditions among the youth in other 
 parts of the country. It is unfortunate for Mr. 
 Shirk’s contentions that he fails to present such a 
 record for any other city. Moreover, the Superin- 
 tendent of the Police Department of Washington 
 reports: 
 
 Prior to July 1, 1923, it was not an offense 
 to be intoxicated in the District of Columbia.* 
 
 Here is another case of increased severity of 
 
 * Report sent to Irving Fisher, August, 1926, by Major Edwin 
 B. Hesse, Superintendent, Police Department, Washington, D. C. 
 
72 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 arrests, as enjoined by law, to explain Mr. Shirk’s 
 charts based on raw statistical data. 
 
 Prohibition in the Colleges 
 
 There is ample testimony concerning the effect 
 on youth of Prohibition—not only the testimony 
 already given, including the diminishing totals of 
 first offenders on the charge of drunkenness, but 
 quite as typical a record of Prohibition enforcement 
 in the colleges. 
 
 The case of Yale University, in fact, presents a 
 unique test of a change of custom in the face of 
 disapproving opinion. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the prevailing senti- 
 ment among Yale students is wet. The statistics of 
 the Senior class of Yale College, published early in 
 1926, showed that 80 per cent of that class were wet 
 in their sympathies. This is a larger proportion 
 than the figures for Harvard reported during 1925, 
 and far larger than the recent survey of eleven 
 colleges, mostly Middle Western, which show that 
 two-thirds of the men and four-fifths of the women 
 students favor strict enforcement. 
 
 Not only is the Yale student sentiment prevail- 
 ingly wet, but the city and state in which Yale 
 is located are among the wettest in the Nation. 
 Connecticut did not ratify the Eighteenth Amend- 
 ment, and recently refused an opportunity to tighten 
 up its inadequate enforcement legislation. The news- 
 papers of New Haven are uniformly wet. Many 
 
DRINKING AMONG THE YOUTH 73 
 
 judges are wet. Besides living in this damp 
 atmosphere, the students largely come from the 
 great wet cities, especially New York, and a large 
 fraction of the students are from homes of the well- 
 to-do who can support wine cellars. Thus tradition 
 and environment conspire to moisten these young 
 men’s minds, if not their throats. Moreover, the 
 students are just at the age at which, we are so often 
 told, Prohibition is corrupting the youth. 
 
 If, therefore; anywhere in this great country, Pro- 
 hibition ought to prove a rank failure, it should be 
 among such a group of susceptible young men as we 
 have at Yale. I have taken great pains to ascertain 
 the actual facts in the case. Not relying on my own 
 impressions, I went to those who had the recorded 
 facts of students in disciplinary cases, the eight au- 
 thorities who knew the facts at first hand, and far 
 better than others. At least two of these eight men 
 I know to be strongly opposed to Prohibition. One 
 I know to be strongly in favor. The attitude of 
 the other five I do not know positively, but I be- 
 lieve that it is mostly opposed to Prohibition. The 
 facts at Yale, as these authorities have given them 
 to me in writing, are summarized as follows: 
 
 Frederick §S. Jones, outgoing Dean of Yale Col- 
 lege, says: 
 
 I think, on the whole, there is decidedly less 
 drinking than before Prohibition, and condi- 
 
 tions have been improving with time. On the 
 other hand, the cases with which I have to deal 
 
74 
 
 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 are often more acute than those encountered 
 before Prohibition. The college fraternities 
 have forbidden liquor in their houses, and are 
 living up to this rule. 
 
 C. W. Mendell, incoming Dean of Yale College: 
 
 I should say on the whole that Fay Camp- 
 bell’s summary [see below] of the matter was 
 reasonably good, and as near to the facts as 
 one could hope to come. It seems to me, how- 
 ever, that he has overlooked one very impor- 
 tant fact, that there is more drinking of hard 
 liquor now than there was before Prohibition. 
 This, I think, cannot be questioned. In the 
 old days the staple drink was beer, and I am in- 
 clined to think that it led to very little harm. 
 The present drinking of hard liquor almost al- 
 ways results in trouble of some sort, so that 
 scenes of public disgrace are rather worse than 
 they used to be. The drinking is more occa- 
 sional, but more disastrous. Personally, I am 
 not a believer in Prohibition. 
 
 E. Fay Campbell, Secretary of the Yale University 
 
 Christian Association: 
 
 The police feel that this year there was less 
 drinking at the junior prom. than at any time in 
 many years. There was a great deal of drinking 
 at the games. I am perfectly sure, however, 
 that there was not nearly as much drinking as 
 in 1915 when I was a sophomore. 
 
 Charles H. Warren, Dean of the Sheffield Scien- 
 
 tific School: 
 
DRINKING AMONG THE YOUTH 75 
 
 Four years ago I was appalled at the drink- 
 ing among the students. The alumni were even 
 worse. Since that time there has been a very 
 steady improvement. I think there is less 
 drinking now than ever before in the University. 
 The worst offenders are the returning alumni at 
 the football games and at commencement. 
 
 Charles C. Clarke, Professor of Romance Lan- 
 guages: 
 
 I am not a prohibitionist and have never been. 
 I will admit to you, however, that the effect of 
 Prohibition at Yale University has been good. 
 I know whereof I speak, for I have been a mem- 
 ber of the committee on discipline from a time 
 dating back many years before Prohibition. I 
 know conditions intimately. I do not pretend 
 that the students are prohibitionists or are not 
 drinking. But the change has been simply 
 revolutionary. In the old days our committee 
 was constantly busy with cases involving intox1- 
 cation and the disorders arising from it. Now 
 we have practically no business of the kind at 
 all to transact. Moreover, this is in spite of the 
 fact that in the old days we rarely troubled 
 ourselves about a case of mere intoxication if 
 it had not resulted in some kind of public dis- 
 order, whereas now intoxication of itself is 
 regarded as calling for the severest penalty. 
 
 Roswell P. Angier, former Dean of Freshmen: 
 
 Among freshmen the situation got distinctly 
 better from year to year of my administration, 
 September, 1920, to June, 1924. 
 
76 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 Percy T. Walden, present Dean of Freshmen: 
 
 There was much more open traffic in liquor 
 at the games this year. The freshmen found 
 more drinking places this year than formerly, 
 at least since Prohibition came in. 
 
 James R. Angell, President of Yale University: 
 
 The impression which I get from all well- 
 informed alumni with whom I talk is that, 
 despite the all too frequent violation of the 
 law, the amount of drinking at present, and 
 particularly the amount of excessive drinking, 
 is very much less than it was in earlier years. 
 
 I would summarize my own conclusions, based 
 on the authorities quoted, on my own observations, 
 and on conversations with others informed on the 
 situation, as follows: 
 
 (1) The number of discipline cases at Yale in 
 which drinking is a factor is now very much smaller 
 than before Prohibition. 
 
 (2) The improvement has been especially notice- 
 able in the last few years. 
 
 (3) Such drinking as still remains at Yale is often 
 more concentrated and uproarious than before the 
 Prohibition period. When liquor that was largely 
 beer was easily obtainable, many got it, got it often, 
 and got it in small quantities. Now that it is harder 
 to get, fewer get it, get it more seldom, but when 
 they do get it, make up for lost time. 
 
 (4) Prohibition created a defiant attitude in many 
 
DRINKING AMONG THE YOUTH 77 
 
 students. It is unpopular even among many who 
 do not try to circumvent the law.* 
 
 The various canvasses of student opinion in the 
 colleges of the United States are interesting chiefly 
 as reflecting the opinion of the students’ elders, wet 
 or dry, according to the general prevalence of opin- 
 ion in their localities. 
 
 The testimony of more than two hundred college 
 and university heads who answered the question- 
 naire sent out by the Literary Digest to approxi- 
 mately all such institutions of the country, brought 
 answers declaring the beneficial effect of Prohibition 
 on the student bodies and on youth in general. 
 
 To the question whether drinking had increased 
 or decreased during Prohibition as they had ob- 
 served it, 213 college heads representing 44 states 
 and nearly a third of the total of higher colleges 
 and universities, almost unanimously reported that 
 drinking in the colleges and drinking by the younger 
 generation as a whole had decreased. The conclu- 
 sion of the Literary Digest, drawn from such testi- 
 mony, is that, “there are actually fewer drinkers in 
 the colleges now than in the days when there were 
 only one-third the present number of students” 
 (53, p. 30.) 
 
 * A poll taken at Yale University at the time of the Prohibition 
 hearings at Washington in April, 1926, recorded the belief of a 
 large majority of students that Prohibition has increased drinking. 
 But, as they were on an average thirteen years old when Pro- 
 hibition came into effect and were not at Yale University at the 
 time but scattered all over the United States, their opinion 
 canpot carry much weight. 
 

 
 
 
 100+: 
 
 
 
 
 i), GAIN SINCE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 eS 
 
 
 
 Percent 
 on 
 fam) 
 
 
 
 1910 191% 1915 1916 1917 1938 1919 1920 1921 
 
 Total number of Delinquency Arraignments (at Children’s Court) 
 7.95 8.04 8.56 8.02 7.90 7.93 5.97 7.23 7.04 6.73 5.88 5.12 4.67 4.58 4.36 
 
 Arraignments per 10,000 Juveniles 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (92.9) 
 98.2 98.1 103. 95.7 93.3 92.6 69.0.82.7 83.0 75.3 64.6 56.2 57.0 49.8 46.6 
 106 106 111 103 100 100 74 89 89 8&1 70 690 61 £58 #«+50 
 
 4 
 
 21. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IS CUT IN HALF 
 in New York City 
 
 (Total arraignments for juvenile delinquency aged 7 to 15 years, per 10,000 
 of the juvenile population. Computed from Annual Reports of the Children’s 
 Court, of New York City.) 
 
 No safeguard against the so-called crime wave in the risin eneration 
 
 been found which seems more effective than Prohibition. Hor the ateece he 
 city’s children, drink must go. For every life shown saved in this chart is 
 worth many years of the future. The probable expectation of life of the 
 average adult saved by Prohibition and the saving in the lives and morals of 
 the young have increased with every year of Prohibition, 
 
100-}: 
 
 PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
 a 
 ° 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 “1921 1922 1923 1924 
 Number of Children sipoehiesrs taet Children’s Court 
 
 Yen kets we 
 8722 8935 6365 7433 7321 7220 5824 5198 4619 4490 2492 
 
 Children Arraigned per 10,000 Juveniles 
 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (94) 
 SU SeILOSMU Pa SOU SS Go Gown OC Le OO wr 481) 826 
 LOSE Len TOW eOOL Noo monn CON ,OLMVose Ole 29 
 
 22. GERRY SOCIETY ARRAIGNMENTS REDUCED 
 in New York City 
 
 (Computations made from data obtained from the reports 
 of the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to 
 Children.) 
 
 Further evidence of reduced delinquency among children in 
 New York City is shown in the records, charted above, of 
 the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children 
 (Gerry Society) of arraignments in the Children’s Court. 
 These records show that a decline set in with the first 
 wartime restrictions of drink, and continued under National 
 Prohibition with a steadily downward trend until, in 1924, 
 more than 70 per cent of the cases formerly handled bave 
 disappeared. 
 

 
 
 
 ‘| PRE-PROHIBITION Yj 
 
 WMT dd 
 
 {OF PROHIBITION ; 
 
 
 
 Bp 00.4 0 sche eters 
 
 PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
 
 * i. 
 7 g b oe 5 oP ere : 
 
 Og ESP Pal at Pl web ree . . . OG OCR 
 ORATOR eR MO) eK A i ae a Pe ° 
 
 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1 21 1922 1923 
 Number of Cases 
 2288 2489 2013 2718 2477 2071 1643 1375 1140 1260 
 
 Cases per million population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (482) 
 448 469 380 506 454 375 292 242 197 214 
 104 108 88 117 105 87 68 56 46 #50 
 
 
 
 23. LESS THAN HALF OF CHILDREN 
 FORMERLY BROUGHT INTO COURT 
 in New York City 
 
 (Computations made from data obtained from reports 
 of the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty 
 to Children.) 
 
 The Gerry Society (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty 
 to Children) finds that during the period of National 
 Prohibition the number of cases of juvenile criminality 
 has fallen sharply to less than 50 per cent of that in 
 Pre-prohibition years. 
 
3 
 
 
 
 © 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 os 
 ? 
 
 a3 
 >. 
 
 PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL, 
 
 ieee ee et 
 
 
 
 waa a ee sone’ a esas se ee eoe ee eee ee eee . 
 
 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 
 
 Number of Arrests 
 2279 2217 2101 2186 1553 1191 1876 1026 1129 
 
 Arrests per million population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Tevel 
 
 (431) 
 431 414 386 395 276 209 238 175 190 
 100 96 90 92 64 49 55 41 44 
 LL SE SE EE a ENTS SESE 
 
 
 
 24. DECREASED ARRESTS OF BOYS AND 
 GIRLS FOR CRIMES IN GENERAL 
 in New York City 
 
 (Computations made from data obtained from the 
 Police Department of New York City.) 
 
 Immediately after the adoption of National Pro- 
 hibition one third fewer boys and girls were 
 arrested for general criminality. In succeeding 
 years this proportion of arrests has declined still 
 further, until in 1923 and 1924, they were less 
 than 45 per cent of the pre-war average. The 
 benefit of Prohibition has been to save thousands 
 of youngsters from criminal pursuits, 
 
82 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 Fewer Juvenile Delinquents 
 
 Another good measure of the moral improvement 
 of the rising generation is to be derived from the 
 statistics of juvenile delinquency. In Chart 21 1s 
 shown a rapid decline of the curve of juvenile delin- 
 quency in New York City. Here is a typical major 
 exhibit illustrating the benefits of National Prohibi- 
 tion in a wet city, undefended by a local law such 
 as most cities benefit by in codperation with the 
 Federal Prohibition enforcement agents. Despite 
 this handicap, juvenile delinquency has been cut in 
 half in New York City. 
 
 These and other facts brought out in this chapter 
 confirm, and are confirmed by, the facts brought out 
 in previous chapters, especially those of Chapter IT, 
 showing that new recruits in the army of alcoholics 
 are rapidly decreasing. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 PuBLic SENTIMENT 
 
 Dislike of Prohibition Exaggerated 
 
 So far I have shown the exaggerations of Mr. 
 Shirk and his associates as to the non-enforcement 
 of Prohibition. I shall next point out that they 
 exaggerate the lack of public sentiment behind Pro- 
 hibition. 
 
 In the opening chapter I have already stated my 
 belief that National Prohibition came prematurely, 
 before a proper try-out of War-time Prohibition had 
 sufficiently prepared the population of the large 
 cities for Constitutional Prohibition. The very fact 
 that there should now be a few outstanding exam- 
 ples of leaders of public opinion opposed to National 
 Prohibition, however misled they are as to the facts 
 of improvement of the nation’s morale under this 
 law, seems to be conclusive evidence that Prohibi- 
 tion came a bit too soon. Only two-thirds of the 
 country was fully ready for it, while the great cities 
 in the East were not ready at all.. Uncle Sam had 
 swallowed the camel, seven stomachs and all, but 
 gagged at the tail! 
 
 83 
 
84 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 Growth of Public Sentiment 
 
 But, although the country at large forced Prohi- 
 bition upon the cities of the East, there is reassur- 
 ance in the fact that, even among these, the pro- 
 nounced benefits of the new régime are understood 
 and appreciated by a large minority. 
 
 Moreover, the antecedent spread of Prohibition 
 among the states and their sub-divisions records a 
 historic growth, on which the enforcement of the 
 Federal Law is now broadly based. 
 
 The Prohibition movement logically developed 
 from the temperance movement during the latter 
 half of the nineteenth century. By 1914, a large 
 area of communities had abolished the saloons by 
 local option, and nine states had passed Prohibition 
 statutes. But within the next four years, 23 more 
 states abolished the liquor traffic within their bor- 
 ders. 
 
 After Congress submitted the Eighteenth Amend- 
 ment for ratification by the states, it was over- 
 whelmingly ratified by 45 states in rapid succession. 
 Three years later New Jersey, the 46th state, ratified 
 it, leaving only Connecticut and Rhode Island dis- 
 senting. No other of the nineteen amendments 
 to the Constitution, including those embodying the 
 Bill of Rights, has received the affirmative votes of 
 so many states as did the Prohibition amendment. 
 
 On top of that, the Volstead act overrode by a 
 two-thirds majority a presidential veto, becoming 
 effective January 17, 1920. To be sure, this impres- 
 
PUBLIC SENTIMENT 85 
 
 sive majority was secured not altogether as an 
 expression of the popular will. The Anti-Saloon 
 League, patterning after the very thorough organi- 
 zation of the liquor interests in every congressional 
 and state legislative district, had built up a superb 
 political machine of deadly efficiency. It had 
 already filled a political graveyard of national pro- 
 portions of which the membership of Congress was 
 on notice. 
 
 But the efficiency of the Prohibition machine, in 
 turn, depended, in the last analysis, upon its ability 
 to appeal to local sentiment throughout the Union. 
 This sentiment had grown steadily, after numerous 
 experiments with all kinds of licensing and restric- 
 tive measures, until Prohibition resulted, first among 
 a few states, then among many, until nearly three- 
 quarters of them had adopted statewide Prohibition 
 and swept it irresistibly into the Federal Constitu- 
 tion. It went there, in the end, by a headlong 
 impulse, without regard to important and yet un- 
 converted sections of public opinion. 
 
 Yet we have found indubitable evidences even in 
 these sections that Prohibition has worked quite 
 well. Since this is so, the process of their conver- 
 sion should not be so difficult. 
 
 In short, those who oppose Prohibition with the 
 immoderation of the Moderation League, exagger- 
 ate greatly both the extent of non-enforcement and 
 the difficulty of enforcement because of lack of 
 public sentiment. Prohibition ought to be far 
 
86 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 better enforced than it is, and ought to have more 
 public sentiment behind it. But what has been 
 accomplished is substantial, and the present public 
 sentiment in favor of going forward, not backward, 
 is, to say the least, strong and determined. 
 
 Historica Norse 
 
 When we are confronted with the facts of drinking 
 in past centuries we begin to realize how the world 
 had moved even before Prohibition came, or was dis- 
 cussed. 
 
 We read now with amazed amusement that at the 
 funeral of a minister’s wife, in New England in 1678, 
 fifty-one and one-half gallons of wine were consumed by 
 the mourners (38, p. 29); or that an Act on the part 
 of the Virginia Assembly was necessary in 1664 in order 
 to provide that “Ministers shall not give themselves to 
 excess in drinking or riot, spending their time idly by day 
 or night, in playing at dice, cards, and other unlawful 
 games” (38, p. 26). 
 
 Hard and excessive drinking was tolerated in every 
 walk of life when New York was first settled by the 
 Dutch, we are told by Mr. Robert E. Corradini, who made 
 a special study of the effect of Prohibition on Broadway. 
 “Even the first ‘dominie’ often indulged in immoderate 
 tippling. ... One of the Dutch Burgomasters was, at 
 the same time, tavern keeper. He owned the wine, beer 
 and liquor shop at Number One Broadway. While under 
 the Dutch and British heavy drinking was commonplace, 
 the advent of American Independence did not affect the 
 thirst and the habits of the people very much. The fol- 
 lowing advertisement in the New York Gazette of 
 December 4, 1769, may indicate how drinking was 
 looked upon: 
 
 
 
PUBLIC SENTIMENT 87 
 
 ‘An hostler— 
 
 that gets drunk no more than twelve times in a year, 
 and will bring with him a good recommendation, is 
 wanted. Such a person will meet with encourage- 
 ment by applying to H. Gaine.’ 
 
 “The prevailing formula of those days seems to have 
 been: 
 
 ‘Not drunk is he who from the floor 
 Can rise again and still drink more, 
 
 But drunk is he who prostrate lies 
 Without the power to drink or rise’” (44, pp. 3-4). 
 
 Lady Astor, of the British Parliament, tells us that 
 in England even five hundred years ago an Act was 
 passed “for Keepers of Alehouses to be bound by Recog- 
 nizances . . . inasmuch as intolerable hurts and troubles 
 to the Commonwealth of this Realm do daily grow and 
 increase through such abuses and disorders as are had 
 and used in common alehouses and other houses called 
 tippling houses.” Only a hundred years ago in England, 
 she tells us, there was “a volume of evidence as to the 
 national demoralization caused by excessive indulgence 
 in gin and other such spirituous liquors” (36, pp. 265- 
 266). 
 
 “Tn the early part of the Eighteenth Century, London 
 gin shops advertised that people might get drunk for a 
 penny,” Professor Henry W. Farnam of Yale Univer- 
 sity reminds us, “and that clean straw in comfortable 
 cellars would be provided for customers. This was a 
 great boon for the individualist, but even Merry Eng- 
 land saw that this kind of debauchery was not very use- 
 ful to the wife and children of the drunkard, and passed 
 the gin act of 1736” (45, p. 9). 
 
88 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 It was about sixty-five years ago that an Act in Eng- 
 land prohibited miners’ pay offices being contiguous to 
 liquor premises (1860), and about fifty years ago that 
 an Act prohibited the payment of workers’ wages on 
 liquor premises (1872-1873). About twenty-five years 
 ago, in England, it was still necessary to pass an Act to 
 further “strengthen the law against drunkenness,” and 
 to “forbid the holding of Petty Sessions in Public 
 Houses” (1902); also an Act to exclude children under 
 fourteen from the bars of Public Houses and to prohibit 
 the giving of alcohol to children under five (1908)— 
 Acts that attest with eloquence to the conditions and 
 distresses that must have aroused communities to take 
 such steps (54, pp. 266, 267). 
 
 In Colonial days in America men drank as they ate, as 
 a matter of course, we are told in “Save America”: 
 “Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts said March 3, 
 1639: ‘We observed it a common fault with our grown 
 people that they gave themselves up to drink hot waters 
 very immoderately.’” And we read a little later of a 
 minister, who would appear drunk at the communion 
 table. His parishioners, finally deciding that this was 
 too much, tried to remove him. But the ministers of his 
 community rallied to him and nothing could be done 
 (18, p. 17). 
 
 “At the beginning of the Eightenth Century, when the 
 New World was setting up in business, it was ‘drink’ the 
 Old World herald, usher and sergeant at arms of feudal 
 power that had charge,” Mr. John G. Woolley tells us, 
 in “A Hundred Years of Temperance.” “Seed time was 
 time to drink. Harvest time waved its yellow banners 
 over jugs in the fence corners. Barns and homes and 
 schools were raised with the black bottle. The bar was 
 required by law to be set up, convenient to the church. 
 The sacrament was alcoholic. The chief drug in the 
 
PUBLIC SENTIMENT 89 
 
 pharmacopeeia was spirits. Drink was godfather at every 
 christening, master of ceremonies at every wedding, first 
 aid in every accident and assistant undertaker at every 
 funeral. It had come with the Spanish to St. Augustine 
 in 1565. It had carried the first Virginia election for 
 John Smith in 1607. It was the “Dutch courage” of 
 Manhattan Island in 1615. It led the prayers on 
 Plymouth Rock in 1620. It arrived in Baltimore in 1634. 
 It fuddled the brotherhood of Philadelphia in 1682. It 
 was the first organized treason, in the whisky rebellion 
 of 1791. It has been the fata morgana of many millions 
 of immigrants to this day” (46, p. 6, 1908). 
 
 Only one hundred years ago a town in Massachusetts 
 with 1,800 inhabitants consumed 10,000 gallons of rum 
 in one year (38, p. 97). 
 
 And just as a sample of what alcoholic drink did to 
 them, in those days, it may be mentioned that of 623 
 adults in a Maryland almshouse, 554 of them were there 
 from poverty believed to have been produced by drink 
 (38, p. 99). 
 
CHARI B RULE 
 Tue PASSING OF THE SALOON 
 
 Degree of Federal Enforcement 
 
 Thus far I have tried to clear the records of the 
 exaggerations which heavily overhang them in the 
 minds of honest doubters as to the efficacy of the 
 Prohibition law. In particular, I have dealt with 
 the decrease of arrests and the diminution of the 
 drink habit under Prohibition, in the United States, 
 as well as among typical states, cities, and classes 
 of the population. The true and corrected figures 
 show that the changes have been for the better. 
 
 In this chapter I shall give some facts to indicate 
 the degree of Federal enforcement, and emphasize 
 the chief results. Assistant Attorney General Mabel 
 Walker Willebrandt, in charge of cases under the 
 Volstead act, stated to the Senate Judiciary Sub- 
 committee at Washington that Federal convictions 
 rose from 22,000 in 1922, with $4,000,000 collected 
 in fines, to 38,000 in 1925, and $7,681,000 in fines. 
 Jail sentences, also, increased from an average of 
 21 days in 1923 to 34 days in 1924, and, in 1925, 
 to more than 43 days. In 1922, total penitentiary 
 sentences of 1,552 years were given; 3,406 years in 
 
 90 
 
THE PASSING OF THE SALOON 91 
 
 1924, and 4,569 years in 1925. To the question “Is 
 the law enforced?” Mrs. Willebrandt’s reply was: 
 “Increasingly effectively” (1, p. 1129). 
 
 For example, in Gary, Indiana, some fifteen major 
 violators of the law had been caught, including the 
 mayor, police officers, judges, and a number of en- 
 forcement agents; they were at that time serving 
 terms in Federal penitentiaries under the laws 
 against conspiracy and bribery. The more recent 
 conviction of William V. Dwyer, guilty of conduct- 
 ing a $20,000,000-a-year business in rum running, 
 signalizes a control over smuggling by sea that has 
 discouraged the big operators to the extent of their 
 withdrawal of hundreds of vessels from the famous 
 “Rum Row” that once found it profitable to hover 
 off the coast beyond the twelve-mile limit. General 
 Andrews, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in 
 charge of Prohibition Enforcement, recently an- 
 nounced that codperation with the British govern- 
 ment had been arranged whereby “Rum Row” will 
 be still further shriveled up. 
 
 Doubtless the violators of the Prohibition law 
 blame the law itself for their plight, just as the 
 grafters convicted of importing bootleg milk into 
 New York are inclined to find fault with the law 
 under which they were convicted. The eminent 
 grafters of the Tweed Ring, the gamblers of the 
 Louisiana Lottery, the criminals of the Crédit 
 Mobilier scandals, and all swindlers, high and low, 
 - when caught, like the wretch who felt the halter 
 
92 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 draw, lack good opinion of the law. Public senti- 
 ment, in the history of all these cases, has uniformly 
 turned a deaf ear to the offenders. 
 
 Active Local Codperation 
 
 Mrs. Willebrandt reported uniformly active oo- 
 operation of state and Federal officials except from 
 New York, which repealed its enforcement act. 
 
 Following unification of the enforcement activities 
 of the Prohibition Unit with the Coast- Guard and 
 internal revenue officials, Assistant Secretary An- 
 drews has reported success in the policy of employ- 
 ing the best obtainable legal counsel and skilled 
 enforcement agents, working under the Prohibition 
 administrators at higher salaries. The Federal dis- 
 trict attorneys have come to an effective under- 
 standing with local enforcement officials as to the 
 powers of the padlock in cases of illicit distribution 
 of beverages; further, in certain districts, the Pro- 
 hibition Unit gets the aid of landlords who realize 
 that it 1s bad business to rent their buildings for 
 the use of violators of the liquor laws. General 
 Andrews has worked vigorously to cleanse the Pro- 
 hibition Unit of its corrupt officials, and has con- 
 centrated on the work of stopping the supply of 
 illicit liquors at the source, looking with increased 
 confidence to local help in enforcing the law in the 
 states and municipalities. The efforts of enforce- 
 ment officials in the Philadelphia district alone re- 
 sulted in reducing the output commonly diverted 
 
THE PASSING OF THE SALOON 93 
 
 into illicit channels, production falling at one time 
 from 1,700,000 gallons at the denaturing plants to 
 500,000 gallons in a single month. 
 
 A similar achievement by the alcohol squad of 
 the Prohibition Unit in New York, where the output 
 of the denaturing plants fell from 600,000 gallons 
 to 300,000 gallons during December, 1925, indicates 
 progress in stopping one of the sources of bootleg 
 liquor. ? 
 
 In fact, the formule for making denatured alcohol 
 under which it could easily be redistilled for beverage 
 purposes, have been proscribed. According to recent 
 reports, gasoline is being included as a denaturant. 
 A new regulation for control of sacramental wine 
 has reduced the output of this wine by more than 
 50 per cent (1, p. 1406). The formal declara- 
 tion for making household fruit juices, which people 
 were mistaking for a permit to make wine, 200 gal- 
 lons per family, has been eliminated. A way has 
 been found to double the tax penalties on illicit 
 whisky or alcohol, which was in force before Pro- 
 hibition. The special alcohol squad, organized for 
 control of beverage alcohol, beer, and near-beer, 
 has proved efficient. From all his administrators in 
 the field General Andrews received, early in 1926, 
 special advices of gratifying strides in local law en- 
 forcement throughout the country. 
 
 In the lax city of New York, which has lacked a 
 state enforcement act since 1923, a measure of Pro- 
 hibition sentiment was indicated in the testimony 
 
94 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 of Federal Attorney Buckner before the Senate Sub- 
 committee. On taking office in 1925, Mr. Buckner 
 said that the police commissioner of New York be- 
 gan turning over to him 15,000 complaints of vio- 
 lations a month, or 180,000 complaints a year. 
 These, he continued, were 
 
 from neighbors and citizens made to the police 
 commissioner. And he told me as police com- 
 missioner that he would be removed from office, 
 in his opinion, if he did not attempt to do 
 something in that situation, even without any 
 help in the State courts and with only the Fed- 
 eral courts to go to. And even with the cases 
 being thrown out as they were, yet receiving 
 180,000 complaints a year from citizens, he cer- 
 tainly could not sit idly by and do nothing 
 (1, p. 99). 
 
 “Crome Wave” Exaggerated 
 
 To gauge further the law-abiding quality of New 
 York’s citizenship, expressed in terms of compliance 
 and benefits derived, the World League Against 
 Aleoholism found, in its survey, that during 1923 
 and 1924, when talk of a “crime wave” was in the 
 air, the police reports showed that, as compared 
 with the saloon year of 1916, arrests had decreased 
 in offenses “against the person,’ Including many 
 serious felonies; “against chastity”; ‘“‘against the 
 family and children”; “against the administration 
 of government”; against “property rights,” and in 
 cases of “juvenile delinquency.” The accompany- 
 
THE PASSING OF THE SALOON 95 
 
 ing charts depict a decreasing number of New York 
 offenders in all these categories during the National 
 Prohibition period. It is only in cases not related 
 to alcoholism that any increases in arrests are noted, 
 chiefly having to do with violations of the Motor 
 Vehicle Law. As against these are marked decreases 
 of arrests for drunkenness during 1923 and 1924, as 
 compared with 1917. 
 
 Contrasted with the arrests for drunkenness in the 
 so-called moderate wine-drinking cities of Paris and 
 Liege, Belgium, as well as with convictions for 
 drunkenness in London, the corresponding records 
 of New York are decidedly good. 
 
 The “crime wave” on account of Prohibition, 
 alleged at the National Prohibition hearings in 
 Washington in 1926, by the Honorable Alfred J. 
 Talley, Judge of the Court of General Sessions of 
 the State of New York (1, p. 148), seems to be a 
 myth. The testimony of that court’s probation off- 
 cer, quoted by Judge Talley, as to the influence of 
 speakeasies on the youth of to-day, culminating in 
 lawless acts under the stimulation of poisonous 
 whisky, seems to have too small a foundation to 
 be very significant. The same may be said of the 
 testimony of Mrs. Viola M. Anglin, deputy chief pro- 
 bation officer of New York City, who could not give 
 figures for thinking “that the children are suffer- 
 ing more, that the wives are suffering more than 
 they did before” (1, p. 480). Doubtless Mrs. Anglin 
 hhas seen suffering among children and mothers, be- 
 

 
 PROHIBITION 
 
 eee 
 OOO 
 
 PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL. 
 
 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 19 
 Number of Arrests 
 5594 5559 5562 6049 3610 4408 4158 4155 4166 
 Arrests per million population 
 and per cents of aoe Pre-prohibition Level 
 1060 
 
 1060 1040 1020 913 642 772 718 709 700 
 100° :9S $6 (86,61 73> €8 67 166 
 
 25. CRIMES RELATED TO DRINK 
 REDUCED 
 in New York City 
 
 (Computations made from data obtained from the 
 Police Department of New York City.) 
 
 The police department has found it necessary to 
 arrest only two thirds as many offenders for 
 crimes against chastity since Prohibition as were 
 arrested before Prohibition. The marked benefit 
 appeared immediately after the advent of National 
 Prohibition, and after a slight reaction in the 
 second year thereafter it became yet greater. 
 

 
 PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL y» 
 
 YM 
 
 GAIN SINCE PROHIBITION 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
 
 1910 1913 1912 1 
 
 913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 
 Number of Arrests 
 218 421 296 399 406 369 239 142 118 VOMaQy Vis eo Leo iL 
 
 Arrests per million population 
 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (66.8) 
 A5.6 86.8 59.9 79.4 79.4 71.1 45.2 26.5 21.6 13.0 6.8 3.2 5.0 2.2 1.8 
 68 130 90 119 119 106 68 40 32 19 10 5 3 3 
 
 
 
 26. DISORDERLY HOUSES VIRTUALLY DISAPPEAR 
 in New York City 
 
 (Computations made from data obtained from records of the Court of Special 
 Sessions, New York City.) 
 
 With the passing of the saloon another age-long evil, that of institutionalized 
 social vice, has all but disappeared. Both in their existence and in their 
 destruction the two evils are inseparable. Note how closely the curve of this 
 chart of arrests for keeping disorderly houses parallels the curves of reduced 
 alcoholic consumption. These arrests to-day are only 3 per cent of what they 
 used to be, and 97 per cent of disorderly houses are eliminated, chiefly due, in 
 all probability, to National Prohibition. 
 

 
 “jill 
 
 Wy SINCE ica 
 
 PERCENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
 
 aa a a 
 
 Dh LOLA DAO Be ey belt bie he AL 
 
 ects Ort be OAC a) rr A Cra et ber 
 
 . ‘4916, sbeaoeaet Bn “T921 i922 1923 1924 
 Number of Arrests 
 7883 5504 4436 4350 3602 2360 2115 1717 1695 
 
 Arrests per million population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level 
 
 (1400) 
 1400 1030 814 786 641 414 3865 292 284 
 100 74 58 56 46 30 26 21 20 
 
 27. MORAL TONE OF METROPOLIS 
 IMPROVES 
 in New York City 
 
 (Computations made from data furnished by 
 police departments.) 
 
 Temperateness in speech would be expected as a 
 consequence of the change of habits following 
 the abolition of the drink traffic. Drink and 
 foul language are closely associated, and this 
 chart bears testimony to the passing of profanity 
 as a public nuisance. Highty per cent of arrests 
 for this cause have been prevented perhaps through 
 National Prohibition. Along with it have disap- 
 peared the mud and filth and slums that formerly 
 distinguished the metropolis. 
 
PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
 
 
 
 100. VM, 
 
 AIN SINCE PROHIBITION -: 
 
 Q . 
 1910 1911 1912 
 
 
 
 
 Number of Arrests 
 2566 2742 2365 2858 2701 2633 2089 1895 1266 1168 1087 1222 1481 1365 1177 
 
 Arrests per million population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (511) 
 688 566 478 570 529 508 386'354 232 211 198 214 256 231 197 
 106 111 94 112 104 99 76 69 45 41 38 42 50 45 £39 
 
 28. CASES OF ASSAULT AND BATTERY DECREASE 
 in New York City 
 
 (Computations made from data obtained from records of the Court of Special 
 Sessions, New York City.) 
 
 Crimes of violence thrive on drunkenness. The decrease in cases of assault and 
 battery in the metropolis of the nation has amounted to about three fifths, due 
 apparently to wartime restrictions and National Prohibition. 
 
100 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 cause of the drunken excesses of husbands who have 
 imbibed poisonous bootleg liquors. But not so many 
 are drinking, and those who do are not drinking so 
 much as formerly. 
 
 It may be true, as contended by Senator William 
 C. Bruce of Maryland, 
 
 that women and young boys and girls of social 
 classes that never took a drink before are now 
 indulging in liquors which are a menace to their 
 morals and their health (1, p. 146). 
 There are doubtless some of these. But their num- 
 ber is not great in proportion to population and 
 their excesses do not characterize the habits of 
 American society in general. 
 
 There is smuggling. There is corruption of Pro- 
 hibition agents and police, and drunkenness among 
 these. There is persistence of drinking in night 
 clubs. But there is less of these things than there 
 used to be in the days of saloons. 
 
 The Saloon Has Gone 
 
 What has all but disappeared is the saloon itself. 
 This marked and sweeping change came at a time 
 when the saloons of the licensed areas of the coun- 
 try were increasing with unexampled rapidity. No 
 higher authority for this statement need be cited 
 than the testimony of Hugh F. Fox, secretary of the 
 United States Brewers’ Association: 
 
 About thirty years ago, suddenly came the 
 invention of artificial refrigeration. followed by 
 
THE PASSING OF THE SALOON 101 
 
 an enormous increase in immigration. The in- 
 vention of artificial refrigeration practically 
 doubled, or more, the capacity of the breweries, 
 and the result was an enormous over-competi- 
 tion and tremendous increase in the number of 
 saloons. The result of that over-competition 
 was, as you gentlemen of course have observed, 
 in all our large cities, a very much greater num- 
 ber of saloons than were needed for the reason- 
 able convenience of the people (4, p. 83). 
 
 Secretary Fox, in his address to the United States 
 Brewers’ Association, added: 
 
 Out of that over-competition and out of the 
 lax municipal methods in some states, the com- 
 binational circumstances, the saloon evil, as we 
 know it, arose. . . . Saloon conditions in a good 
 many parts of the country became notoriously 
 bad (4, p. 83). 
 
 The organizer of the Brewers’ Association, Mr. 
 Percy Andreae, declared: 
 
 We are handicapped in our local license cam- 
 paign by the indefensible character of disrep- 
 utable saloons. . . . The trend of our argument 
 is that the open saloon is much better than the 
 secret speakeasy. Is not this a tacit admission 
 that after all it is the lesser of two evils that we 
 have to offer? In the long run our efforts to or- 
 ganize our friends and educate the liberals will 
 go for naught, if we are merely trying to win 
 their support of a “necessary evil” (4, p. 362). 
 
 The bootlegger, successor to the saloon-keeper, 
 faces the enormous handicap of being a furtive out- 
 
102 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 law, vending highly questionable and poisonous bev- 
 erages for which he must charge a discouragingly 
 high price. 
 
 Difficulties of obtaining liquors, and the conse- 
 quent high cost, cannot help but be a deterrent upon 
 their consumption in quantities. Whisky at ten dol- 
 lars a quart is a luxury. When it is considered that, 
 in the whole United States, the number of Federal 
 personal income tax returns for incomes during 1923 
 of $10,000 and over was only 228,267, while the total 
 number of returns in all classes was 7,698,321 
 (5, p. 14), it becomes apparent that the number of 
 persons who can afford the high-priced bootleg 
 poison is comparatively small. 
 
 Furthermore, the bootlegger suffers hazards that 
 are costly to him. While he is getting many times 
 more for his products than they formerly com- 
 manded, he is many times more liable to pay a 
 heavy fine, or to lose money from the confiscation 
 of his stock—if not, indeed, to pay the price of jail. 
 
 The saloon is gone. That is the great incontro- 
 vertible fact, directly due to the passage of the 
 National Prohibition law. The consequences for 
 good of the abolition of the saloon are incalculable 
 and grow directly from the rapid change which it 
 has produced in lessening an artificial habit of self- 
 poisoning that had long tended to hold Western civ- 
 ilization down. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 ALCOHOL AND LONGEVITY 
 
 Professor Pearl’s Group of “Moderate Drinkers” 
 
 Those who exaggerate the shortcomings of Prohi- 
 bition or underrate its benefits consist, for the most 
 part, of unlearned people. In general, the scientific 
 world is in favor of total abstinence as an ideal and 
 Prohibition as a means toward that end. But there 
 are a few exceptions. 
 
 Raymond Pearl is Professor of Biometry and 
 Vital Statistics, School of Hygiene and Public 
 Health, of Johns Hopkins University. The scientific 
 standing of that institution is unquestioned. None 
 stands higher. I was therefore very much surprised 
 to read in a recent study by Dr. Pearl (6, p. 252) of 
 the mortality of groups of total abstainers and per- 
 sons of different drinking habits, a blunt finding, as 
 follows: “At every age up to 85 in the males, and 
 to 90 in the females, the moderate drinking group 
 exhibits a higher mean age at death than the total 
 abstainer group.” The italics are Dr. Pearl’s. 
 
 At first sight this finding seems of startling impor- 
 - tance; in fact, it would be of quite priceless value 
 to the Wets who in eight states during 1926 have 
 
 103 | 
 
104 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 instituted, on behalf of so-called moderate drinkers, 
 referenda looking to the return of wine and beer. 
 
 But, strangely enough, though he italicizes his 
 remarkable findings, Dr. Pearl immediately explains 
 that they have no significance! ‘The differences 
 between the two classes, he says, “cannot be re- 
 garded as significant in comparison with their prob- 
 able errors.” This passage, it seems to me, is the 
 one which should have been italicized. In the end 
 he contents himself with this: 
 
 There appears . . . no evidence whatever 
 for the view that the moderate consumption of 
 alcohol as a beverage in the slightest degree 
 diminishes the expectation of life (6, p. 253). 
 
 In other words, Dr. Pearl’s meager statistics yield no 
 
 conclusions on the subject. But, as we shall see, 
 
 other statistics of far larger numbers do yield results. 
 Dr. Pearl’s data do show, however, that the 
 
 heavy drinking group shows definitely in both 
 sexes a diminished mean age at death, as com- 
 pared with either the total abstainer or the 
 moderate and occasional groups (6, p. 253). 
 
 In short, Dr. Pearl confirms well-known conclu- 
 sions as to heavy drinkers, but has no dependable 
 conclusion as to moderate drinkers to disprove the 
 experience of the life insurance companies on both 
 sides of the Atlantic. 
 
 But, entirely aside from the scantiness of Dr. 
 Pearl’s data (which, as he unobtrusively admits, 
 
ALCOHOL AND LONGEVITY 105 
 
 destroys of itself any value in his italicized conclu- 
 sion) there is another reason why his “moderate 
 drinkers” do not die as fast as, from other evidence, 
 we know moderate drinkers do die. What Dr. Pearl 
 means by “moderate drinkers” and what he means 
 by “heavy and steady drinkers” are very different 
 from what anybody else means by those terms! 
 
 He has taken a sample of more than 2,000 men 
 and women drawn from the working-class popula- 
 tion of Baltimore, each at age 20, divided them into 
 three classes in respect to drinking habits, and fol- 
 lowed each throughout life until death. The work, 
 which was supported by the National Tuberculosis 
 Association, the Russell Sage Foundation, and the 
 Commonwealth Fund, was part of an elaborate 
 investigation into the family histories of a group of 
 tuberculous persons, and of another group of non- 
 tuberculous persons, both sets of histories being 
 taken by expert field workers. As alcohol figures 
 in the etiology of tuberculosis, the material on indi- 
 vidual drinking habits came handy to Dr. Pearl in 
 making this extraordinary study of the effects of 
 alcohol on the terms of life of the abstainer and 
 aleohol-drinking groups. 
 
 But by a statistical perversity which arouses won- 
 der, Dr. Pearl deliberately merges the regular mod- 
 erate drinkers with his list of heavy and regular 
 drinkers. “If any person took an occasional glass 
 of beer or wine,” he explains, “he went into the class 
 of ‘moderate and occasional drinkers.’” On the 
 
106 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 other hand, “the person who made it a regular habit 
 te take wine or beer with meals, even though the 
 amount so taken was never excessive, was placed in 
 the next higher class, the ‘heavy or steady 
 drinkers’ ” (6, p. 243). 
 
 Had he used the term “moderate” in its usual 
 interpretation the members and officers of ‘‘personal 
 liberty” leagues, Moderation Leagues, brewers and 
 distillers, and campaign orators in national and state 
 political organizations would, in all probability, not 
 have been able to quote triumphantly Dr. Pearl’s 
 italicized statement, “At every age up to 85 in the 
 males, and to 90 in the females, the moderate drink- 
 ing group exhibits a higher mean age at death than 
 the total-abstainer group,’ * while, of course, omit- 
 ting his offsetting statement that these results, in 
 so small a number of cases, are likely to be acci- 
 dental. 
 
 Dr. Pearl’s statistical method is both improper 
 and misleading in classifying one of his major 
 
 * Dr. Pearl finds some apology needed for his remarkable classi- 
 fication, for he says: “I realize fully that in placing the moderate 
 and temperate but steady daily drinker in the ‘heavy’ category 
 that I am going contrary to common opinion and the common 
 usage of descriptive language. But I believe that the classifica- 
 tion here adopted is more nearly scientifically warranted in an 
 objective study of the problem than is that based upon common 
 opinion” (6, p. 243). Nevertheless, in his conclusion (6, p. 278), 
 he says that the weight of evidence indicates that alcoholic con- 
 sumption “which in common parlance ts called moderate (the 
 precise measure of this amount and frequency probably varying 
 to some extent with each individual) does not sensibly shorten 
 the mean duration of life or increase the rate of mortality, as 
 compared with that enjoyed by total abstainers of alcohol.” 
 
ALCOHOL AND LONGEVITY 107 
 
 groups, so that his conclusion when quoted apart 
 from the context must distort the facts to the gen- 
 eral comprehension. 
 
 Dr. Pearl cannot escape the chief responsibility 
 for such distortion because (1) he italicizes the mis- 
 leading conclusion; but (2) does not italicize his 
 statement that the data are too few to make that 
 conclusion significant; (3) he uses the term ‘“‘mod- 
 erate’ in an unusual and, therefore, misleading 
 sense; and (4) in the end, as by a sleight-of-hand 
 substitution, he speaks of his (italicized but worth- 
 less) conclusion as though it applied to drinkers 
 called moderate ‘‘in common parlance.” Is this pre- 
 senting the unvarnished truth? 
 
 Inadequacy of Pearl’s Data 
 
 A supplementary article published by Dr. Pearl in 
 the British Medical Journal of May 31, 1924, 
 apparently admits the insufficiency of the data pre- 
 sented in his report and attempts to meet criticism 
 with some additional material. The group he pre- 
 sents, that of six thousand people divided into sub- 
 groups, classified as to alcoholic habits, and still 
 further sub-divided into age groups, tapers down to 
 very meager statistical data on which to base a life 
 table. Dr. Pearl avoids stating the exact number 
 of persons in the smaller sub-divisions. It would 
 appear that, in some instances, there are less than 
 a half dozen! Instead of giving the number of 
 persons, Dr. Pearl gives the number of years lived. 
 
108 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 People not familiar with actuarial methods might 
 well suppose that such a table covered an enormous 
 amount of data. 
 
 But, apart from the numerical inadequacy of the 
 material, it is not selected in a way to make it of 
 any value for such a study. Dr. Pearl would dis- 
 credit the enormous life insurance experience dealing 
 with several million lives and pits against it his 
 little handful of people culled from the population 
 by a general inquiry which failed to include any 
 adequate analysis of the original condition of 
 health of the members of the groups. Inasmuch as 
 we are dealing with questions of longevity, there is 
 a failure to take into consideration the fact that, in 
 life insurance groups, the members are, in a general 
 sense, homogeneous as to their general condition of 
 health; that is, they were so at the time they were 
 accepted. In Dr. Pearl’s groups there must be a 
 mixture of all sorts and kinds of impaired risks, and 
 there is no telling what influence such factors have 
 had upon the mortality of the groups studied, 
 entirely apart from their alcoholic habits. 
 
 His taking a group of dead people and construct- 
 ing a life table on them is contrary to sound life 
 insurance principles. 
 
 Finally, he has excluded the group of deaths by 
 accidents and adjusted his tables to exclude those 
 who subsequently developed heavy drinking habits. 
 
 No reason can be admissible for excluding the 
 deaths from accidents. An increased accident rate 
 
ALCOHOL AND LONGEVITY 109 
 
 has been found in life insurance statistics among 
 drinkers as compared to non-drinkers, as one would 
 naturally expect. 
 
 Of course, also, increased indulgence is just as 
 much a pathological effect of ordinary alcoholic 
 indulgence as cirrhosis of the liver would be. One 
 might just as reasonably proceed to readjust the 
 membership of these groups from year to year by 
 excluding those who developed alcoholic excesses. 
 
 Professor Pearl has the trappings of a technical 
 expert in presenting his data. His method is admir- 
 ably calculated to bully the average physician into 
 accepting the results he alleges without question. 
 But his imposing super-structure of technique rests 
 on a basis of fundamental fallacy and prejudice. 
 Scientific method without scientific spirit and reli- 
 able and adequate data is a means of beclouding, 
 not illuminating, the subject. 
 
 In the book edited by Dr. Starling, to which Dr. 
 Pearl contributed, he is constantly placing the 
 emphasis in the wrong place and using the wrong 
 data. For example, he cites a study by the North- 
 western Mutual Life Insurance Company which has 
 been superseded by a later study which showed 
 definitely results which were exactly contrary to his 
 own conclusions! (72). One competent commenta- 
 tor, a foremost actuary, declares that he cannot 
 imagine how “any man with even a pretense of 
 statistical ability could produce such a nonsensical 
 - discussion.” 
 
110 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 In How to Live, a monthly journal of the Life 
 Extension Institute, issue of January, 1924, appears 
 this comment upon Professor Pearl’s study in the 
 book, “The Action of Alcohol on Man”: 
 
 That scientific men will allow their prejudices 
 so to impair their sense of proportion in such 
 matters is one of the reasons why science, espe- 
 cially medical science, is not held in better 
 repute by the masses. 
 
 Dr. Evans Corrects Professor Pearl 
 
 The Record of the American Institute of Actu- 
 aries, dated June, 1925, contains the address of the 
 president of that body, Dr. Percy H. Evans. In 
 this address Dr. Evans quotes a statement by Dr. 
 Pearl from the American Mercury of February, 
 1924, as follows: 
 
 Certainly in the matter of present interest, 
 what the insurance companies actually know 
 about the effect of alcohol upon mortality can 
 by no possibility be held to justify the conclu- 
 sions which the public have drawn. 
 
 Dr. Evans is not so sure of this. Pointing 
 out that in the latest and most extensively pub- 
 lished investigation of insurance results, from the 
 angle of the liquor habit, the reader is warned not 
 to make too broad inferences “from data based on 
 original applications where the subsequent histories 
 have not been traced and periodical reclassifications 
 made on some significant basis,’ Dr. Evans goes 
 on to say: 
 
ALCOHOL AND LONGEVITY 111 
 
 Let me mention here the results of this inves- 
 tigation of mortality under 286,392 policies, 
 issued 1885-1900, according to what the appli- 
 cants, upon making application, claimed their 
 liquor habit to be. The group covered 30,069 
 deaths for $86,691,000 of insurance. The “total 
 abstainers” showed a mortality of 84.3 per cent 
 of that expected; “moderate users,” 97.2 per 
 cent; “regular beer-drinkers,”’ 111.3 per cent; 
 and “regular spirit-drinkers,” 128.9 per cent of 
 the Medico-Actuarial Table of Mortality. A 
 later count, covering the issues of 1901-08, 
 showed the following percentages of the Ameri- 
 can Men Table for the several groups in the 
 same order, 2.e., 69.6 per cent, 77.6 per cent, 
 91.2 per cent, and 127.3 per cent (52, p. 9). 
 
 Why do applicants for life insurance who 
 claim to be abstainers at the time of medical 
 examination persistently show the most favor- 
 able mortality? Of course, we do not suppose 
 they all told the exact truth. We may also 
 assume that many of them took to drink later 
 on. But it seems as if one of two things must 
 be said about this “‘abstainer” group: either 
 there is some benefit to longevity in abstinence 
 or else we must believe there was just enough, 
 and no more, moderate tippling going on in the 
 “abstainer”’ class to give the whole group the 
 alleged benefits of moderate doses of alcohol 
 while the other three groups, including the 
 so-called “moderate users,’ were in point of 
 fact using alcohol to excess. This whole ques- 
 tion of “moderate use” is still unanswered. Mr. 
 Emory McClintock said in 1905: “Statistics 
 have never yet shown one atom of information 
 on that subject, and it is doubtful if they ever 
 
112 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 can. All that is possible is to argue about it” 
 (52, p. 9). 
 
 It is quite true, of course, that life insurance sta- 
 tistics of the mortality among the insured, classified 
 solely according to their condition at the time they 
 became insured, cannot tell us what happens to 
 moderate drinkers who stay moderate drinkers. 
 Many who were moderate drinkers when first 
 insured are certain to become immoderate drinkers 
 later, just because the tendency of all habit-forming 
 drugs is to influence the appetite they seem to sat- 
 isfy. What the statistics do prove is that moderate 
 drinkers are bad risks—the risk always including 
 that of becoming immoderate drinkers. 
 
 This inclusion of those who increase their imbib- 
 ing is as it should be, not only from the standpoint 
 of life insurance but also from the standpoint of a 
 practical man who wants to know all the risks he 
 takes when he begins fooling with such a tricky 
 drug. 
 
 The moreracademic question of what happens to 
 moderate drinkers who always stay moderate is one 
 for the laboratory, rather than for statistics. It is 
 discussed in the next chapter. 
 
 Abstainers Live Longer Than Drinkers 
 The present question—the mortality among those 
 who start off as moderate drinkers whether or not 
 they remain so—has been settled by statistics 
 beyond all reasonable doubt. The classic investiga- 
 
ALCOHOL AND LONGEVITY 113 
 
 tion, amply confirmed by many others, is the Med- 
 ico-Actuarial Investigation (71), including forty- 
 three American life insurance companies and cover- 
 ing two million lives. 
 
 This showed that the death rate among policy- 
 holders using (when examined) two glasses of beer 
 or one glass of whisky daily was 18 per cent above 
 the death rate among insured lives generally.* 
 
 In the experience of the United Kingdom Tem- 
 perance and General Provident Institution of Lon- 
 don, during more than half a century from 1866 to 
 1917, the abstainers show an actual mortality of 
 65 per cent of that expected, as contrasted with the 
 mortality of 90 per cent for non-abstainers. The 
 experience from 1883 to 1917 of the Scottish Life 
 Assurance Company of Glasgow gives the deaths 
 of abstainers at 52 per cent of the number expected, 
 and of non-abstainers at 70 per cent. 
 
 These death curves of themselves suggest that 
 alcohol is a narcotic poison, a habit-forming drug, 
 poisonous as such. This is a foundation fact which 
 none of the opponents of Prohibition, not even 
 so able an apostle of moderate drinking as Dr. 
 Pearl, have succeeded, with all their efforts, in dis- 
 crediting. 
 
 *It also showed that those who had a history of past intem- 
 perance but were apparently cured at the time they took insur- 
 ance suffered a mortality 50 per cent above the average while 
 those using more than the “two glasses of beer or one glass of 
 
 -whisky” (yet accepted for insurance and regarded as “moderate 
 drinkers”) registered 86 per cent above 
 
114 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 Alcohol as a Medicine 
 
 Medicinally, the use of alcohol to “stimulate,” in 
 the face of all modern scientific discoveries as to its 
 “depressing” effect, smacks at once of the pre- 
 scientific days when the old-wife and the medicine- 
 man ruled the destinies of the community with little 
 else than superstition to guide them. 
 
 When I was but a youngster in medicine in 
 the late ’eighties, and for generations before my 
 day, | 
 
 said Dr. Howard A. Kelly of Johns Hopkins Uni- 
 versity, 
 
 it was the unreasoning fashion of my profession 
 to prescribe some sort of an alcoholic drink as 
 “a, tonic” in convalescence, and this evil habit 
 to some extent still lingers as our worst inherit- 
 ance from our respected fathers. The good 
 done about equalled that of pink pills for pale 
 people, while the harm done in implanting and 
 fostering a deadly habit was incalculable (8, 
 p. 26, Sept.-Nov., 1925). 
 
 Dr. Richard C. Cabot, Professor of Clinical Medi- 
 cine, Harvard Medical School, says: 
 
 Physicians are using it less and less in the 
 treatment of disease, owing to the recognition 
 that it is a narcotic and not a stimulant (9, 
 Nov. 1, 1925). 
 
 Alcohol is now seldom used in acute illness 
 except as a substitute for food in cases where 
 previous drinking has made it unwise to with- 
 draw, , 
 
ALCOHOL AND LONGEVITY 115 
 
 according to Dr. Eugene L. Fisk, Medical Director 
 of the Life Extension Institute (10, p. 77). 
 
 It seems to me that the field of usefulness 
 of alcohol in therapeutics is extremely limited 
 and possibly does not exist at all, 
 
 says Dr. Reid Hunt, of the U. S. Public Health 
 Service, Washington, D. C. (9, 1-9, 1925). 
 It is time alcohol was banished from the 
 
 medical armament; whisky has killed thousands 
 where it cured one, 
 
 says Dr. J. N. McCormack, Secretary of the Ken- 
 tucky Board of Health and organizer of the Amer- 
 ican Medical Association (9, 11-1, 1925). 
 
 In June, 1917, the American Medical Association 
 passed the following resolution: 
 
 Whereas we believe that the use of alcohol 
 is detrimental to the human economy, and its 
 use in therapeutics as a tonic or a stimulant has 
 no scientific value; therefore, Be it resolved 
 that the American Medical Association is op- 
 posed to the use of alcohol as a beverage; and 
 
 Be it further resolved that the use of alcohol 
 as a therapeutic agent should be further dis- 
 couraged (17, p. 22). 
 
 But during serious influenza epidemics in Ontario, 
 in 1917 and 1918, amongst a part of the population 
 dissatisfaction was loudly voiced that intoxicating 
 liquor was difficult to obtain as a medicine and a 
 preventive, according to a report in Medical Science. 
 The chief officer of health for the Province, 
 
116 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 Lieutenant-Colonel McCullough, when asked his 
 opinion as to the advisability of increasing the facil- 
 ities for securing liquor under the circumstances, 
 made the following statement: 
 
 The fact that by the judicious use of several 
 remedies on our therapeutic list we can safely 
 dispense with alcohol in the practice of medi- 
 cine indicates the folly of advising it as a 
 “camouflage” for the very serious evils that 
 arise from its use as a beverage. 
 
 That his opinion of the therapeutic value of intox- 
 icants was shared by the great majority of the med- 
 ical profession of the Province is demonstrated by 
 the answers of over 500 physicians in reply to a 
 questionnaire sent out by The Pioneer at the time 
 of the Ontario Referendum. 
 
 The answers were overwhelmingly against the use 
 of alcohol as a medicine, and with such statements 
 as follows: 
 
 Better stimulants are in constant use. 
 
 Practically do not use it at all now; other 
 stimulants give better results. 
 
 During a practice of forty years, I have 
 found little use for alcohol in preparations. 
 
 Alcohol has been almost eliminated from the 
 best modern practice. 
 
 I have practiced medicine since 1867, but 
 have seen little or no use for alcohol and much 
 harm. 
 
 Me can do without alcohol absolutely (11, 
 p. 43). 
 
LCOHOL AND LONGEVITY 117 
 
 With the passing of alcohol as a medicine little 
 or no justification is left for the use of alcohol inside 
 the human body, for any purpose, least of all habit- 
 ually. 
 
 Old ideas die hard, and old habits die harder. So 
 there will still be a small remnant of physicians for 
 some time to come who cling to the old notions and 
 there will still be a few scientific students whose 
 views are controlled by their appetites. Such is the 
 history of all progress. We must wait a long time 
 for unanimity. The important point is that rational 
 grounds exist for the rapidly growing and now al- 
 most universal belief that alcohol is always a life 
 shortener and nothing else. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 ALCOHOL A Poison 
 
 Slowing Down the Human Machine 
 
 Before proceeding further with the demonstra- 
 tion that the cutting off of the saloon has decreased 
 the mortality and disease due to alcohol, it will help 
 to get our bearings if we look at the evidence that 
 alcohol is a poison; for this is the basic fact under- 
 lying the whole problem. There are numerous in- 
 vestigations showing that alcohol when taken either 
 in small or large doses slows down the human 
 machine. 
 
 Examination of liver, kidneys, brain, and other 
 organs of moderate drinkers show specific degenera- 
 tive changes in their tissues. 
 
 Thus the formation of anti-bodies in the blood, 
 which enable it to resist the infection of disease 
 germs, is described by Bastedo in the experiments 
 of Muller, Wirgin, and other investigators (12). 
 
 The prolonged administration of small doses of 
 alcohol in men (15 cc., equal to a glass and one- 
 third of beer) was shown by Laitines to lower the 
 vital resistance to typhoid germs (138, pp. 445-6). 
 
 So-called “blood poisoning” is due to a strepto- 
 
 118 
 
ALCOHOL A POISON 119 
 
 coccus germ. Rubin injected alcohol under the skin 
 of rabbits, making them more susceptible to this 
 germ. These rabbits also succumbed more quickly 
 to the germ of pneumonia (14, pp. 425-44). 
 
 Fillinger and Weinburg, testing the resistance to 
 infectious germs of the red blood cells after admin- 
 istering champagne to healthy human subjects and 
 to dogs and rabbits, found the cells much weakened. 
 Weinburg showed that 450 cc. of champagne de- 
 stroyed the resistance in 20 per cent of the red cells 
 (15); 
 
 It is the function of the white blood cells to 
 destroy bacteria. When large doses and continuous 
 moderate doses of alcohol were taken, Parkinson 
 showed that this function was weakened. 
 
 While alcohol increases the rate of the pulse, it 
 lowers the blood pressure and tends to paralyze the 
 nerves of the heart and those that control the blood 
 vessels. Large doses make this paralysis com- 
 plete. This has been proved by a large number 
 of investigators including Brooks, Crile, Cabot, 
 Dennig, Hindelang, Gruenbaum, Alexandross, and 
 others (16). 
 
 Dr. Haven Emerson, formerly Commissioner of 
 Health of New York City and now Professor of 
 Public Health Administration, Columbia Univer- 
 sity, states: 
 
 Alcohol is a protoplasmic poison, like ether 
 
 and chloroform, with slower but more enduring 
 effects (18, p. 99). 
 
120 
 
 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 Dr. Emerson reminds us also that: 
 
 Conradi showed that there was a diminished 
 production of anti-bodies, in cholera, in people 
 using alcohol freely, after a dose of protective 
 inoculation had been given (18, 4-8, 1916, p. 
 Pn 
 
 Pampoukis and Szeckley found unfavorable 
 results and a persistence of the virus of rabies 
 in subjects under anti-rabic treatment if they 
 are users of alcohol. This study extended over 
 twenty-five years of administration of Pasteur 
 treatment at Budapest (18, 4-8, 1916) that 
 
 Reich noted unmistakable lowering of body 
 resistance to disease, indicated by a less effec- 
 tive phagocytosis in typhoid in man, and less 
 resistance of human red blood cells to pypotonic 
 salt solutions in proportion to the use of alco- 
 hol (18, 325, 1916, p. 962); that in addition 
 to the specific lowering of resistance to infec- 
 tion and lowered ability to combat infection 
 when once acquired, alcohol plays an undoubted 
 contributing part in the acquisition and spread 
 of venereal diseases. 
 
 Quensel. found that work and alcohol do not 
 belong together, especially when work demands 
 wide-awakeness, attention, exactness, and en- 
 durance (18, 3-25, 1916, p. 962). 
 
 Neumann (19, p. 94) showed that: 
 
 Alcohol alters the hemoglobin, diminishes 
 by one-fourth the capacity of the blood cor- 
 puscles to take up oxygen, and produces con- 
 gestion in the membrane and cortex of the 
 brain. From this there results dilatation of the 
 
ALCOHOL A POISON 121 
 
 blood vessels, paralysis of the muscular fibers 
 of the walls of the vessels, oedema, and finally 
 fatty degeneration of the irritated nerve cells. 
 
 Metchnikoff said of alcohol: 
 
 It lowers the resistance of the white cor- 
 puscles, which are the natural defenders of the 
 body. Although the phagocytes (which defend 
 the organism from invasion by infectious 
 germs) belong to the most resistant elements 
 of our body, yet it is not safe to count on their 
 insensibility toward poisons. It is well known 
 that persons who indulge too freely in alcohol 
 show far less resistance to infectious diseases 
 than abstemious individuals (20, p. 25). 
 
 Alcohol a Depressant, Not a Stimulant 
 
 In spite of common observations as to its blurring 
 effect on thought and action, the erroneous idea that 
 alcohol is a general mental and physical stimulant 
 is widespread, and plenty of false propaganda keeps 
 it alive. 
 
 As one of the indications of this supposed stim- 
 ulation, we have the phenomenon of increased heart 
 action. This increase was a matter of special inves- 
 tigation by Dodge and Benedict of the Carnegie 
 Institution of Washington. The increased heart 
 action was found by them to be due to the fact 
 that “after alcohol the normal inhibitor tone was 
 less completely or less rapidly established.” They 
 
 stated that the evidence seemed to indicate that the 
 relative acceleration effected by alcohol was due to a 
 
122 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 “lessened responsiveness of the cardio-inhibitory 
 mechanism” (21, p. 236). That is, it removes the 
 brakes. It does not stimulate but lets the heart 
 mechanism run without control, with a fast but 
 weakened heartbeat. 
 
 The possibility of alcohol depression being a con- 
 servative or recuperative process was also investi- 
 gated by Dodge and Benedict, and it was found: 
 
 Even if it should prove true that the local 
 action of alcohol on the circulation centers dis- 
 turbed the normal correlation between meta- 
 bolism and the heart-rate, the fact of increased 
 heart-rate for a given kind and amount of men- 
 tal work absolutely prohibits us from regarding; 
 the neuromuscular depression incident to alco- 
 hol a a conservative process like sleep (21, p. 
 256). 
 
 The paradox of depression from alcohol appearing 
 as stimulation, the creation of a delusion, is illus- 
 trated by the experience of two bicycle riders on a 
 tandem making a long run. Tired and thirsty, they 
 stopped for some beer. After taking the “stimulant” 
 to “refresh” themselves, they resumed their journey, 
 but soon found their machine was going harder. 
 Each thought, at first, that the other was shirking. 
 Then they thought something had happened to the 
 bearings, and stopped again, to make a careful in- 
 vestigation. To their surprise, they found the 
 tandem still in perfect condition, whereupon it 
 dawned upon them that the “sand in the gearings” 
 
ALCOHOL A POISON 123 
 
 was the “depressant” they had drunk acting as a 
 handicap. 
 
 A period of short stimulation following small 
 doses of alcohol has been reported in a number of 
 small foreign investigations (21, p. 250), and was 
 therefore a matter of particular investigation by 
 Dodge and Benedict in their experiments. In all 
 of their tests, the only ones that showed this short 
 period of slight stimulation from alcohol were the 
 ones on eye-reaction; they alone consistently showed 
 improvement after the small doses of alcohol. 
 “Whatever may be the effect in isolated tissue,” the 
 authors state: 
 
 our data give clear and consistent indications 
 that the apparent alcoholic depression of neuro- 
 muscular processes is a genuine phenomenon 
 that cannot be reduced to the excitation of 
 inhibitory processes; but that, conversely, 
 whenever apparent excitation occurs as a result 
 of alcohol, it is either demonstrably (pulse-rate, 
 reflexes, memory and threshold) or probably 
 (eye-reaction) due to a relatively over-balanc- 
 ing depression of the controlling and inhibitory 
 processes (21, p, 253). 
 
 Beer and Wine as Destroyers of Efficiency 
 The extensive beer and wine drinking in Europe 
 has resulted in many investigations of the mental 
 and physical effect of alcohol in these beverages. 
 Various writers have assembled and reviewed the 
 data, which are summarized as follows: 
 
124 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 The influence of alcohol on typesetters working 
 at their trade in a printing office was studied in 1896 
 by Aschaffenburg. The alcohol he used was in the 
 form of Greek wine. The experiment extended over 
 four days. The first and third days were observed 
 as normal days, no alcohol being given. On the sec- 
 ond and fourth days each worker received 35 grams 
 (a little more than one ounce) of alcohol, the equiv- 
 alent of 3 glasses of 4 per cent beer. 
 
 A comparison of the results of work on normal 
 and on alcoholic days showed, in the case of one of 
 the workers, no difference. But the remaining three 
 showed greater or less retardation of work, amount- 
 ing in the most pronounced case to almost 14 per 
 cent. As typesetting is paid for by measure, such a 
 worker would actually earn 10 per cent less on days 
 when he consumed even this small quantity of alco- 
 hol (22, pp. 19-20). 
 
 Professor Aschaffenburg stated that the so-called 
 moderate drinker, who consumes his bottle of wine 
 as a matter of course each day with his dinner— 
 and who doubtless would declare that he is never 
 under the influence of liquor—is in reality never 
 actually sober from one week’s end to another; that 
 neither in bodily nor in mental activity is he ever 
 up to what should be his normal level (23). 
 
 The famous experiments made by Professor Emil 
 Kraepelin, formerly of Heidelberg and later of 
 Munich, are variously reported as follows: 
 
ALCOHOL A POISON 125 
 
 Tests with an amount of alcohol equal to 
 that contained in two liters of beer or a half to 
 a whole bottle of wine, showed that this amount 
 of alcohol had a progressively deleterious effect 
 when taken for a number of days (23, p. 11). 
 
 Two or three glasses of 4 per cent beer, or 
 half a pint of 10 per cent wine, were found to 
 impair the perception and attention needed by 
 lookouts, signal men, sentries, engineers, auto- 
 mobile drivers, machinists, and others in mili- 
 tary and civil life (24, p. 6). 
 
 From 30 to 45 grams of absolute ethyl alco- 
 hol, the equivalent of 2 to 4 glasses of beer, 
 more or less checked and paralyzed all the men- 
 tal functions. The stupor, which resembled 
 physical fatigue in its effect, increased with the 
 dose of aleohol absorbed, lasting for small quan- 
 tities 40 to 50 minutes, and for larger quantities 
 1 or 2 hours. In the smaller doses the paralysis 
 of the mental functions was preceded by a 
 period of activity or acceleration which lasted 
 20 to 30 minutes at most (19, p. 94). 
 
 After giving 80 grams of alcohol per day, 
 equivalent to 8 glasses of beer, to an individual 
 for 12 successive days, the working capacity of 
 that individual’s mind was lessened by from 25 
 to 40 per cent (22, p. 19). 
 
 Small doses of alcohol facilitated motor dis:. 
 charge at first, but subsequently depressed it. 
 Large doses depressed both intellectual and mo- 
 tor processes from the first. The nature and 
 amount of the effects depended on the charac- 
 teristics of the individual, and on his condi- 
 tion (21, p. 242). 
 
126 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 Professor Kraepelin stated: 
 
 In the production of alcoholism in Germany, 
 beer undoubtedly plays the chief réle. It must 
 be conceded that beer is capable of producing 
 typical delirium tremens (18, p. 78). 
 
 Alcohol tends to diminish the ability to memorize 
 figures, as Dr. A. Smith of the University of Heidel- 
 berg shows by elaborate tables (56). 
 
 In an attempt to memorize poetry, Professor 
 Vogt of the University of Christiania found that on 
 days when he drank one and one-half to three glasses 
 of beer it took him 18 per cent longer to learn the 
 lines. He reviewed the work six months later and 
 found that the lines he had learned on alcohol days 
 required more time for re-learning, that they were 
 not so-:sharp and clear in his impression, and there- 
 fore not so easily recalled (23). 
 
 It was the quantities of alcohol in beer and wine 
 (the equivalent of 2 to 2 1/3 glasses of beer, or of 
 10 ounces of wine) that Durig and Schnyder found 
 diminished muscle-working ability in lifting and 
 mountain climbing, and increased fatigue (24, p. 7); 
 that “moderate doses of alcohol decreased efficiency 
 20 per cent” (25). It was the quantities of alcohol 
 in beer and wine (the equivalent of 214 glasses of 
 beer or 1 pint of wine) that Lieutenant Boy of the 
 Swedish Army found reduced endurance in shooting 
 2214 per cent (24, pp. 6-7). 
 
 I know little of whisky and wine-drinkers, 
 
 says Professor Mobius of Leipsic. 
 
ALCOHOL A POISON 127 
 
 With us, it is beer that ruins the people (18, 
 p. 76). 
 
 Professor Gustav von Bunge says: 
 
 No other drink (referring to beer) is so 
 insidious. It has been in Germany worse than 
 the whisky pest because more apt to lead to 
 immoderate drinking (18). 
 
 Dr. Johannes Leonhart, a distinguished scientist, 
 writes (58): 
 
 The question concerning alcohol is not 
 whether Smith or Jones believes that he can 
 take two or three glasses a day without harm, 
 but how is it possible to diminish the immense 
 amount of injury from it that the whole Ger- 
 man people suffer, 
 
 Professor Von Strumpell stated in a lecture at 
 Nuremberg: 
 
 Nothing is more erroneous from the physi- 
 cian’s standpoint than to think of diminishing 
 the destructive effects of alcoholism by substi- 
 tuting beer for other alcoholic drinks, or that 
 the victims of drink are found only in those 
 countries where whisky helps the people of a 
 low grade of culture to forget their poverty and 
 misery (57). 
 
 Von Strumpell also says: 
 
 Although the percentage of alcohol (beer 2 to 
 4 per cent) is not especially high, yet this low 
 percentage is counteracted by the great quan- 
 tity drunk: 100 cubic centimeters of beer con- 
 
128 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 tain only 3 grams pure alcohol, but a liter con- 
 tains 380 grams. A moderate beer drinker, who 
 daily drinks his five liters, thus gets every day 
 150 grams of absolute alcohol into his body. 
 
 Evidence of Benedict, Dodge, and Miles 
 
 Aleohol not only works to slow down the human 
 machine, but at the same time it deludes its vic- 
 tims with the persistent belief that they are being 
 sped up and made more efficient. This strengthens 
 the grip of the alcoholic habit. 
 
 The influence of alcohol on typewriting efficiency 
 and simpler related acts was tested by Dr. Walter 
 R. Miles of the Carnegie Institution of Wash- 
 ington. All of the typists taking part in the 
 experiment were asked to give their impressions con- 
 cerning their own work. Typical samples of their 
 replies are as follows: “I think I worked faster as a 
 result of the medicine.” “I think it (the alcoholic 
 drink) helped me to make speed as usual. It helped 
 me to get down to business.” 
 
 A study of the actual results of their work did not 
 bear our their feelings. The experimenter, Dr. 
 Miles, found that 
 
 without exception all of the measurements 
 
 which have been used in these experiments with 
 
 alcohol on typewriting and simpler related proc- 
 esses show a positive effect of the alcohol, and 
 in each case this is interpreted to be in the 
 
 aay of depression or decreased efficiency 
 26). 
 
ALCOHOL A POISON 129 
 
 A solution of 14 to 22 per cent (and containing 
 21 to 42 grams) of alcohol (26, p. 270), averaging 
 the first two hours after ingestion, decreased the 
 strokes per second 2.6 per cent; increased the errors 
 39.3 per cent, and increased the illegibility 55 per 
 cent. 
 
 Repetition of the alcoholic dose was found to 
 make the toxic influence more prominent. This, the 
 author believes, suggests that 
 
 the alcohol effect usually found in the labora- 
 tory is probably not so large as exists outside 
 the laboratory (26, p. 110). 
 
 An investigation by Dodge and Benedict of the 
 psychological effect of alcohol in 30 cc. doses, the 
 equivalent of 3 glasses of beer, and 45 cc. doses 
 (21, p. 80), the equivalent of 4 glasses of beer, 
 showed the most marked effect in the knee-jerk, 
 where alcohol increased the average latent time 10 
 per cent, and decreased the average extent of mus- 
 cle-thickening 46 per cent (21, p. 243). 
 
 This extreme effect made it impracticable to 
 measure the knee-jerk with the larger dose. 
 
 The second largest effect was on the eye-wink, 
 which showed an average increased latency of 7 per 
 cent, and a decreased extent of movement of 19 per 
 cent. 
 
 The third largest change was produced in the 
 sensory threshold for electrical stimulation. The 
 threshold was raised an average of 14 per cent. 
 
130 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 Fourth in the extent of change was the effect on 
 coordinated movements, as seen in the speed of the 
 eye-movements, which averaged 11 per cent slower 
 under alcohol. 
 
 A close fifth was the speed of reciprocal stimula- 
 tion of nerves in the finger, which was decreased by 
 an average of 9 per cent. 
 
 Sixth and seventh in the list were the changes in 
 the reaction time of the eye and speech organs, and 
 increase in the latent time of 5 and 38 per cent re- 
 spectively. 
 
 Finally, the authors state, “there was practically 
 no change at all in the memory.” Their memory 
 experiments did not, however, include the larger 
 dose of alcohol. It was considered by the authors 
 a noteworthy fact that 5 of the 6 processes in which 
 there were comparable data showed a greater aver- 
 age effect from the larger dose (21, p. 245). 
 
 While different subjects vary widely in the effect 
 of alcohol on the memory process as measured by 
 our technique, Dodge and Benedict say: 
 
 ‘he total results show no predominant tend- 
 ency of alcohol on the main group of subjects. 
 As far as our measurements go, rote memory 
 (primary retention) is neither better nor worse 
 after small doses of alcohol. 
 
 It is interesting to note that the most pro- 
 nounced improvement of memory after alcohol 
 was found with Subject VI, who frequently 
 differed notably from the group in other experi- 
 ments. Under ordinary circumstances, he was 
 
ALCOHOL A POISON 131 
 
 the most easily confused of the group. He was 
 particularly liable to become disturbed and to 
 get “rattled,” as he put it. The most pro- 
 nounced decrease of capacity after alcohol was 
 shown by Subject VII, who depended least on 
 simple perseveration and most on quickness in 
 forming artificial associations to memorize 
 series. It is not impossible that the same depres- 
 sion of the capacity for making new associations 
 that decreased the effectiveness of Subject VII 
 may have relieved Subject VI from intercur- 
 rent mental disturbances (21, p. 183). 
 
 Other Evidence 
 
 Frankfurther found typewriting errors enormously 
 increased by alcohol, while the speed was occasion- 
 ally increased. He described his experience by 
 saying: 
 
 I had the feeling that the fingers ran faster 
 than I could find the right spot for the stroke. 
 I often struck keys against my will, so that I 
 must voluntarily inhibit the movements in 
 order not to make a mistake at every letter 
 (2a orizoe). 
 
 Experiments in typewriting were also made by 
 Rivers (28, pp. 96-98) with doses of 20 cc. and 
 40 ce. of alcohol, equivalent to the alcohol in two 
 to four glasses of beer. The noticed errors were 
 found to be fairly constant, and gave no indication 
 of alcohol effect. The unnoticed and uncorrected 
 errors showed an unmistakable tendency to increase 
 with the rapidity of the work, but, taking this in- 
 
132 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 creased rapidity into account, they showed no indi- 
 cation of alcohol effect. 
 
 Of 588 Viennese school children investigated by 
 E. Bayer (59, quoted in 28, p. 11), a school director 
 of Vienna, as to their habits with respect to alcohol, 
 it was found that. only 184 were “‘abstainers.” With 
 a scholarship classification of “good,” “fair,” and 
 “poor” 42 per cent of this group of “abstainers” 
 were classified as “good,” 49 per cent of them as 
 “fair,” and 9 per cent as “poor.” 
 
 In a group of 164 who “drank occasionally,” only 
 34 per cent were classified as “good,” whereas 57 
 per cent were classified as “fair,” and 9 per cent 
 as “poor.” In a group of 219 who “drank once a 
 day,” 28 per cent were classified as “good,” 58 per 
 cent as “fair,” and 14 per cent as “poor.” In a 
 group of 71 who “drank twice a day,” 25 per cent 
 were classified as “good,” 58 per cent as “fair,” and 
 18 per cent as “poor.” The investigation showed, 
 therefore, that good marks fell off and poor marks 
 increased as the wine or beer drinking increased (23, 
 pp. 9-12). . 
 
 About four thousand children in Brescia, Italy, 
 were studied by Schiavi (60, quoted in 23, p. 12) 
 as to their use of alcohol and its relation to scholar- 
 ship. More than two thousand of the children 
 “drank wine daily.” Of these the percentage classi- 
 fied as “poor” in scholarship was ten times as great 
 as in a group of 462 “abstainers.” Only a little more 
 than a quarter of the drinking group stood in the 
 
 — ae * 
 
ALCOHOL A POISON 133 
 
 “good” class, whereas nearly half of the “abstainers’”’ 
 were so Classified (23, p. 12). 
 
 Alcohol as a Habit Former 
 
 The treachery of alcohol in its habit-forming 
 action, its development of an “imperious need,” is 
 also described by Dr. Héricourt, as follows: 
 
 Alcoholism is not one invariable form of in- 
 toxication; it comprises at least three intoxica- 
 tions, which present certain slight points of 
 difference: The intoxication by alcohol prop- 
 erly so-called, or ethylism; intoxication by wine, 
 or oenolism; and intoxication by beverages con- 
 taining various essences, of which a type is 
 absinthe. 
 
 The second period of ethylism is character- 
 ized by an imperious need of alcohol. It is 
 then that the French proverb, “He who has 
 drunk will drink,” becomes strictly accurate. 
 In the third period the alcoholic is character- 
 ized by his general malnutrition and sottish 
 degradation (17). 
 
 Habit-formation is thus presented in an extreme 
 aspect, but a lesser degree of this “imperious need” 
 is characteristic of almost every aspect of alcoholic 
 action. Dr. Alexander Lambert, one of our leading 
 authorities on drug addiction, says of alcohol: 
 
 The habit-forming qualities are purely psy- 
 chologic. Men who take alcohol habitually 
 take it for the purpose of relieving the strains 
 of life, if in only a minor degree, when weary 
 
134 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 or tired, or emotionally on edge. It is taken 
 
 habitually to dodge the realities of existence. 
 
 On the habit-forming tendencies of alcohol, Dr. 
 Eugene L. Fisk states: 
 
 The very clamor that is being raised and the 
 widespread patronage of the bootlegger are suf- 
 ficient proof that the use of alcohol has a grip 
 as a habit on a considerable number of those 
 who have used it in the past. Men will not 
 pay the high prices and take the risk of indul- 
 gence unless they are impelled by what we may 
 justly interpret technically as the expression of 
 an established habit that is difficult to break. 
 The vogue of the Keeley Cure at one time, and 
 the very existence of cures for alcohol, show 
 that numberless people have admitted them- 
 selves to be in the grip of the alcohol habit and 
 have had to seek medical relief to overcome it. 
 
 Dr. Haven Emerson says of alcoholic habit-forma- 
 tion: 
 
 If there is a criterion that we could apply 
 to distinguish habit-forming from non-habit- 
 forming drugs, I should think it was the 
 strength of the longing or desire to repeat the 
 dose and to continue its use regardless of any 
 proved benefit or in the face of obvious evidence 
 of damage. 
 
 From these authoritative statements, it would 
 seem that “the appetite for drink,” which Senator 
 William Cabell Bruce, in opposing Prohibition, 
 claims has been “one of the primal impulses of the 
 great mass of human beings ever since Jesus at Cana 
 
ALCOHOL A POISON 135 
 
 manifested forth His glory” (1, p. 11), is on the 
 contrary an unfortunate drug craving that has been 
 kept alive from generation to generation by the con- 
 tinuance of the sale of the kind of stronger alcoholic 
 drink that Senator Bruce now believes should be 
 made legal. 
 
 We may conclude that alcohol has no place, by 
 nature, in our human physiology. No animal other 
 than man uses it habitually, even ‘in moderation,” 
 so called. And man himself came to use it as a 
 late perversion of civilization, just as he came to 
 use other habit-forming drugs, such as opium in 
 China or hasheesh in Turkey. The craving for all 
 such drugs is not natural but acquired, although, 
 when once acquired, it is difficult to shake off. The 
 “moderate” user naturally resents being told the 
 truth about his indulgence. He “rationalizes” his 
 conduct and finds all sorts of “reasons” to justify 
 himself. Such effort at self-justification explains 
 the major part of the ingenious arguments and 
 statistics to prove that “moderate” drinking is 
 harmless. 
 
 For the old idea of temperance as an ideal has 
 fled as a mist before the light of science. The physi- 
 ological or biological ideal to-day is not temperance, 
 but total abstinence. So-called moderate drink- 
 ing merely means moderate intoxication. A mild 
 drinker denies that he is drunk, if he does not stag- 
 ger. But a man who has drunk one glass of beer 
 ~ is one-glass-of-beer drunk. 
 
 Prohibition rests on a solid foundation, therefore, 
 
136 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 in that it has prohibited an insidious habit-forming 
 enemy from implanting in the breast of future mil- 
 lions a drug craving. 
 
 Whatever degree of power alcohol still possesses 
 is kept alive chiefly by the inertia of old traditions; 
 by the assumption that so prevalent a practice must 
 have virtues; by the fear of individuals to break 
 away from custom, and by the well-known difficulty 
 of emancipating one’s self from any drug habit. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 Tue Hycienic Goop 
 
 Lord D’Abernon’s Data 
 
 What has been said of alcohol as a narcotic poi- 
 son, as a habit-forming drug, and as a deceptive 
 pseudo-stimulant, bears out from scientific testi- 
 mony the records of excess deaths from alcohol which 
 have been charted from the life insurance tables. 
 Alcoholism not only increases mortality, but acci- 
 dents, and disease, both physical and mental. Con- 
 sequently, effective Prohibition may be expected 
 to decrease general mortality, accidents and disease, 
 and to increase efficiency. 
 
 As we have seen, many men whose mortality was 
 recorded in the insurance mortality tables have 
 called themselves, and they would have been called, 
 moderate drinkers. They were in no sense habitual 
 drunkards, and yet the facts show that the group 
 representing the most moderate drinkers recorded a 
 mortality of 18 per cent above the average. 
 
 The charts that have already indicated decreased 
 arrests for drunkenness throughout the United 
 States, in the wet areas and in the dry areas under 
 National Prohibition, and even in the wet strong- 
 
 137 
 
138 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 holds of the great cities like New York, have already 
 proved that Prohibition has markedly reduced this 
 habit of self-poisoning among the people. The 
 charts that are to follow prove the same thing in 
 terms of reduced death and disease. 
 
 There is reason to believe that the tendency to 
 excessive drinking is more characteristic of certain 
 types of people than of others.* But this fact does 
 not preclude environmental control of alcoholism. 
 Physicians of the type of Dr. Charles L. Dana and 
 Dr. Lewellys F. Barker, members of the Moderation 
 League, before the war earnestly stressed the tem- 
 peramental and personal side of alcoholism, saying 
 that individuals of ill-balanced minds could hardly 
 be controlled by any restrictions of the liquor traffic, 
 as such. Instead, they felt that these must be 
 treated individually. 
 
 But now the records of reduced disease and death 
 from alcoholism, gathered in the registration area 
 of the United States, are available for the first six 
 years of National Prohibition. And the experience 
 of the British Central Board of Control of the Liquor 
 Traffic during the period of limited Prohibition in 
 the war years of 1913-17, affords convincing data. 
 A typical instance of this experience is shown in 
 
 * This fact has been used as a eugenic argument against Pro- 
 hibition. The work of Karl Pearson, Dr. Stockard, and Dr. 
 Pearl indicates that alcohol is a selective agent for killing off 
 the unfit, while leaving the fit relatively unharmed. The idea 
 is especially applied to alcoholized parents affecting the germ 
 plasm. This is the old argument, in a new and improved form, 
 that alcohol is a good fool-killer. 
 
THE HYGIENIC GOOD 139 
 
 the paper of Lord D’Abernon, President of the 
 British Board of Control, which appeared in the 
 Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, November 29, 
 1918, under the title, “Rival Theories of the Causes 
 of Drunkenness.” 
 
 Incidentally, Lord D’Abernon calls attention to 
 the terrible death toll among those engaged in the 
 liquor traffic, especially its dispensers at retail, com- 
 paring it to the rate prevailing among the fever 
 swamps of the tropics, so that no insurance office 
 would accept such risks save at special rates. 
 
 Decreased Female Deaths from Alcoholism 
 In further support of the efficacy of environ- 
 mental control, Lord D’Abernon cited the statistics 
 illustrated in the chart of deaths of women from 
 -aleoholism in England and Wales during 1913 to 
 1917, inclusive. He confined the figures to women 
 because it had been held: 
 
 that inebriety in women is peculiarly intract- 
 able, and the persistent recidivism of the female 
 drunkard, is, in fact, one of the stock argu- 
 ments in support of the temperamental theory. 
 During the period of war control of the liquor 
 trafic in England and Wales, drunkenness in 
 women, as compared with the pre-war year 1913, 
 fell 60.6 per cent; their mortality from alcoholism 
 and from cirrhosis of the liver decreased by 69.1 
 - per cent and 51.5 per cent, respectively; female 
 cases of delirium tremens went down by 79 per cent; 
 
140 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 and deaths from suffocation in infancy—notoriously 
 a result of maternal intemperance—diminished by 
 42.6 per cent.* 
 
 These notable reductions in five years in cases of 
 females were not of casual drinkers but of the 
 “steadily continued excess of the confirmed drunk- 
 ard.” Lord D’Abernon concludes that it supports 
 the view that men and women become drunk chiefly 
 “in the absence of reasonable facilities for avoiding 
 it and reasonable guidance as to how it can be 
 avoided.” 
 
 Lower Death Rates in United States 
 
 The declining death rates computed for the entire 
 registration area of the United States; for the group 
 of former wet states; for Connecticut, which rejected 
 the Eighteenth Amendment; for New York State, 
 which repealed in 1923 its own enforcement act in 
 cooperation with the Federal government, and for 
 New York City—accounted generally as the wettest 
 and wickedest of cities—parallel the British experi- 
 ence of war-time restriction. These at least suggest 
 that the sneer, ‘You can’t make people sober by 
 law,” is without adequate foundation in fact. 
 
 Yet cavillers will point to the increase of alcoholic 
 deaths or arrests in the second, third, and fourth 
 
 *The National Bureau of Child Welfare, U.S., states that 
 suffocation in infancy from this cause (“overlaying” the child by 
 the mother, while drunk) is unknown in the United States—which 
 affords another indication of the environmental character of the 
 drink habit among women. 
 
THE HYGIENIC GOOD 141 
 
 years of Prohibition. True, these betrayed an in- 
 tolerable situation which enforcement, during 1924 
 and 1925, has progressively remedied. It was to be 
 expected that, after the first year of the outlawry 
 of the liquor traffic, the illicit dealers would become 
 skilled in circumventing the law. The improved 
 measures of Federal and local enforcement already 
 recited account for the bettered records, under Na- 
 tional Prohibition, as to criminality, disease, and 
 death. But it should be remembered that the curves 
 of disease and death lag from one to two years be- 
 hind the reduced records of arrests, which form the 
 more sensitive index of enforcement. 
 
 The mortality of alcohol users in general is greater 
 than that of abstainers at practically every age of 
 life. Few of these people die of actual alcoholism, 
 but alcohol tends to increase the death rate from 
 every cause by lowering the resistance of the body, 
 as Metchnikoff said. 
 
 The death rate from all causes in the United 
 States declined over 10 per cent following Prohibi- 
 tion. The death rate among industrial insurance 
 policyholders, especially, has declined. Of course, 
 it must be recognized that many other causes be- 
 sides Prohibition have contributed to these results. 
 But the drop is sufficient, even were there no other 
 proof, to suggest that reduced alcohol played an 
 important part. 
 
 The Census figures are not up to date. Some of 
 them end in 1923. The figures for New York City 
 
142 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 cover 1924, and agree usually in thelr movements 
 with the Census figures, so far as these extend. Kven 
 in New York City the official death rates of the 
 Board of Health show that the highest death rate 
 since Prohibition is lower by nearly 10 per cent 
 than the lowest death rate prior to Prohibition. The 
 death rate in 1924 was 11.6 per 1,000. The average, 
 for the five years since Prohibition, is 11.8, as against 
 15.0 for the five years prior to Prohibition, or more 
 than 25 per cent better. Figures of the Metropoli- 
 tan Life Insurance Company show a death rate of 
 8.5 per 1,000 among industrial policyholders in 
 1925. This is the lowest rate on record for the 
 company (47). 
 
 Fewer Deaths from Alcoholism at Bellevue 
 
 At the hearings before the Senate Judiciary Sub- 
 committee in Washington in 1926, Dr. Haven Emer- 
 son presented charts showing the trend of mortality 
 in diseases directly or indirectly related to the use 
 of alcohol. Deaths from cirrhosis of the liver treated 
 by Bellevue and Allied Hospitals, which handle most 
 alcohol cases in New York City, went to a low point 
 in 1917, the first year of the war, descended still 
 lower in 1921, but then rose to 1925. In 1911 the rate 
 stood at 21.7 per 100,000; in 1918 it went down to 
 8.0; in 1921, to 6.5, and from 1922 to 1925 it rose 
 again to 6.7 per 100,000 (1, p. 785). 
 
 Chronic nephritis and Bright’s disease, the totals 
 of which are largely affected by alcoholism, 
 
THE HYGIENIC GOOD 143 
 
 decreased in these great hospitals during the period 
 when the world was experiencing the most serious 
 attack of influenza on record; receding from 110 per 
 100,000 in 1917 to 76 in 1921, and then to 66.5 per 
 100,000 in the year 1925. A third chart presented 
 by Dr. Emerson recorded a like decrease in the 
 death rate from tuberculosis treated in Bellevue. 
 This, he said, reflected an economic change for the 
 better; he thought that the addition of from 5 to 
 10 per cent in personal incomes due to going with- 
 out alcohol was reflected in improved housing, cloth- 
 ing and food, thus fortifying the wage-earners’ fam- 
 ilies against this disease. A fourth chart of deaths 
 from alcoholism at Bellevue Hospital recorded de- 
 creases from 327.5 in 1915-16 to 26.5 in 1921-2, when 
 the record rose again to 250 in 1925. Dr. Emerson 
 testified that this indicated what might be expected, 
 and what actually occurred, in the saving of lives 
 when alcohol was comparatively inaccessible, and 
 that, with the increasing inefficiency of enforcement 
 in New York, the death figures responded by in- 
 crease. The testimony of charwomen, truck drivers, 
 and others admitted to the hospital suffering from 
 acute alcoholism, first to the effect that liquor was 
 hard to get and after the repeal of the Mullen- 
 Gage law that it became much easier to get, revealed 
 the consequences of “lifting the lid.’ Dr. Emer- 
 son said: 
 
 My profession is the study of the causes of 
 preventable diseases and how they may be pre- 
 

 
 
 
 g 
 
 ‘+ GAIN SINCE PROHIBITIONZ 
 
 © 
 =) 
 s 
 
 
 
 PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIEITION LEVEL 
 rs) 
 =) 
 
 Deaths per million population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (55) 
 444-505, /5 3) VESR OS ace Lao sie Cocmnr ee 9 LT). 30° Soares 
 S87 O1 Th CG Lib e6ie/ Shee leL lomo cok 16 3k eke Maa ot" 71 
 
 29. UNUSUAL SAVING OF HUMAN LIVES THROUGH PROHIBITION 
 in the former Wet States 
 
 Err hing: made from data furnished by the United States Bureau of the 
 Census. 
 
 This chart shows the benefits which can be attributed to National Prohibition 
 more clearly than any other chart, because the states already dry before 
 National Prohibition are not included. It is seen that the death-rate from 
 acute and chronic alcoholism fell in 1920 to less than 16% of what it had 
 been before Prohibition. Then, as the reaction came, after the inauguration of 
 National Prohibition and also the toxicity of bootleg liquors rose, the death- 
 rate among Pre-prohibition addicts rose with it, so as to bring the death- 
 rate up to nearly three fourths of the Pre-prohibition Level. As this class of 
 drunkards disappears, the death-rate from alcoholism seems likely to fall again 
 and to become almost negligible. For the peak seems to have been reached 
 Jn this secondary reaction in 1928-24. The dark area on the chart represents 
 a saving of thousands of human lives. 
 
BO0000S 
 
 
 
 MMMM) 
 GAIN SINCE PROHIBITION 
 
 Percent 
 $ 
 
 POLS PLL ar La ere ee he tet Re Pe ee ee te had 
 
 1912 1913 
 
 
 
 
 1923 1924 
 
 Number of Deaths 
 2626 2625 2921 3476 3021 2714 3814 3601 2145 1337 873 1573 2444 3112 3098 
 
 Deaths per million population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (52) 
 Cem esr es COUN OOM ALO ST Ob Bi SI MMIE ii 10618. 26) 4 88 33 
 106 92 102 115 96 85 110 100 52 31 #19 35 50 63 #68 
 es SasesssseseaessnssSSGieoaill 
 
 30. DEATHS DUE TO ALCOHOLISM ALMOST ELIMINATED Im 1920 
 in the United States (Registration Area) 
 
 (Computations made from data furnished by the United States Bureau of the 
 Census.) 
 
 number of deaths was little more than one half of the average number between 
 1910 and 1916, and the period between 1920 and 1924 shows a drop of 52% 
 as compared with Pre-prohibition mortality. The peak of the reaction has 
 apparently passed, and mortality will probably again decline. This peak wag 
 

 
 GAIN SINCE PROHIBITIONZ 
 
 Percent 
 
 vena 
 
 
 
 oes a 6 6 Og ooo ee 0% 
 
 7 eee 
 DOC 
 DOCAAIO OO 
 
 14 1915 1916 ‘1917 1918 191 
 
 Number of Deaths 
 S676 0° 915. 1047:60 27S "106" 126684 2one eee 
 
 S$ 28 657 68 
 Deaths per million population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (71) 
 Py 66 WNT DASE y PES Pa T er Rate OG un fe he 1 eae nd, oe 
 109 93 108 122 69 81 116 136 74 25 
 
 z 1910 1911 1912 1913 19 
 
 19 389, 42 
 14 #23 27 5&5 659 
 
 31. DEATHS DUE TO ALCOHOLISM MUCH REDUCED 
 in Connecticut 
 
 OAT ns made from data furnished by the United States Bureau of the 
 ensus.) 
 
 What Prohibition has done for an avowedly “wet” state is shown by the mortality 
 statistics of Connecticut. The number of deaths due to acute and chronic 
 alcoholism between 1920 and 1924 is only 36% of the number between 1910 
 and 1916. The accelerated death-rate among Pre-prohibition addicts was appar- 
 ently near its peak in 1924 and was even then 40 per cent below the Pre-pro- 
 hibition Level. The dark area represents a saving of hundreds of human livas 
 as a result of Prohibition. 
 
 
 
 
100. f 2 , 2 ee Yj Wj; WW WWW Ms, 
 
 90- .GAIN SINCE PROHIBITIONZ 
 
 
 
 Percent 
 
 1910 1911 “T912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917, 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 
 Number of Deaths 
 699 582 575 698 572 508 811 640 3804 210 123 164 809 409 6569 
 
 Deaths per million population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (64.3) 
 COmMDIMEO IME ote OOo a Sou sO4 rr oO N20 MLZ a Lb 29  F4Srtbe 
 103 89 95 114 92 81 128 100 47 #4=3i1 19 23 45 67 #81 
 
 32. DEATHS DUE TO ALCOHOLISM GREATLY REDUCED 
 in New York State 
 
 eee eons made from data furnished by the United States Bureau of the 
 ensus. 
 
 Deaths due to acute and chronic alcoholism fell from an average of 64 deaths 
 per million population in the period 1910-1916, to an average of 30 per million 
 population during the period 1920-1924, representing a decrease of about 53 
 per cent. The dark area represents a saving of thousands of human lives as a 
 result of Prohibition. The rapid increase since the agitation resulting in the 
 repeal of New York’s enforcement law seems significant. 
 

 
 GA de Ld Udldldldldddddy 
 
 
 
 1910 1911 1912 1913 ° 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 i922 1923 1924 1925 
 
 Number of Deaths 
 621 6386 570 646 660 562 687 560 252 176 98 119 274 429 5618 682 
 
 Deaths per million population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (127) ; 
 130:°.181 (186° 228" 1285106 129 “104° 4682) 01TS 21246) ieee 
 102 103 106 101 101 84 102 82 36 25 18 17 S36 56 66 #£«86 
 
 383. DEATHS DUE TO ALCOHOLISM MUCH REDUCED 
 in New York City 
 
 (Computations made from data obtained from records of the Board of Health, N. Y. C.) 
 
 In spite of the repeal of the Mullen-Gage law and in spite of the greater poisoning 
 power of bootleg liquor, the deaths from acute and chronic alcoholism are held below 
 the Pre-prohibition level. With the elimination by death of the confirmed drunkard 
 it is reasonable to expect that the deaths due to this evil will be reduced again in the 
 Hess Aer a dark area on the chart shows that hundreds of lives have been saved by 
 Prohibition 
 
 a 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 o 
 ? 
 
 Ui, GAIN SINCE PROHIBITION § 
 
 e998 3 
 
 r) 
 ? 
 
 50-}: 
 
 PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
 
 ® i910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 
 Number of Deaths 
 6352 7392 7204 7537 7645 7521 7886 7641 7548 6564 6102 64583 9854 6916 7220 
 
 Deaths per million population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (128) 
 USS) UG ee SNA EY a Pasi geet Ue RSI ss CO 9 Tse a Pg ar ds LUA Ge Dy ASE Gf 
 104 106 102 101 98 95 93 86 74 62 55 58 59 5&6 57 
 
 24. TWO FIFTHS OF DEATHS FROM CIRRHOSIS OF THE LIVES 
 ELIMINATED 
 in the United States (Registration Area) 
 
 (Computed from data from the U. 8. Bureau ‘of the Census.) 
 
 Results of Prohibition have been immediately evident in the reduction of the 
 death-rate from cirrhosis of the liver by more than forty per cent, throughout 
 the United States. The consistent and regular levels of this curve before 
 and after Prohibition make the change more significant, 
 

 
 YVYyyyyvV7 
 
 GAIN SINCE Lidl, 
 
 PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
 a 
 ° 
 
 eoeeee 
 . . 
 Be a KAA AL I LS 
 
 ol : ; rie) 
 : 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1933 1924 
 
 Number of Deaths 
 161 165 143 145 168 144 150 144 148 127 94 99 110 110 8 
 
 Deaths per million population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (129) 
 144 4s ISA LST IST VLG Tee Loe 10 eos Be T0.> 762 TGR ee 
 112 112 95 94 106 89 91 285 23 72 54 59 58 46 
 
 eeees ee 
 
 35. DEATHS FROM CIRRHOSIS OF THE LIVER FALL EY MORE 
 THAN HALF 
 in Connecticut 
 
 ed made from data furnished by the United States Bureau of the 
 ensus. 
 
 Connecticut, the typical ‘“‘wet’’ state before Prohibition shows the deaths due to 
 cirrhosis of the liver reduced by more than half from the pre-war level. Con- 
 necticut is “‘game’’; she rejected the Highteenth Amendment, but, when adopted, 
 aoe ree to enforce it by state law. One result is this notable saving of 
 uman lives. 
 
—— 
 
 PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
 
 
 
 IN SINCE PROHIBITION 
 
 : Vea Wy yy yyy LEV Lil 
 
 ry "e's : y Se eet Ps > 3 
 “ 1910 i911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 
 
 Number of Deaths 
 1661 1689 1559 1608 1623 1534 1610 1449 1180 9385 872 956 997 912 1028 
 
 Deaths per million population 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Level (169) 
 182.5182,°0166..169) 168.157 162° 144116 )91° 83 90 93. 84 94 
 108 108 98 100 99 93 96 85 69 54 49 53 55 50 56 
 
 36. DEATHS FROM CIRRHOSIS OF THE LIVER CUT ALMOST 
 ONE HA ; 
 
 LE 
 in New York State 
 
 Na Aids ti made from data furnished by the United States Bureau of the 
 ensus.) 
 
 Despite its reputation as a “wet” state, New York has benefited under Federal 
 Prohibition (and without a state enforcement law) in the reduction of deaths 
 from this disease, which is heavily affected by the alcohol habit. Nearly half 
 of the deaths formerly attributed to ‘‘hobnail’ liver have been prevented during 
 the period of National Prohibition, saving thousands of lives. 
 
152 
 
 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 vented, and this was the first practical evidence 
 we have ever had of the astounding effect of 
 making alcohol relatively inaccessible, on the 
 mortality of the country. 
 
 Death Rates of Liquor Dealers 
 
 Eugene L. Fisk, M.D., publishes in his book on 
 “Alcohol, Its Relation to Human Efficiency and 
 Longevity,” (10, p. 33) the mortality figures of 43 
 life insurance companies in occupations where alco- 
 cohol figured as a hazard, with this comment: 
 
 These figures indicate that saloon-keepers 
 have a death rate higher than that of under- 
 ground mine foremen; that brewery foremen, 
 malsters, and the like have a death rate higher 
 than electric linesmen, glassworkers, city fire- 
 men (laddermen, pipemen, hosemen), metal 
 grinders or hot-iron workers, although there is 
 nothing in the brewery or saloon business per sé 
 that is at all hazardous or unhealthful, aside 
 from the possible temptation to drink and its 
 collateral hazards. Proprietors of distilleries 
 are obviously not so directly exposed to tempta- 
 tion or to other adverse influences that obtain 
 in the retail liquor trade; this accounts for the 
 favorable mortality. 
 
 Among hotel-keepers tending bar the death 
 rate from cirrhosis of the liver was six times 
 the normal; from diabetes, three times the nor- 
 mal; from cerebral hemorrhage or apoplexy, 
 nearly twice the normal; from organic dis- 
 eases of the heart, nearly twice the normal; 
 from Bright’s disease, nearly three times the 
 
 —~— 
 
THE HYGIENIC GOOD 153 
 
 normal; from pneumonia, nearly twice the 
 normal. 
 
 For brewery officials insuring under 45, the 
 death rate from cancer and other malignant 
 tumors, cerebral hemorrhage and apoplexy, or- 
 ganic diseases of the heart, pneumonia, and 
 Bright’s disease, among the proprietors, man- 
 agers, and superintendents is about twice the 
 normal, and from cirrhosis of the liver three 
 times the normal. The death rate from suicide 
 is nearly. twice the normal. 
 
 Prohibition Decreases Sickness 
 
 Not only the death rates but the amount of sick- 
 ness reflect the benefits of Prohibition. For in- 
 stance, according to the New York State Hospital 
 Commission Reports, the alcoholic insanity in the 
 hospitals of that state shows, since Prohibition, no 
 rate so high as the lowest rate prior to 1918, with 
 one slight exception—5.7 in 1925, as against 5.6 in 
 1915. The average since Prohibition has been 3.8 
 as against 6.1 for the corresponding period before 
 Prohibition. In Connecticut, the decrease in alco- 
 holic insanity during Prohibition, as noted by Pro- 
 fessor Farnam, has been considered elsewhere. 
 
 In concluding this chapter, I would summarize 
 by saying that Prohibition is primarily in the inter- 
 est of Public Health. It represents the greatest 
 hygienic experiment in history and one of the most 
 successful. 
 

 
 
 OTL 
 
 GAIN SINCE PROHIBITION 
 
 
 
 PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
 oa 
 —) 
 
 rere 
 
 "1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 
 
 Per cent of First Admissions to Hospitals 
 and per cents of the Pre-prohibition Tevet (8.4) 
 10 10 8 7 7 te 5 4 3 3 4 5 5 6 
 119 119 95 83 83 8 60 48 S86 36 48 60 60 71 
 
 
 
 37. ALCOHOLIC INSANITY DECREASES SINCE PROHIBITION 
 in states formerly wet 
 
 (Computations made from data furnished by the hospitals of the states.) 
 
 Alcoholic psychoses, including many forms of insanity affected by alcohol, 
 followed the same course as the diminished mortality from acute and chronic 
 alcoholism, in that there has first been a very pronounced decline with the 
 advent of Prohibition, and a gradual secondary reaction. This smaller excess 
 of insanity due to alcoholism is probably the result of increased toxicity of 
 bootleg liquor, culminating in a recrudescence of mental disease among addicts, 
 

 
 8 
 
 Mj Lid Vdd 
 
 
 
 © 
 ° 
 
 
 
 © 
 2 
 
 a 
 ° 
 
 a 
 ie 
 
 50- 
 
 40- 
 
 30- 
 
 PER CENT OF PRE-PROHIBITION LEVEL 
 
 20. 
 
 10- 
 
 “912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921. 1922 1923 1924 1925 
 
 Per cent of First Admissions to Hospitals 
 and per cents of the Ee AT Level (18) 
 19 18 alee 18 16 13 9 9 9 ¥¢ tf 8 
 106 100 95 100 98 72 He 50 ao 50 50 39 39 44 
 
 388. ALCOHOLIC INSANITY REDUCED BY MORE THAN HALF 
 in Connecticut 
 
 (Computations made from data furnished by the State Hospitals.) 
 
 In the typically “wet’’ state of Connecticut, which has in good faith passed 
 an enforcement act although it voted in opposition to the Highteenth Amend- 
 ment, the curve of alcoholic insanity falls lower than in the other formerly 
 wet states, and shows further evidence of continued decline. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 THe Economic Goop 
 
 Efficiency Increased Under Prohibition 
 
 Throughout my exposition I have freely admitted 
 that the present situation of imperfect enforcement 
 of the National Prohibition law is intolerable and 
 should be improved, especially where, as in some 
 of the large cities and states of the East, local 
 cooperation with the Federal authorities is withheld. 
 But I have, I think, shown conclusively that, even 
 in these wettest districts of the nation, a remarkable 
 change has taken place in the abatement of the 
 liquor habit, especially among the youth, so that 
 even in the city of New York while the army of con- 
 firmed drunkards has dwindled, the court records 
 show that the new recruits have dwindled much 
 faster. I have analyzed the exaggerations of the 
 main and minor exhibits produced in statistical form 
 by the research director of the Moderation League, 
 and corrected their distorted pictures, showing that 
 conditions as set forth therein are not so bad as is 
 represented. Further, I have examined the records 
 of the good accomplished under Prohibition in terms 
 
 15@ 
 
THE ECONOMIC GOOD 157 
 
 of bodily welfare, and presented them in graphic 
 form. The next step is to bring out the facts of 
 economic good under Prohibition. 
 
 Since scientific research has shown that alcoholic 
 beverages slow down the human machine, and since 
 the human machine is the most important machine 
 in industry, we should expect the use of alcoholic 
 beverages to slow down industry, and we should 
 expect Prohibition, if enforced, to speed up indus- 
 try. The experiments already cited show, for in- 
 stance, that the equivalent of two to four glasses 
 of beer a day will impair the work done in type- 
 setting by 8 per cent, increase the time required for 
 heavy mountain marches 22 per cent, and impair 
 accuracy of shooting under severe army tests 30 per 
 cent, and that the capacity for mental work was 
 lessened by from 25 to 40 per cent by the equivalent 
 of six to eight glasses of beer a day. These and 
 about a dozen other similar figures of impaired 
 efficiency from small doses of alcohol have been 
 described in Chapter IX. 
 
 Assuming the total alcohol used in the United 
 States before Prohibition to be consumed uniformly 
 among its families, and assuming, as in the type- 
 setting experiment (the minimum of the above 
 figures), that each daily glass of beer reduces pro- 
 ductivity 2 to 4 per cent, it follows that the produc- 
 tivity of labor would be increased from 10 to 20 
 per cent by effective Prohibition. But if, as is the 
 
158 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 fact. the consumption is unequally distributed, the 
 impairment will, of course, be greater. That is, five 
 glasses of beer consumed by one person will produce 
 more impairment than one glass apiece when con- 
 sumed by five persons. Therefore a 10 per cent 
 increase in productivity is a safe minimum. 
 
 According to Ernest Gordon (29), in Russia, tex- 
 tile mills increased productivity 8 per cent after 
 vodka prohibition—this in spite of the fact that in 
 textile mills the pace is almost rigidly fixed by 
 machinery. The Russian Minister of Finance re- 
 ported that, in mining districts, the increased pro- 
 ductivity had been 30 per cent. Observers in Fin- 
 land found in mining districts an increase of 50 per 
 cent after Prohibition. 
 
 All of us know that industrial efficiency was one 
 of the chief reasons for Prohibition. Frederick W. 
 Taylor, the chief apostle of Scientific Management, 
 favored Prohibition and predicted its coming on just 
 these grounds. 
 
 A Connecticut manufacturer, who made a careful 
 reckoning before Prohibition as to what drunken- 
 ness among his employees cost him, thought that the 
 elimination of drunkenness alone, without the elim- 
 ination of moderate drinking, would increase his 
 factory output over 20 per cent. 
 
 In view of all these and the other facts in previous 
 chapters, it seems safe to conclude that labor pro- 
 ductivity should be increased by at least 10 per cent 
 through Prohibition. 
 
THE ECONOMIC GOOD 159 
 
 Such an increase in productivity ought to find 
 expression in increased wages and profits, especially 
 in territory that was wet before Prohibition. 
 
 Prohibition Saves Six Billion Dollars a Year 
 
 Now let us see how this has worked out in actual 
 fact. National income in 1919, the year before Pro- 
 hibition took effect, was estimated at $66,000,000,000 
 by the National Bureau of Economic Research, our 
 chief authority for such statistics. About three- 
 fourths of this consisted of wages and profits, or 
 $50,000,600,000. Let us assume that the remainder 
 (interest, rent, etc.) was not increased through Pro- 
 hibition. Most of the $50,000,000,000 was produced 
 where the large cities and industries are, and these 
 are mostly in the East, wet territory. A rough 
 study shows that two-thirds of our national wealth, 
 three-fourths of our corporate incomes, and four- 
 fifths of our personal incomes subject to the income 
 tax were in this territory. 
 
 It follows that at least two-thirds of the Nation’s 
 wages and profits (and perhaps even three-fourths) 
 were produced in that territory, or over $33,000,000,- 
 000. Applying the minimum estimate of 10 per 
 cent, we calculate that at least $3,300,000,000 should 
 be added to our national production by Prohibition 
 —or would be added if Prohibition were fully en- 
 forceed—simply through the release of human energy 
 and skill. In fact this 10 per cent is trebly safe as 
 aminimum. It is based on the minimum observed 
 
160 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 reduction of productivity of 2 per cent per glass of 
 beer per day. It is based on an even instead of an 
 uneven distribution of drinking among the workers 
 of the whole country. It is then applied only to a 
 part of the country. 
 
 This $3,300,000,000 is 5 per cent of the total in- 
 come of the whole United States in 1919.. It is in 
 addition to $2,000,000,000 that were saved merely 
 by transferring our energies from alcohol production 
 to something possessing true value. In fact, the 
 $2,000,000,000 loss from alcohol production would 
 have been fully $3,000,000,000, perhaps $4,000,000,- 
 000 to-day were it not for Prohibition, or, let us say 
 (in accordance with various other estimates), an- 
 other 5 per cent of our total income. 
 
 In a nutshell, then, Prohibition saves 5 per cent 
 that used to be wasted out of our incomes, and adds 
 another 5 per cent into the bargain. 
 
 The only factor which might appreciably reduce 
 either of these 5 per cents applies to the former. 
 That is the wasted money and effort represented by 
 bootleg traffic. This is an unknown quantity but, 
 according to the best estimates, official and unoffi- 
 cial, is very small as compared with pre-prohibition 
 traffic. 
 
 This double gain, through the transfer of energy 
 and the increase of energy, is over $6,000,000,000— 
 without counting any savings in the cost of jails, 
 almshouses, asylums, etc.; or any economic savings 
 from reducing the death rate. 
 
THE ECONOMIC GOOD 161 
 
 “Real” Wages Rise to a New Level 
 
 Turning now to experience since Prohibition, we 
 ask, Is there any sign of such an increase in national 
 income? There is! 
 
 We find that the “real”? wages of labor per hour, 
 after making all due allowance for changes in the 
 purchasing power of the dollar, increased 36 per cent 
 between July, 1914, and January, 1925; also that 
 most of this sudden improvement came immediately 
 after Prohibition. 
 
 Between 1892 and 1919, inclusive, “real’’ wages 
 remained almost stationary. The fluctuations never 
 exceeded 4 per cent above or below the average level 
 for those twenty-eight years (excepting only once, 
 in 1897, when it was nearly 7 per cent above). Like- 
 wise, beginning with 1920, at a higher level, real 
 wages have remained almost as uniform. This new 
 level is 28 per cent above the old level. 
 
 To repeat this striking fact in other words: With 
 the coming of Prohibition, wages suddenly rose from 
 their old level, which they had kept without much 
 change for over a quarter of a century, to a new level 
 where it now is, a quarter higher than the old. 
 
 Other Economic Evidence 
 Profits have also risen, as has the total income of 
 the country, but the figures for profits are not so 
 nearly up to date. All of us, however, know of our 
 - present abounding prosperity. This is one reason 
 for our unprecedented stock market. 
 
162 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 Furthermore, the statistics of various types of per- 
 sonal savings, such as the assets of building and loan 
 associations or the assets of life insurance companies, 
 show a substantially greater rate of growth during 
 the period 1920-25 than during the period 1915-20. 
 This increased rate of growth is particularly marked 
 if those assets are expressed in terms of purchasing 
 power; that, is in “1913 dollars.” 
 
 The foregoing facts fit perfectly with the theory 
 that Prohibition should increase wages and profits 
 by at least 5 per cent. Indeed, they leave a margin 
 five times that figure to take account of other causes, 
 as well as of the fact that this 5 per cent is a safe 
 minimum and also of the fact that Prohibition is not 
 fully enforced. Personally I am inclined to believe 
 that Prohibition has saved and added much more 
 than the $6,000,000,000 that I have estimated as a 
 safe minimum. But it is always better to keep on 
 the safe side, and to mention no higher figure spe- 
 cifically; for even a paltry $6,000,000,000 a year is 
 well worth saving! 
 
 This is one reason why Gary, Leland, and other 
 industrialists believe in Prohibition. If Prohibition 
 enforcement cost us even $1,000,000,000 a year, it 
 would be well worth while purely as an economic 
 investment. 
 
 These conclusions are confirmed by Mr. Hoover, 
 who, in a speech made before the United States 
 Chamber of Commerce, said: 
 
 Exhaustive study from many angles of pro- 
 duction over average periods ten years apart, 
 
THE ECONOMIC GOOD 163 
 
 before and since the War, would indicate that 
 while our productivity should have increased 
 about 15 per cent, due to the increase in popu- 
 lation, yet the actual increase has been from 
 25 to 30 per cent, indicating an increase of 
 efficiency of somewhere from 10 to 15 per 
 cent. 
 
 Mr. Hoover also said: 
 
 In addition to elimination of waste we have 
 had the benefit of notable advances in science, 
 improvement in methods of management, and 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Professor Carver of Harvard says: 
 
 Anyone who attempts to explain all these 
 amazing signs of prosperity among our working 
 classes without mentioning Prohibition seems 
 to me as extreme as the one who would explain 
 them on the ground of Prohibition alone. I 
 cannot explain them except by bringing in Pro- 
 hibition as a contributing factor. 
 
 “Economic Nonsense” About Prohibition © 
 
 When Prohibition came, we were told that to 
 destroy the saloon was to destroy that much busi- 
 ness, that saloons help “make money circulate.” 
 This is what in the classroom we call “economic non- 
 sense.” To-day I think such talk seems nonsensical 
 to almost everybody. No one has the hardihood to 
 revive such statements, In view of our prosperity 
 since Prohibition. 
 
 But we do hear it said that Prohibition is costly 
 to administer, and that it deprives us of a source 
 
164 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 of revenue for taxes. This also is “economic non- 
 sense,” since the real source of taxation is income. 
 Not only income taxes, but all taxes, are paid out 
 of income. Prohibition has added $6,000,000,000 a 
 year to this stream of income, the source of all 
 taxes. It is therefore penny-wise and pound-foolish 
 to argue that Prohibition destroys revenue. It sim- 
 ply requires a transfer of taxes from alcoholic bey- 
 erages to non-alcoholic beverages, and to the other 
 products to which our energies have been trans- 
 ferred. 
 
 The simple truth is, Prohibition has replaced a 
 parasitic industry by constructive industries. Brew- 
 eries and saloons have given place to something 
 more valuable. A survey made by Robert E. Cor- 
 radini, of the World League Against Alcoholism, of 
 the condition of about 3,000 former saloon proper- 
 ties in the Bowery, on Broadway and on all of the 
 avenues of Manhattan, as well as side streets, 
 showed that saloons have been replaced by restau- 
 rants, clothing establishments, groceries, candy 
 shops, shoe stores, hardware stores, jewelry shops, 
 banks, etc. The value of the land on these sites 
 has not fallen as was predicted, but in most cases 
 has risen. The new businesses that have preémpted 
 these sites are not only many more than the number 
 of saloons they displaced, but each has more em- 
 ployees—from an average of two under the saloon 
 régime to 314 to 414 persons under present em- 
 ployers (61) (62, p. 12) (63). 
 
THE ECONOMIC GOOD 165 
 
 Diminution of Poverty 
 
 Turning the picture around, just as Prohibition 
 increases prosperity, it decreases poverty. A sub- 
 committee of the Committee of Fifty for the inves- 
 tigation of the liquor problem published, in 1899, 
 a volume on the economic aspects of the problem. 
 The investigation covered a period of about three 
 years, and was carried on under the general direction 
 of my colleague, Professor Henry W. Farnam of 
 Yale University. The general conclusions of this 
 investigation were that, of the poverty which came 
 under the notice of the charity organization socie- 
 ties, about 25 per cent could be traced, directly or 
 indirectly, to the use of liquor; of the poverty found 
 in almshouses, about 37 per cent. In the investiga- 
 tion of crime, the conclusion was reached that liquor 
 was a first cause in 31 per cent of the criminals 
 studied, and that it entered in as a cause, directly 
 or indirectly, in 50 per cent (64, pp. 79-134). 
 
 Labor leaders denounced Prohibition at the hear- 
 ings before the United States Senate Judiciary Sub- 
 committee in April, 1926, because they resented its 
 interference with “personal liberty.” But I noticed 
 they did not say that it increased poverty. The late 
 Warren S. Stone, Grand Chief of the Brotherhood 
 of Locomotive Engineers, said on this subject: 
 
 There are some people who labor under the 
 delusion that they are going to have the Pro- 
 hibition law modified or abolished. Some one 
 should wake them from their Rip Van Wirkie 
 
166 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 sleep. I wish they could go with me for thirty 
 
 days as I travel over this broad land and see 
 the homes being erected everywhere, note the 
 accounts being opened in savings banks, see the 
 families out together in parks, recreation and 
 community centers, children well fed, with 
 shoes to wear, and warm clothing, going to 
 school; see prosperity, happiness, and sunshine 
 where formerly there were only squalor and 
 misery. All this is a result of Prohibition. We 
 are not going back to the old condition of things 
 with their misery, want, and poverty—never 
 again. Prohibition has come to stay. 
 
 Maguire’s Criticism 
 
 In the preceding calculation I have found that, 
 beginning with Prohibition, wages, the fluctuations 
 of which had never exceeded 4 per cent above or 
 below the average level for 28 years, rose to a new 
 level 28 per cent above the old. Further, it was 
 found that profits had risen, and that savings 
 achieved substantially greater growth in this Prohi- 
 bition period. Out of this 28 per cent increase in 
 wages and profits, I have ascribed only five to Pro- 
 hibition. 
 
 Notwithstanding this moderate economic claim in 
 behalf of the benefits of Prohibition, I am reminded 
 by Thomas F. Maguire, in his summing up for the 
 Wets at the Washington hearings before the Sen- 
 ate Judiciary Sub-committee in April, 1926, that I 
 have failed to take account of the plight of the 
 American farmers during the first five years of Pro- 
 
THE ECONOMIC GOOD 167 
 
 hibition, and to this he adds the interesting informa- 
 tion—if it is true—that present prosperity is largely 
 accounted for by the new vogue of buying many 
 classes of goods, including automobiles, on install- 
 ments. 
 
 While of the 37 billion dollars in retail sales dur- 
 ing 1925, as recorded by the Department of Com- 
 merce, it is believed that about 5 billions represent 
 the total of installment buying, this is not, compar- 
 atively speaking, a very large sum. Besides, the 
 5 billions is the total volume for a full year, not the 
 volume of installment paper, which ranges from 
 ten weeks to two years outstanding at a given time. 
 Moreover, the sum includes the cash-down payments 
 of from 10 per cent to 40 per cent when the sales 
 were made. Probably the total outstanding install- 
 ment credits, on the basis of sales in 1925, should 
 be placed at about $2,500,000,000. 
 
 This sum does not bulk large in the nation’s busi- 
 ness! As compared with these two and one-half 
 billions, bank loans are constantly outstanding in 
 sums ranging from 20 to 30 billions. There are 
 upward of 100 billions of long-term bonds outstand- 
 ing in the Federal, municipal, and corporate classes, 
 and in country and city mortgages, and of these 
 about 8 billions customarily represent installment 
 loans on dwellings. Moreover, all rents have from 
 the time of serfdom embodied the installment idea 
 carried out in perpetuity. In the enormous uptake 
 of the annual volume of our domestic and foreign 
 
168 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 trade the growth of installment credits is slight, and 
 can have small influence on present prosperity. But 
 doubtless Prohibition has lessened the risks, by 
 putting them on a soberer class of installment pros- 
 pects, and has been a real factor in the spread of 
 this method of budgeting the family income. 
 
 As for the hard times which the farmer has ex- 
 perienced during the unprecedented rise in the wage 
 level of the industrial population, no one is better 
 aware than the farmer himself that Prohibition has 
 done nothing to accentuate them. Farmers as a 
 class are prohibitionists. To Prohibition, which has 
 reduced the drain on the Saturday payroll in the 
 food-consuming cities, they ascribe, if anything, an 
 alleviation of their woes. 
 
 The trouble of farmers in the Middle West is due, 
 as is well known, to influences antedating National 
 Prohibition by many years. Fully a decade prior 
 to 1920, farm lands had been “boomed” and bought 
 on margin at highly inflated prices. Then a great 
 credit deflation occurred in 1920. During this de- 
 flation the whole country suffered, but the Middle 
 Western farmer suffered more than the rest, because 
 he was caught deeply in debt; because food products 
 are especially sensitive to price movements; because, 
 following the war, the Panama Canal opened up new 
 competition; because the war demand for food 
 abroad had disappeared; and because of the Ford- 
 ney-MacCumber Tariff. 
 
 The authoritative spokesmen for the farmers, in- 
 
THE ECONOMIC GOOD 169 
 
 cluding Senator Capper of Kansas, ex-Governor 
 Lowden of Illinois, and Wallace, editor of Wallace’s 
 Farmer, are agreed in putting the blame for the 
 farmer’s plight chiefly upon the high tariff, which 
 compels the farmer to buy at high prices in a pro- 
 tected market and to sell at the low world prices 
 in unprotected foreign and domestic markets. But, 
 fundamentally, the difficulty would have been pre- 
 vented had the purchasing power of the dollar been 
 stabilized in the pre-prohibition years to forestall 
 the inflation of prices that ultimately brought farm 
 deflation in its train. 
 
 It may also be noted that not all farmers are 
 suffering to-day. It is only the Mid-western farmer 
 who is especially hard hit. Recent reports from the 
 state of Washington, for instance, indicate that the 
 farmers in that region are prosperous. 
 
 In conclusion, we may say that Prohibition is not 
 only sound hygiene but sound economics; not only 
 is it the greatest hygienic experiment but the great- 
 est economic experiment in history and one of the 
 most successful. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 PERSONAL AND SocIAL LIBERTY 
 
 Interest of Society Paramount 
 
 But, we are told, it matters not how much hygienic 
 and economic good Prohibition may do. It’s wrong 
 in principle. It is an interference with personal 
 liberty. Even if Prohibition saves over six billion 
 dollars a year, improves health and efficiency, 
 decreases disease and death, it isn’t worth it if it 
 interferes with personal liberty. 
 
 Well, does it? 
 
 The social organization is such that true liberty 
 must be a compromise between the marauding in- 
 stincts of one man, and the desire for safety on the 
 part of another. Personal liberty is therefore lim- 
 ited to boundaries set by the welfare and liberty of 
 the social group. In a recent speech, Senator Wil- 
 lam E. Borah of Idaho said: 
 
 The man in the automobile may be opposed 
 to the Eighteenth Amendment, but he will in- 
 stantly discharge a drinking chauffeur. The 
 train may be crowded with delegates to the 
 anti-Prohibition convention, but they would 
 mob the engineer who would take a drink while 
 
 170 
 
PERSONAL AND SOCIAL LIBERTY 171 
 
 drawing his precious freight. The industrial 
 magnate may talk critically of sumptuary laws, 
 but he will apply them like a despot to the 
 man who watches over the driving power of his 
 vast establishment. When safety is involved, 
 we are all drys. Where the exigency of modern 
 life demands a clear brain and instant decision 
 in order to save thousands of lives and millions 
 of property, we are all dry (30). 
 
 This merely emphasizes the principle that when 
 one man’s personal liberty is sacrificed to the per- 
 sonal liberty arrogated by another man then the 
 point at which the first man’s liberty becomes 
 private license is reached. It is then against the 
 social liberty, and therefore to be prohibited. 
 
 The robber takes the liberty or license to arrogate, 
 unearned, the products of his neighbors’ efforts, but 
 the liberty of the community as a whole necessitates 
 law prohibiting the vicious license that the robber 
 takes. The murderer arrogates to himself the license 
 to kill another, but the victim’s liberty is thereby 
 wholly forfeited, and laws against murder are force- 
 ful in their prohibition. White men of the South 
 demanded the license to enslave negroes, but the 
 country as a whole believed that such enslavement 
 was unjust to the negro and morally prejudicial to 
 the whole community. The license to enslave was 
 consequently forfeited for the larger consideration 
 of the liberation, emancipation, of the country as a 
 _whole from a degrading system of human exploita- 
 tion. 
 
172 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 Ignorance is prohibited by laws compelling chil- 
 dren to go to school. Smallpox is prohibited by re- 
 quiring children to be vaccinated. Typhoid fever 
 and other diseases are prohibited by providing for 
 clean milk and water and inspected meat. Tuber- 
 culosis is prohibited by the restriction of people’s 
 liberty to spit in public places, or to build disease- 
 breeding tenements. An industrial ailment is pro- 
 hibited by not allowing manufacturers the liberty 
 to produce poisonous matches. Drug addiction is 
 prohibited by not permitting anyone to buy and 
 peddle habit-forming “dope” or to use it as he 
 pleases. And alcohol is simply the chief example 
 of habit-forming dope. 
 
 Centuries of experience with alcoholic drink have 
 placed it among the marauders, the robbers, the dis- 
 ease spreaders, the enslavers, and the killers. 
 
 Senator Borah is right. The organization of soci- 
 ety is now so complex that in many lines of endeavor 
 we carry each other’s safety in our hands, and none 
 of us is free if another takes the liberty to dull his 
 wits with drink. 
 
 Drink as Destroyer of Drinker’s Own Liberty 
 
 Not only does alcoholic drink put a restriction 
 on the liberty of all those about the drinker, but 
 it manacles the drinker himself. 
 
 The mental worker who takes alcohol voluntarily 
 puts a yoke upon himself. He limits the exercise 
 of his faculties, for he cannot judge so wisely, will 
 
 a 
 
PERSONAL AND SOCIAL LIBERTY 173 
 
 so forcefully, think so clearly, as when his system is 
 free from alcohol. The athlete who takes alcoholic 
 liquor is similarly handicapped, for he is not free 
 to run so fast, Jump so high, pitch a baseball so 
 accurately as when his system is free from the drug. 
 Anyone who has become a “slave to alcohol” has 
 lost the very essence of personal liberty. 
 
 That man has the greatest liberty who most com- 
 pletely satisfies his major human instincts—self- 
 preservation, workmanship, home-making,  self- 
 respect—while retaining an harmonious relation to 
 the social group in which he lives. 
 
 According to a court decision in the state of Ohio: 
 
 Liberty, as used in the first section of the Bill 
 of Rights, does not mean a mere freedom from 
 physical restraint or from the state of slavery, 
 but is deemed to embrace the right of man to be 
 free in the enjoyment of those faculties with 
 which he has been endowed by the Creator, sub- 
 ject only to such restraints as are necessary for 
 the common welfare. 
 
 The liberty of the alcoholic-drink manufacturer 
 and seller to profit by the enslavement of the 
 drinker was prohibited in 1920 by the adoption of 
 the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution and 
 the passage of the Volstead act. That is, the liberty 
 of one man to make and sell intoxicating drink was 
 held to impair the liberty of another man to enjoy 
 health and economic and social welfare. Ask the 
 wife of the workingman who wants full “personal 
 
174 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 liberty” to drink whether this would increase her 
 personal liberty. She will cut out all technicalities 
 and go straight to the main point—that her hus- 
 band’s personal liberty to drink takes away her per- 
 sonal liberty to eat! 
 
 Inberty as Defined by Law 
 Various legal decisions have defined personal lib- 
 erty as follows: 
 
 Liberty as understood in this country is not 
 license, but liberty regulated by law (31). 
 
 Liberty, the greatest of all rights, is not un- 
 restricted license to act according to one’s own 
 will. Liberty is freedom from restraint under 
 conditions essential to equal enjoyment of the 
 same right by others. It is then liberty regu- 
 lated by law (32). 
 
 Intoxicating liquors belong to a class of com- 
 modities which may be made contraband at 
 the will of Congress (33). 
 
 Nor can it be said that the Government in- 
 terferes with or impairs anyone’s constitutional 
 rights to liberty or to property when the gov- 
 ernment determines that the manufacture and 
 sale of intoxicating drinks for general or indi- 
 vidual use, as a beverage, are or may become 
 harmful to society and constitute, therefore, a 
 business in which no one may lawfully en- 
 
 gage (34). 
 We see, then, that, properly defined and analyzed, 
 true personal liberty is enlarged through Prohibition 
 just as it is enlarged through compulsory education 
 
PERSONAL AND SOCAL LIBERTY 175 
 
 or through any other beneficent legislation. It is 
 just because I believe so enthusiastically in enlarg- 
 ing the personal liberty of mankind to enjoy the full 
 possession of its powers that I favor Prohibition. 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 THE SociaL Goop 
 
 Testimony of Social Workers 
 
 In the emancipation of youth from the dominance 
 of the saloon and in the dwindling number of new 
 recruits to the army of drunkards, as attested by the 
 records charted in this book, is afforded a measure 
 of the social liberty already achieved under National 
 Prohibition. But certain social benefits should be 
 further emphasized. ‘The chief beneficiaries of the 
 dry law in America are the small children,” accord- 
 ing to Theodore A. Lothrop, general secretary of the 
 Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty 
 to Children. ‘“I'wice as many children to-day would 
 be victims of Improper bringing up because of liquor, 
 if the dry law were not effective.” 
 
 The same society found intemperance in only 21.9 
 per cent of its cases in 1924, as compared with 47.7 
 per cent in 1916. The annual report for 1924 said, 
 
 Whatever other results statistics may show 
 as to the value and effectiveness of National 
 Prohibition in suppressing the evils of intem- 
 perance, our records show that since National 
 Prohibition intemperance has been at all times 
 less than half that prevailing before. The con- 
 
 176 
 
THE SOCIAL GOOD 177 
 
 dition of women and children has correspond- 
 ingly improved. 
 
 Lieutenant Colonel Hamon of the Salvation 
 Army, representing Commander Evangeline Booth 
 at the National Prohibition hearings in Washington 
 (1, pp. 677-682), testified to the same effect. 
 Colonel Hamon said that the Cherry Street Settle- 
 ment found it no longer necessary to provide cloth- 
 ing for the children attending its club meetings, for 
 since Prohibition came they have been well clothed 
 and shod at home. In the New York Rescue Work 
 for Women and Girls, the head of that department 
 of the Salvation Army reported that before Prohi- 
 bition, 50 per cent of the aid furnished in homes 
 was because of drunkenness, and this cause had now 
 dropped to 1 per cent of the total. The Salvation 
 Army was taking cases in its hospital of an entirely 
 different type from the old cases of acute alcohol- 
 ism, and was specializing on preventive cases. 
 
 At these hearings Lee W. Beatty, superintendent 
 of the Madison Square Church House of New York 
 City, gave estimates of a drop of one-half to one- 
 twentieth in the expenses per month for preventing 
 mothers with little children from being dispossessed 
 and providing them with food and clothing, as com- 
 pared with the pre-prohibition expenses of this 
 Church House. On the opposite corner where a 
 saloon had been there was now a haberdashery, and 
 not a speakeasy in the whole section (1, p. 770). 
 Further, the Church House found that most of the 
 
178 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 former beneficiaries of its fresh-air fund, who 
 crowded their accommodations five times a summer 
 in pre-prohibition days, dwindled to a maximum 
 party of 27 during the first year of Prohibition. 
 One family, in which the drinking father had be- 
 come sober, was paying $300 for a bungalow at the 
 seashore for the season. Mr. Beatty had detected 
 but one case of home-brewing, although he had 
 made house-to-house inspections in the neighbor- 
 hood of the Church House. 
 
 Mrs. Katherine Condon Foster, student secretary 
 of the Board of Education at the Northern Baptist 
 Convention, testified at Washington of the changed 
 habits and disposition against drinking manifested 
 in the 30 colleges and universities she had visited. 
 Now, drinking was rare, sporadic, and conspicuous 
 where it was formerly not at all unusual. Mrs. Fos- 
 ter reported the testimony of a house mother at 
 one of the boys’ preparatory schools, that in her 22 
 years’ experience the few years under Prohibition 
 have relieved her of most of her cares. Among the 
 university fraternities, especially, Mrs. Foster said 
 that the faculties and administrative offices reported 
 notable improvement over the pre-prohibition years 
 (1, pp. 694-696). 
 
 Testimony of Newspaper Editors 
 As to certain other social aspects of Prohibition, 
 Edward Keating, ex-Congressman from Colorado 
 and editor of the official organ of the railroad labor 
 
THE SOCIAL GOOD 179 
 
 organizations at Washington, D. C., gave the results 
 of his personal observations as a newspaper man to 
 the Senate Judiciary Sub-committee. Mr. Keating 
 testified that it was the general opinion of news- 
 paper men from New York to San Francisco that the 
 liquor interests when licensed had never obeyed the 
 law, and had been in combination with all other 
 evil interests in cities and states to secure unjust 
 advantages. It was his belief that since Prohibition 
 the public had the advantage of dealing with the 
 liquor industry as an outlaw, a hunted thing 
 fighting for its life. Hence it was easier to regu- 
 late it. 
 
 Research Bulletin No. 5 of the Federal Council 
 of Churches, 1925, among 170 replies to its ques- 
 tionnaire sent to the editors of morning newspapers 
 in the United States and to other newspapers in six 
 states, furnishes a commentary on this testimony of 
 Mr. Keating’s. Of the 170 editors who replied, 116 
 said their newspapers were favorable to the Volstead 
 Act, while 30 were neutral, and only 24 favored 
 repeal of the amendment. Reporting on the senti- 
 ment of their communities toward Prohibition, 106 
 editors said it was favorable, and 118 editors said 
 their own attitude was of approval of the Volstead 
 Act. These replies, which were not from the large 
 Eastern cities, testify to the public sentiment pre- 
 vailing throughout the nation. 
 
 _ At the Prohibition hearmgs Mr. Keating remarked 
 at the disappearance of drunkenness at public meet- 
 
180 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 ings, political caucuses, state and national political 
 conventions; at county fairs, baseball and football 
 games, holiday celebrations, and all celebrations of 
 a public character. Moreover, the former advertise- 
 ments of liquor in the newspapers and magazines, 
 on billboards and electric signs all over the country 
 had vanished, as well as the open display of liquor 
 in the hundreds of thousands of saloons on the prin- 
 cipal street corners. How could intoxicants, he 
 asked, be drunk now to such a degree when this 
 tremendous incitement by advertising had com- 
 pletely disappeared? 
 
 Benefits in Wet Pennsylvania 
 
 Dr. Ellen C. Potter, of the Department of Wel- 
 fare, Pennsylvania Alcohol Permit Board, named at 
 the Prohibition hearings six reasons why there 
 should be no weakening of the Prohibition law in 
 her state. Among the measurable benefits were: 
 
 1. The disappearance of the saloons. 
 
 2. The diversion into productive channels 
 of industrial forces, wage earners, capital, etc., 
 formerly catering to the liquor traffic, which had 
 resulted in an unprecedented industrial growth. 
 
 3. Increasing economic well-being of the 
 people, with more stable employment, greater 
 individual earning power, earnings diverted 
 from the anti-social to social and productive 
 uses, which mean increased consumption of 
 goods, saving for building activities, insurance, 
 etc. 
 
THE SOCIAL GOOD 181 
 
 4, Lessened demand upon charitable relief 
 as a consequence of drink. 
 
 5. Definite health benefits occurring in low- 
 ered mortality in general and from alcoholism, 
 and lessened mental illness due to drink. 
 
 6. Decreased illness from drunkenness in 
 general, fewer prison commitments and prison 
 population (1, p. 722). 
 
 Again speaking for wet Pennsylvania, the Right 
 Reverend Bishop James Henry Darlington of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, said his diocese em- 
 braced the coal regions, wherein the last strike, the 
 longest in 25 years, had continued for six months 
 under the Prohibition law without one outrage being 
 reported to the police. Bishop Darlington testified 
 that after his Church had called for renewed enforce- 
 ment of the anti-narcotic law, fearing that the nar- 
 cotic habit would increase after Prohibition, it was 
 found that the sale of narcotics had fallen off one- 
 half. The habit-forming drugs had formerly been 
 purveyed chiefly through the saloons, and the traffic 
 had largely died with them. 
 
 Other Evidence 
 
 Frank J. Harwood, Moderator of the National 
 Council of Congregational Churches, testified as a 
 manufacturer that his mill-yard was daily full of 
 motor cars driven by his workmen, many of whom 
 credited the fact to Prohibition and the savings it 
 occasioned them. Every morning three to four 
 milk wagons would drive to the mill, as the men 
 
182 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 were using milk instead of beer, and better work 
 resulted (1, p. 804). 
 
 As a member of the City Council of Cleveland, 
 Ohio, Mrs. Helen H. Green quoted statistics of the 
 Cleveland Juvenile Court from 1915 to 1925. In 
 that interval Cleveland had increased by 300,000 
 in population, but juvenile delinquency had de- 
 creased, and had fallen from 2,847 boys and 655 girls 
 in 1918, the last year before State Prohibition, to 
 but 1,898 boys and 621 girls in 1925. The Night 
 Court sitting on liquor cases had been done away 
 with, a single judge now taking care of all that came 
 before the Municipal Court; the cases had dimin- 
 ished from 41,150 in 1917 to but 23,393 in 1925. 
 The Associated Charities of Cleveland had reported 
 a pronounced decrease in poverty, as compared with 
 pre-prohibition years (1, pp. 772-782). 
 
 Kentucky, the home of more distilleries and 
 breweries than any other state, was reported by 
 Mrs. Helm Bruce, chairman of the Law Enforce- 
 ment Committee of that state, to be happy, pros- 
 perous and sober. The great whisky lobby was gone. 
 The saloons had disappeared. Kentucky’s streets, 
 full of high-powered automobiles and trucks, were 
 no longer dangerous. Its factories had ceased to be 
 empty on Mondays, but filled with clear-eyed men 
 (1, p. 717). Patrick H. Callahan, manufacturer of 
 Louisville, Ky., said that’ when Prohibition came the 
 distillers immediately put their money into legiti- 
 mate business. Unskilled labor formerly employed 
 
THE SOCIAL GOOD 183 
 
 in distillery work at poor wages, found more stable 
 employment at better pay, increasing their purchas- 
 ing power for the benefit of tradesmen. The flood of 
 new money invested in skyscrapers and other build- 
 ings in Louisville had produced a new skyline. 
 Assessments for taxes rose from $122,000,000 in 
 1920 to $319,000,000 in 1925. Building permits 
 increased from $2,179,158 to $29,910,000 in the same 
 period, and national bank deposits from $68,000,000 
 to $92,000,000. Savings bank deposits went up from 
 $30,000,000 to $44,000,000. Population grew from 
 234,000 in 1920 to 305,000 in 1925—a growth which, 
 under old conditions, would have taken 17 years. 
 But police records showed arrests for drunkenness 
 reduced from 6,172 in 1919 to only 2,462 in 1924. 
 Here, again, the figures of the Moderation League 
 were shown to be incorrect and exaggerated (1, 
 p. 839). 
 
 James A. Hewes of Boston reported that since 
 Prohibition he had had little difficulty with drunk- 
 enness among his traveling salesmen, whereas for- 
 merly he was constantly changing their personnel 
 for this single reason. Dr. Raymond, General Sec- 
 retary of the Family Welfare Society of Boston, said 
 that the number of families in which temperance 
 was producing poverty decreased from 25 per cent 
 in 1918 to but 9 per cent in 1925, adding that “the 
 facts are even more convincing than the figures” ; 
 _ and that drunkenness now “stands out like a gore 
 thumb, and rarely escapes recognition,” as it did 
 
184 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 formerly. H. O. Brewer, of Brewer & Company, 
 Worcester, Mass., said Prohibition had cleaned up 
 an undesirable section in which their manufacturing 
 plants were located; that employees were appar- 
 ently better off financially than in pre-prohibition 
 days, social conditions were improved, real estate 
 values had risen, and he believed the concession of 
 light wines and beer would be a concession to the 
 evils of liquor (1, pp. 915-924). 
 
 In this manner the testimony may be multiplied 
 from abundant records. 
 
 Aristocratic Tradition of Drink 
 
 As contrasted with such testimony of augmented 
 social welfare guarded by the Prohibition law, what 
 plea can be urged in behalf of the few wealthy and 
 influential men who persist in joining, with the liquor 
 interests in the cry of personal liberty when they 
 mean personal license? 
 
 For alcoholism among the rich merely carries on 
 in a democracy one of the outdated traditions of 
 feudalism, when drinking was a lordly luxury. AlI- 
 though the accumulation of wealth is basically a 
 good thing, especially when it lifts the general 
 standard of living, increases the variety of whole- 
 some goods and decreases the strenuousness of 
 labor, there is always a danger lurking in it. His- 
 tory is full of examples of how luxury enervates and 
 harms, and leads to the decline of civilizations. 
 With wealth often come luxury, abuse of power, and 
 
THE SOCIAL GOOD 185 
 
 degeneration of the racial stock. In monarchical 
 Europe alcoholism became the badge of the gentle- 
 man, who displayed his mark of leisure, drunken- 
 ness, as the woman of to-day displays her diamonds. 
 We have still as a survival in society the persistence 
 of the ideal of aristocratic vice, which has come in 
 conflict with the modern ideal of increased social 
 responsibility. This heightened social sense is 
 brought about by the production of more powerful 
 instruments of civilization, which may at any mo- 
 ment become death-dealing if intrusted to hands 
 and brains that are stupefied by drink. 
 
 With the old ideal was the tradition that work 
 of any kind, or service to society as a whole, was a 
 disgrace. Drinking and carousing were part of the 
 insignia of rank, fortune, and leisure. Celebrations 
 of all kinds were accompanied by drinking, which 
 was to be expected on social occasions and as part 
 of the:personal amenities. The tradition crept into 
 commercial life in the signing of contracts and the 
 booking of orders. Salesmen were expected to treat 
 their patrons to wines and whiskies, and friends 
 were often called upon to celebrate with potations 
 any unwonted stroke of luck or achievement by 
 their neighbors. I recall being invited with many 
 other guests on a special train which bore us to 
 the cotton fields of North Carolina, to see demon- 
 strated there the work of a new mechanical cotton 
 _ picker. We were told the story how this machine 
 had been endorsed by the United States Depart- 
 
186 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 ment of Agriculture, an event which was celebrated 
 by the inventor, who called in his friends, and the 
 excesses of the spree that followed brought him to 
 his deathbed. 
 
 The abolition of the saloon and of drinking in 
 clubs and at public dinners are an unequivocal sign 
 that the new ideal of social responsibility has pro- 
 gressed. The completion of this triumph will come 
 with the final defeat of the Old Guard of the com- 
 mercial liquor interests combined with the remnant 
 of social and intellectual leaders of wealth who are 
 making common cause with them against National 
 Prohibition. 
 
 The method employed by the brewing and distil- 
 lery interests in effecting this alliance, and in organ- 
 izing bodies of distinguished membership, will be 
 the subject of another chapter. | 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 “PERSONAL LiperTY’—CoMMERCIALIZED 
 
 Who Is Maguire? 
 
 When the Moderation League of New York, the 
 Constitutional Liberty League of Massachusetts, the 
 Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, 
 and the American Federation of Labor appointed a 
 joint legislative committee to represent them at 
 Washington during the Prohibition hearings of the 
 Senate Judiciary Sub-committee in April, 1926, they 
 selected as their spokesman Julien Codman, Vice 
 President of the Constitutional Liberty League of 
 Massachusetts. Mr. Codman was invited to call 
 the wet witnesses, Senators William Cabell Bruce of 
 Maryland and Walter E. Edge of New Jersey, whose 
 several bills and resolutions opposing the Prohibi- 
 tion law were under consideration. Supporting these 
 Senators on the Sub-committee was Senator Reed of 
 Missouri. Next to Senator Reed sat a gentleman, 
 about whose connection with the hearings I have 
 this information: 
 
 You expressed the wish that I write you 
 about the mysterious gentleman who sat at 
 
 Senator Reed’s right elbow during the hearing 
 187 
 
188 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 at Washington. The man is Thomas F. 
 Maguire. For a number of years he has been 
 connected with the Heffenreffer brewing inter- 
 ests in Boston. He has acted as a lobbyist and 
 general factotum for liquor men in years gone 
 by. He isa well-versed, shrewd man in his line 
 of business. I was told by a newspaper man 
 that just now he is directly representing the 
 Charles 8S. Rackemann-Julien Codman group, 
 who are organizing here in Boston as the Con- 
 stitutional Liberty League. 
 
 It was this Thomas F. Maguire, executive secre- 
 tary of the Massachusetts Constitutional Liberty 
 League, who presented for the joint legislative com- 
 mittee of the Wets at Washington the final sum- 
 mining up, brief, and analysis of the evidence before 
 the Senate Sub-committee on the Judiciary. 
 
 When Senator Walsh demanded of Mr. Codman 
 at this hearing the membership roll of the Modera- 
 tion League and its affiliated organizations, the 
 spokesman for these bodies answered: 
 
 I can tell you the names, or can give you 
 the names, of their presidents, vice presidents, 
 and advisory committees, and all of their execu- 
 tive officers, but I am under the impression that 
 the Moderation League (Inc.) of New York, 
 has not much of a membership, but is what you 
 might better describe as a small working organ- 
 ization (1, p. 43). 
 
 It is commonly suspected that, unbeknownst to the 
 respectables in the Moderation League, the liquor 
 interests are behind it in some way. But this has 
 
“PERSONAL LIBERTY” COMMERCIALIZED 189 
 
 not been proved, and is indignantly denied by those 
 in a position to know. Let us assume, therefore, 
 that there is no connection. 
 
 Confidential Report on Publicity 
 
 There is one question which we should all like to 
 have answered: What, if anything, is the United 
 States Brewers’ Association doing now? They have 
 not disbanded. . Are they sitting idly by and letting 
 events take their course? They never did so before. 
 
 During the pre-prohibition Senate investigation 
 in 1919 there was offered in evidence ‘A Confiden- 
 tial Report of the Publication Committee, to be read 
 at Executive Conference,’ of the United States 
 Brewers’ Association. This report said: 
 
 During the past year a large number of arti- 
 cles have been published in many of the leading 
 newspapers and magazines which have either 
 been suggested by us or have been based on our 
 investigations, and from the medical viewpoint 
 articles and editorials have been published in 
 the Medical Record, in the Journal of the Medi- 
 cal Association, and in the British Journal of 
 Inebriety. 
 
 Articles have been published in the Survey, 
 Outlook, American Underwriter, and the Jour- 
 nal of the American Statistical Association, and 
 the American Food Journal and the National 
 Municipal Review (4, pp. 60-62). 
 
 Now articles and editorials published in impor- 
 - tant scientific, medical, and technical journals must 
 
190 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 be written by men of professional standing, if they 
 appear at all. The names of such professional men, 
 of course, have been sought as wet authorities and 
 as a screen behind which the brewers may carry on 
 their propaganda. 
 
 Clearly all of the members of the Moderation 
 League are put on notice by such evidence as this, 
 derived from the same confidential publicity report 
 which tells of pre-prohibition leagues organized by 
 the brewers: 
 
 Another effective means of publicity estab- 
 lished by you was when arrangements were 
 recently made to take over the control, and 
 direct the movements of, the National Model 
 License League. This organization has an es- 
 tablished name throughout the country, and it 
 is the means of securing extensive dissemina- 
 tion of friendly matter. The fact that you are 
 directing this movement will bring it into more 
 harmonious accord with the general plans of 
 publicity and organization established in Na- 
 tional and State campaigns . . . (65, p. 4). 
 
 Such organizations have, in the past, been de- 
 tected in exploiting the names of “high respectables” 
 without their knowledge. Granted that the Moder- 
 ation League has no brewery connections, the names 
 they carry can be exploited in other ways. It is 
 easy for a brewer to reprint a “respectable” article 
 against Prohibition and give it a circulation many 
 times what it would otherwise have. Thus the re- 
 spectables become, in spite of themselves, the cats- 
 paw of the liquor interests. 
 
“PERSONAL LIBERTY” COMMERCIALIZED 191 
 
 The Honest Wets 
 
 From time immemorial the same old methods 
 have been employed by the liquor interests to utilize 
 respectable members of the community. Evidence 
 of this is furnished by Mr. Ernest Gordon, in ““T'wo 
 Footnotes to the History of the Anti-Alcohol Move- 
 ment.” He explains the methods early employed 
 in Massachusetts: 
 
 The Massachusetts law, the culmination of 
 a self-sacrificing agitation, was passed in 1852. 
 The distractions of Slavery, Civil War, and the 
 reconstruction period had made its proper 
 enforcement extremely difficult. The liquor 
 dealers, according to their usual tactics, had 
 broken the law and then explained to the pub- 
 lic the impossibility of its enforcement. Those 
 elements to which Prohibition has always been 
 as smoke to the eyes and vinegar to the teeth, 
 instead of rallying to law enforcement, used the 
 opportunity to secure its repeal. Hx-Governor 
 Andrew, lowering himself to become counsel 
 for the (illegal) liquor interests, threw his great 
 influence against it. In 1867 petitions were 
 presented for a license law. The list of signa- 
 tures is characteristic. At the head came the 
 conventional good man, in the present instance 
 Alpheus Hardy, a leading merchant and phi- 
 lanthropist. Then followed thirteen Harvard 
 professors, the Episcopal bishop, various Irish 
 Catholic priests, the French consul, and many 
 influential citizens of the State (35, p. 4).* 
 
 Hugh F. Fox, who is still Secretary of the United 
 States Brewers’ Association, testified in 1919 that 
 
 * The italics are mine. 
 
192 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 “it was an utterly impossible task to reach the mass 
 of the people directly” (4, p. 84), and that they 
 would be obliged to “try to get leaders interested in 
 putting forward some kind of a program no matter 
 how drastic it might be” (4, p. 83). 
 
 As Senator Capper says, however: 
 
 It would be unfair to say that all the per- 
 sonnel of the organizations now politically ac- 
 tive against Prohibition is connected with the 
 liquor interests. Nevertheless, any liberaliza- 
 tion of the law permitting the sale of beer or 
 wine would redound chiefly to the benefit of the 
 brewery and wine interests and they are, there- 
 fore, deeply concerned in the success of the 
 campaign now being waged (66, p. 161). 
 
 “Ticense they mean, when Liberty they cry” 
 
 In examining the Massachusetts Constitutional 
 Liberty League, affiliated in a common bond with 
 -the Moderation League of New York, it may be 
 of interest to examine into “Liberty Leagues” of the 
 recent past. 
 
 A colloquy on the subject occurred between John 
 A. McDermott, Manager of the Organization Bureau 
 of the United States Brewers’ Association, when an 
 investigation was made of the relation of the brew- 
 ing and liquor interests to German propaganda, and 
 his Senate questioners (4, p. 402). Mr. McDermott 
 said that he had held his position with the United 
 States Brewers’ Association for eleven years, and 
 that he was employed to organize the brewers in 
 
“PERSONAL LIBERTY” COMMERCIALIZED 193 
 
 the different states, and to combat the Prohibition 
 movement: 
 
 Masor Humes: Did you have anything to 
 do with promoting the organization of retail 
 liquor dealers’ associations as well, encouraging 
 that work? 
 
 Mer. McDermott: Where we were in a state 
 fight, or a county fight, or anything of that kind, 
 if they were not organized, I organized them; 
 yes, sir. 
 
 Masor Humes: You organized them as the 
 emergency arose? 
 
 Mr. McDrrmotr: Absolutely. 
 
 Masor Humes: Did you have any working 
 agreement, or were you in touch, with the 
 National Wholesale Liquor Dealers’ Associa- 
 tion, in organizing the state bodies of each 
 organization in the several states in which you 
 operated? 
 
 Mr. McDermott: I do not know that I ever 
 organized any State wholesale liquor dealers’ 
 association. 
 
 Masor Humes: I say, you cooperated? 
 
 Mr. McDermott: Oh, yes. 
 
 Masor Humes: You worked together in 
 order each to organize his own branch of the 
 
 trade? 
 Mr. McDermott: Yes. (4, p. 402.) 
 * * * * * 
 
 Masor Humes: Was it not your policy, when 
 you went into a state, to organize as many asso- 
 ciations of various kinds as possible, liberty 
 leagues, personal liberty leagues, manufacturers’ 
 
194. 
 
 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 and dealers’ clubs, and other organizations, giv- 
 ing them various names, in order to further 
 your propaganda and carry on your organiza- 
 tion work? 
 
 Mr. McDerrmott: Certainly. We organized 
 all the elements that were opposed to Prohibi- 
 tion. 
 
 Masor Humes: And you organized them 
 under some trade name or some other name that 
 would distinguish them from brewery organi- 
 zations or liquor organizations? 
 
 Mr. McDermott: The local people would 
 organize, and they would select their own 
 TAM els 
 
 SENATOR STERLING: And under whatever 
 name they were organized, for the purpose of 
 fighting Prohibition? 
 
 Mr. McDermott: Yes, they were organized 
 to fight Prohibition. 
 
 Masor Humes: Was it not your purpose to 
 use names for these organizations that would 
 not indicate the real, underlying purpose of the 
 organization? 
 
 Mr. McDermort: I never looked at it that 
 way, because before they went along very far 
 everyone could understand the underlying prin- 
 ciples of the organization. 
 
 Masor Humes: Could the public at large, 
 those who were not associated with the organi- 
 zation, know the purpose of the organization 
 from the name? 
 
 Mr. McDermott: No, I do not suppose they 
 could. 
 
 Masor Humes: It was good campaign man- 
 agement from your standpoint to organize in 
 
“PERSONAL LIBERTY” COMMERCIALIZED 195 
 
 a way and under a name so that the public 
 would not recognize the connection of the or- 
 ganization with the liquor movement? That 
 was good politics from your standpoint? 
 
 Mr. McDermott: That is a question. It 
 has not brought much result (4, p. 412). 
 
 The use the brewers made of their ‘Liberty’ 
 leagues and of their “Association of Commerce and 
 Labor” was expansively described by Mr. Percy 
 Andreae, organizer for the United States Brewers’ 
 Association (4, p. 371). 
 
 Explaining how effectively a more centralized 
 system worked, he said: 
 
 Gentlemen, take our organization in Ohio. 
 I can go to the telephone here (Atlantic 
 City), call up our headquarters at Cincinnati, 
 and say: “I want that statement to be in the 
 hands of the members of the Personal Liberty 
 League of Ohio within twenty-four hours.” In 
 twenty-four hours that statement will be in 
 the hands of 150,000 people, voters in the State 
 of Ohio, and among those 150,000 voters are 
 several thousand who are good for a large num- 
 ber of votes besides their own (4, p. 377). 
 
 To-day, the Liberty League, Inc., Washington, 
 D. C., also contributes to the Anti-Prohibition litera- 
 ture. The writer is J. A. Danielson, whose material 
 bears their name as publisher. This writer, in curi- 
 ously commercial language, deplores the fact that 
 “sood liquor” has been eliminated by Prohibition. 
 He says: 
 
196 
 
 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 During the years of experimentation with 
 this law we have learned that its so-called en- 
 forcement eliminated good liquor, but that it 
 cannot eliminate bad liquor. Prohibition has 
 driven off the market reliable liquors, especially 
 the milder and more wholesome grades, such 
 as wine and beer, and it has flooded the country 
 with substitutes that are concentrated to the 
 killing point. There is something decidedly 
 wrong with a law that quite easily eliminates 
 good liquors, but is incapable of eliminating the 
 inferior and harmful ones (36, p. 3). 
 
 One can scarcely go over such a record of “per- 
 sonal liberty” leagues, past and present, without 
 realizing that, however sincerely used by innocent 
 people, the “personal liberty” slogan is, in origin 
 and effect, little more than a camouflage for the 
 liberty of the brewers to resume their parasitic 
 traffic. 
 
CHAPTER XV 
 FurTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE BREWERS 
 
 How Millions of Readers Were Reached 
 
 In the previous chapter some account was given 
 of how the compact organization of the brewing in- 
 terests, just prior to War-time and National Prohi- 
 bition, exploited the honest wet sentiment of the 
 country for their own advantage. The record of 
 the United States Senate which so thoroughly ex- 
 posed their propaganda, mixed as it was with dis- 
 loyalty to the war administration, reveals further 
 details of their methods of appealing to popular 
 sentiment in behalf of the commercial liquor 
 traffic. 
 
 The National News Bureau of the brewers sup- 
 plied a weekly news letter to 5,300 of the 12,000 
 weekly papers of the country, all published in the 
 small towns, with a paid circulation of 5,300,000, 
 and with an estimated reading by 15,000,000 people. 
 The actual pieces of literature reaching readers by 
 means of this bureau and the foreign-language press 
 alone was computed by the brewers to be 431,600,- 
 000 annually, namely (4, p. 1252; p. 15): 
 
 197 
 
198 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 Reproductions of personal liberty 
 
 articles 26 times a year...... 156,000,000 
 5,300,000 reproductions of our 
 
 news letter in 5,300 weekly 
 
 papers having a total circula- 
 
 tion of 5,300,000 52 times a 
 
 VOCAL aan Uae ia nic he sates ars 275,600,000 
 
 Opel eae pai celal pans Alesis 431,600,000 
 
 One wonders how many million “reproductions 
 of personal liberty articles,’ written by honest, inno- 
 cent Wets to-day, are being circulated at the expense 
 of brewers. I have personally seen some such. 
 
 Labor’s “Friend” 
 
 Articles in labor papers, over a seemingly disin- 
 terested writer’s personal signature, but secretly 
 financed by the brewers, “contributed their share in 
 arousing organized labor to opposition of Prohibi- 
 tion,” according to records taken from the office of 
 the Brewers’ Association in 1919 (4, p. 456). 
 
 A complete collection of the “personal liberty” 
 articles by Percy Andreae, the active organizer of 
 the Brewers’ Association, was published in book 
 form by a publishing firm, and a copy supplied to 
 “all the libraries of the country,’—the entire cost 
 of the undertaking paid for by the National Whole- 
 sale Liquor Dealers’ Association (4, p. 1253). 
 
 An address entitled “The Need of a Personal 
 Liberty Day,” delivered by a United States Brewers’ 
 Association representative, was considered by them 
 
FURTHER ACTIVITIES OF BREWERS _ 199 
 
 of such merit that 1t was given wide publicity, and 
 many State Brewers’ Associations “used it exten- 
 sively in their campaigns” (4, p. 458). 
 
 A play, produced in a number of cities and called 
 “The Passing of Hans Dippel” (4, p. 1253), pre- 
 sented the story of a hard-working German saloon- 
 keeper of the highest respectability being gradually 
 ruined by opponents promoting the dry movement, 
 and his business destroyed without compensation. 
 In a motion picture, beer was presented as the friend 
 of the worker, a nourishing stimulant, in the form 
 of “Liquid Bread” (4, p. 67). 
 
 Use of the Chautauquas—‘Without Creating 
 Antagonism” 
 
 The Brewers’ “Publication Committee’ put it 
 this way: 
 
 Outside of the large centers of population, 
 there is perhaps no organization more impor- 
 tant in shaping the sentiment of thoughtful 
 people than the Chautauquas, of which there 
 are now some 5,000 throughout the country. 
 It would probably be impossible for us to 
 arrange a hearing with them directly, unless 
 occasionally in the form of a debate the value 
 of which is distinctly obvious. We have, how- 
 ever, been experimenting for the past four 
 months in a number of principal Chautauquas 
 in the Middle Western States through the 
 medium of an organization that advocates 
 the peaceful solution of all vexed problems of 
 
200 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 the day, by the application of sympathy, re- 
 spect, and cooperation. Its platform is that the 
 reconstruction of society depends upon the indi- 
 vidual rectitude, rather than upon civic or com- 
 mercial revolution. The argument against 
 sumptuary legislation fits in very well with this 
 program, and has been brought in, incidentally, 
 without creating the antagonism that it would 
 af given special prominence. This organization 
 has been engaged in booking speakers for the 
 next year, both in Chautauqua meetings and 
 in the churches, colleges, lyceums, etc. 
 
 And the report adds: 
 
 You will, of course, understand that the mat- 
 ter is of a confidential nature, and that the suc- 
 cess of the movement would be destroyed by 
 the exploitations of it (4). 
 
 German Propaganda—“‘No Suspicion of the 
 Influences” 
 
 The brewers’ interest in German propaganda 
 during the War and their donations of money to the 
 German-American Alliance whose charter the Amer- 
 ican Government revoked after an investigation 
 (4, pp. 1255; 27), are now matters of widespread 
 knowledge because of the fact that some of the 
 propaganda ringleaders went to jail. The effort of 
 pro-German factions to control one of the great 
 metropolitan dailies in order to use its vast re- 
 sources, local and national, for the promotion of 
 German interests, included a plan for articles agi- 
 
FURTHER ACTIVITIES OF BREWERS 201 
 
 tating “Personal Liberty.” Alien Property Cus- 
 todian A. Mitchell Palmer, said: 
 
 It is around these great brewery organizations 
 owned by rich men, almost all of them German 
 by birth and sympathy, at least before we en- 
 tered the War, that have grown up the societies 
 and the organizations of this country intended 
 to keep young German immigrants from be- 
 coming real Americans (4, p. 10). 
 
 In spite of the fact that, as one of the promoters 
 put it, “politically tne transaction would have to 
 be handled with the utmost delicacy, that no suspi- 
 cion of the influences behind it should be allowed to 
 reach the public” (4, p. 12), it became a matter for 
 the courts, with subsequent indictment and con- 
 viction of the leaders of the ring. 
 
 John Koren: Brewers’ Writer 
 
 Prominent propagandist against Prohibition was 
 Mr. John Koren, at one time President of the 
 American Statistical Association. He passed with 
 many people as an earnest, dispassionate, scientific 
 student. Deploring the evils of alcohclic drink, and 
 agreeing with the Prohibition workers at almost 
 every step along the line, he sidestepped only at the 
 last point—Prohibition. He was concerned with the 
 “Inherent Frailties of Prohibition” (67, p. 52). The 
 proper way out of what he called “this painful, 
 humiliating, besmirching, and dangerous situation 
 (Prohibition) is to adopt the recommendation of 
 
202 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 the Constitutional Liberty League of Massachu- 
 setts for a popular referendum.” 
 
 “TI was responsible for the retaining [at $5,000 a 
 year] of Mr. Koren,” Mr. Hugh F. Fox said, when, 
 in 1919, as Secretary of the United States Brewers’ 
 Association, he was questioned regarding the rela- 
 tion of his Association to German Propaganda (4, 
 Diol 
 
 Mr. Feigenspan, President of the United States 
 Brewers’ Association, testified that there were “half- 
 a dozen or so” writers (4, p. 60) employed on a 
 similar basis. 
 
 Mr. Gordon says in his ““T'wo Footnotes to the 
 History of the Anti-Alcohol Movement” that Mr. 
 Koren is the personal friend of Mr. Fox, who believes 
 in him up to the hilt. In 1910 Koren was a wel- 
 come speaker at the Brewers’ Congress at Atlantic 
 City. Signed articles by him are reproduced in the 
 brewers’ year books,—no slight mark of confidence. 
 Other anonymous articles in the same year books 
 are, if internal evidence is worth anything, the 
 product of the same pen (385, p. 41). 
 
 The American Issue, of November 27 and De- 
 cember 18, 1915, in parallel columns showed the 
 striking similarity of Mr. Koren’s writings with 
 those that appeared in the brewers’ year book. 
 
 Brewers Rally the Women with “Inberty” 
 As Prohibition spread, and the brewers were mak- 
 ing every frantic effort possible to save their busi- 
 
FURTHER ACTIVITIES OF BREWERS = 203 
 
 ness existence and that of the saloon, the thought 
 of women voters gave them pause. By 1919 they 
 decided that it would be expedient, since women 
 had got the vote in spite of their opposition—that 
 it would be the better part of valor—to make 
 an attempt to get them into the drinking fold, and 
 Mr. Percy Andreae, the master organizer for the 
 United States Brewers’ Association, hit upon a plan 
 of turning this female liability into a happy asset. 
 A “sincere attempt” to mobilize women Mr. Andreae 
 believed necessary to the brewing industry, and he 
 spoke impressively of the “magnitude of our task.” 
 He had reported to the brewers in 1913: 
 
 Women’s liberty leagues have already been 
 started in some of the larger cities. The plan 
 is to ask every organization interested in this 
 movement to form its women’s auxiliary, and 
 to enlist the sympathy, the enthusiasm, and the 
 active influence of our women throughout the 
 country. ... Now, I have the strongest belief 
 in the efficiency of our women, etc. (4, p. 360). 
 
 Hugh F. Fox, Secretary of the United States 
 Brewers’ Association, also had a scheme for exploit- 
 ing the women. For helping to save an industry, 
 described by Mr. Andreae as “face to face with abso- 
 lute destruction,” and facing the “incontrovertible 
 truth” that “currying the favor of political parties, 
 enlisting the support of political leaders, and rely- 
 ing on the promises of political wire pullers would 
 not save them from ultimate destruction” (4 
 
204 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 p. 361), Mr. Fox, speaking in 1913, had the follow- 
 ing to suggest: 
 
 Something along the line of a café-club that 
 would serve as a family resort is needed. With 
 the spread of woman suffrage, the women are 
 going to pass judgment upon the saloon, and 
 I do not believe that a place which is a repu- 
 table family resort is going to be opposed by 
 the ordinary women (4, p. 365). 
 
 Again, the late Mr. Robert A. Wood’s knowledge 
 of the women’s drinking place comes into evidence. 
 On this question he stated: 
 
 These advocates urge that we should have 
 beer and wine sold to men and women in cafés, 
 after the so-called “harmless” European model. 
 Here again Licensing Board experience may 
 shed light. Under the old order in Boston the 
 majority of such places were hardly more nor 
 less than licensed market places for prostitu- 
 tion. The sale of liquor was largely incidental. 
 And, be it noted, only the lighter alcoholic 
 drinks were current. These were not places in 
 which young men and young women got drunk. 
 They had only such measure of alcohol as would 
 blur the better sensibilities and spur the worse. 
 Beer and light wine would amply suffice to 
 bring back these open abominations in our 
 cities. . . . (68, p. 126). 
 
 Of women and drink, Charles W. Stiles, of the 
 United States Public Health Service, says: 
 
 During the war I was actively occupied with 
 the anti-venereal campaign in protecting the 
 
FURTHER ACTIVITIES OF BREWERS 205 
 
 troops, and this experience persuaded me that 
 strong drink and prostitution (hence venereal 
 diseases) are Siamese twins (37, p. 39). 
 
 Inquor Interests Still Active 
 
 “Liquor interests are still alive,” according to Sen- 
 ator Arthur Capper (66, p. 160). In 1923 he wrote: 
 
 Approximately forty organizations have 
 sprung into existence since the advent of Na- 
 tional Prohibition. The principal one of these 
 organizations is the Association Against the 
 Prohibition Amendment,* which was active in 
 a number of States during the recent congres- 
 sional elections in an attempt to defeat mem- 
 bers of Congress who had supported the exist- 
 ing Prohibition laws. All of these organizations 
 distinctly disavow any connection with the 
 former liquor interests. Since the brewery in- 
 terests would be the principal beneficiaries 
 under any liberalization of the Prohibition 
 law,* it will be extremely difficult for these 
 organizations to prevent their activities from 
 being used by the liquor interests for the fur- 
 therance of their aims. 
 
 In several instances, notably in Ohio and 
 Wisconsin, former liquor organizations* have 
 been working with them for the promotion of 
 a common purpose. Congressman Clyde Kelly, 
 of the Thirty-third Congressional District of 
 Pennsylvania, recently said of the activities of 
 the liquor interests in their efforts to defeat him 
 for reélection: 
 
 * The italics are mine. 
 
206 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 “In my own district I saw the power of the 
 outlaws and the power of the people. The 
 Allegheny County Liquor Dealers’ Association,” 
 whose very existence is an insulting challenge 
 to the Constitution and laws of this country, 
 officially indorsed my opponent and supplied 
 him with large sums of money, levied from 
 license holders and bootleggers. Seventy-five 
 thousand dollars was expended and every 
 method known to polecat fighters was brought 
 into use.” 
 
 We find in reports an item that the distillers, in 
 convention at Chicago on January 7, 1919, agreed to 
 raise one billion dollars if necessary to beat the 1920 
 National Prohibition law (38, p. 377). In 1919, 
 the brewers of Philadelphia had decided to con- 
 tinue the manufacture of 2.75 per cent beer, and 
 passed resolutions declaring that such beer was non- 
 intoxicating (38, p. 379). In the same year, the 
 Connecticut Brewers’ Association had announced 
 that they would begin manufacture of beer of 2.75 
 per cent alcoholic content immediately (38, p. 379). 
 Seven breweries operated by the Central Pennsylva- 
 nia Brewing Company had begun the brewing of 
 beer (38, p. 379), and the Brewers’ Association of 
 Massachusetts had adopted resolutions reeommend- 
 ing that brewers begin the manufacture of 2.75 
 per cent beer (88, p. 379). In 1920, the Massa- 
 chusetts State Legislature passed a bill providing for 
 2.75 per cent beer, but the measure was promptly 
 
 * The italics are mine. 
 
FURTHER ACTIVITIES OF BREWERS = 207 
 
 vetoed by Governor Calvin Coolidge (38, pp. 383, 
 384). Also, in 1920, the New York Legislature suc- 
 ceeded in passing a 2.75 per cent beer bill, but the 
 reaction against the measure was such that it was 
 repealed in 1921 (39, 1925, p. 122). 
 
 The brewery interests have not been destroyed. 
 
 On May 15, 1924, there were still in existence 
 991 breweries, although 130 breweries had been 
 seized; 541 indictments prepared and_for- 
 warded to the Department of Justice; 172 bills 
 for injunction prepared; 109 libels prepared 
 and filed; 148 criminal prosecutions instituted; 
 133 convictions secured and pleas of guilty en- 
 tered by brewery corporations and individuals; 
 fines of $306,750 imposed upon brewers; and 
 since July 1, 1921, $3,382,067 tendered by brew- 
 ers in compromise of civil liability, and 
 accepted. There are a large number of 
 important wine cases pending involving illegal 
 diversions of wines from bonded premises, and 
 against sacramental wine dealers (39, 1924, 
 p19). 
 ' In short, then, the Liquor Interests in general and 
 the Brewing Interests in particular, have always 
 conducted concealed propaganda which has deceived 
 and misled many good people, as well as made use 
 of their names, organizations, and publications— 
 and those liquor interests are still alive and organ- 
 ized. 
 
GHAPTHREX VI 
 PROPOSALS OTHER THAN PROHIBITION 
 
 “Modification” 
 
 In the preceding chapters I have tried to show 
 that Prohibition is liberative, not restrictive, in set- 
 ting free human energy and happiness, that it should 
 keep us free from the thraldom of a drug habit, from 
 the paralysis of inefficiency, from the political dom- 
 ination of the saloon. I know nothing that can add 
 so much to the liberties of our people as a whole 
 as Prohibition. America will never be truly free 
 until wholly free from the slavery to alcohol that 
 now limits and endangers our freedom to exercise 
 the faculties with which “nature and nature’s God” 
 endowed us. 
 
 The next question is, What is the best way to 
 secure this greater liberty to live? In other words, 
 what is the best way to cut ourselves free from the 
 evils of aleohol? Will a modification of the Volstead 
 act permitting light wines and beer do this? 
 
 Assuming, for the moment, that we could modify 
 this act without also modifying the Eighteenth 
 Amendment, the answer, it seems clear to me, is 
 distinctly in the negative; first, because so-called 
 
 208 
 
PROPOSALS OTHER THAN PROHIBITION 209 
 
 light wines and beer are plenty strong enough to do 
 great harm, and, second, because experience has 
 shown that to bring back light wines and beer would 
 bring back stronger drinks as well. It would bring 
 back the saloon in full force, unless our Government 
 played the rum seller. 
 
 Georgia, in 1908-16, tried the experiment of for- 
 bidding distilled liquor, but of allowing light or 
 near beer. It failed. Judge Broyles, then of the 
 police court, Atlanta, said: 
 
 A near-beer law is practically unenforceable, 
 as you can not have a chemist with every barrel 
 to see that the beer is light. Besides, men can 
 get drunk on 2 per cent beer if they take 
 enough of it. 
 
 Government Distribution 
 
 Government distribution, also, has been tried, and 
 usually has failed. It was competently denied at 
 the Prohibition hearings in Washington during 1926 
 that this system has cured some of the abuses of 
 Prohibition in Canada. The main witnesses in favor 
 of the dispensary system admitted that it did not 
 diminish, but rather increased, the total alcohol con- 
 sumed. 
 
 As to this system, Mrs. Elizabeth Tilton asks the 
 following pertinent questions: 
 
 No. 1. If the Quebec, or Dispensary System, 
 
 is a panacea, how comes it that the chief 
 Catholic organ of the Province of Quebec says 
 
210 
 
 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 that the government by putting its seal of 
 approval upon drinking has almost annihilated 
 the work of the Church through years of teach- 
 ing temperance and sobriety? 
 
 No. 2. How comes it, if the cure for boot- 
 legging, or even its diminution, is the Quebec 
 System, that bootlegging in Quebec is on the 
 increase and complaints of liquor law violations 
 have almost trebled between 1922 and 1925? 
 
 No. 3. How comes it, if government sale de- 
 creases consumption, that government liquor 
 shops have increased from 64 in 1922 to 90 in 
 1925? (Benjamin Spence.) 
 
 No. 4. How comes it that, if Prohibition 
 causes crime to increase and government sale 
 causes it to decrease, we.read in the Montreal 
 Press such headlines as “Montreal the Mecca 
 for Crooks” and again we read “A veritable 
 avalanche of outlawry, hold-ups, robberies, has 
 descended upon the city’’? 
 
 No. 5. How comes it, if government sale is 
 any sort of solution, that a Mayor of Winni- 
 peg where they had Prohibition and now have 
 government sale says “while conditions under 
 Prohibition were bad, the present conditions are 
 a thousand times worse’’? 
 
 No. 6. Lastly, if government sale decreases 
 drinking, how comes it that the Province of 
 Quebec, according to Ben Spence, consumed in 
 1925, 27,369 gallons more of absolute alcohol 
 than in 1924? 
 
 Issue in Fall Elections of 1926 
 
 Examining the accumulation of proposed meas- 
 ures and resolutions that prompted the 1926 Pro- 
 
PROPOSALS OTHER THAN PROHIBITION 211 
 
 hibition hearings in Washington, we come upon old 
 familiar phrases, in bills variously providing for a 
 national referendum; for abolishing the one-half of 
 one per cent alcoholic limit and substituting a limit 
 to be known as “intoxicating in fact’’; for repeal of 
 the Volstead act; for allowing the manufacture and 
 use of high-proof spirits for other than beverage 
 purposes; for changing the powers of Congress from 
 “Prohibition” to “Regulation”; for striking out one- 
 half of one per cent and substituting 2.75 per cent; 
 for allowing 4 per cent beer (1, pp. 4-6). 
 
 Modifications according to these proposals form 
 an issue, not only in the fall congressional cam- 
 paign of 1926, but in state referenda in New York, 
 Wisconsin, Montana, Nevada, Colorado, and else- 
 where. 
 
 As the struggle centers chiefly around the admis- 
 sion by law of an alcoholic solution of at least 2.75 
 per cent in beer, the fact of its intoxicating quality 
 at such percentage is in point. 
 
 Character of 2.75 Per Cent Beer 
 
 To go back to fundamentals on this question, we 
 revert to the important scientific work on the sub- 
 ject done by Benedict and Miles. In Chapter VIII 
 we saw, in a general way, how these investigators 
 had proved that small doses of alcohol are injurious. 
 Here we shall cite their specific work on 2.75 per 
 cent beer. Dr. Francis G. Benedict of the Carnegie 
 Institution of Washington says: 
 
we are ali familiar with the sense OL WeEil- 
 being after a meal. This is a common experi- 
 ence after taking practically all foods. Alcohol 
 produces to a degree approximated by none of 
 the regular food materials psychic effects of 
 rather far-reaching significance. Certain of 
 these, such as buoyancy and euphoria, are 
 accountable for much of the pleasure derived 
 from alcohol. Even its deep narcosis is enjoyed 
 by those who would “drawn their sorrows”! 
 A study of the physiological effects of mod- 
 erate amounts of alcohol is essential, before 
 forming an opinion as to whether this or that 
 quantity is scientifically permissible. Social 
 environment changes. Urban life has become 
 intense. Great mechanical agencies involving 
 human control now enter into human activi- 
 ties as never before. Man’s normal reactions 
 to such environment, and his reactions after 
 “permissible amounts” of alcohol, require exam- 
 ination before a standard of 1864 (Dr. Anstie’s) 
 or indeed of 1903 (Prof. Abel’s) can be consid- 
 ered as permissible in 1925 (40). 
 
 With the prevailing tendency to dilute alco- 
 holic liquors one would say: “Is it not possible 
 to prepare a pleasurable beverage with an alco- 
 holic content about one-half that of beer?” 
 (40). 
 
 Dr. Walter R. Miles, also of the Carnegie Institu- 
 tion of Washington, conducted researches in an en- 
 deavor to meet exactly the point raised by Doctor 
 Benedict. Dr. Miles states: 
 
 The question of whether alcohol taken in 
 very dilute form, for example 2.75 per cent 
 
PROPOSALS OTHER THAN PROHIBITION 213 
 
 solution by weight, exerts a measurable effect 
 upon neuromuscular efficiency as determined 
 under laboratory conditions is of two-fold im- 
 portance: In the first place, as a scientific ques- 
 tion, the answer will contribute to the under- 
 standing of the mechanism through which 
 alcohol exerts its influence on the nervous sys- 
 tem, since it seems probably true that the dilu- 
 tion in the beverage is similar to the dilution 
 of the alcohol by the contents of the stomach. 
 Secondly, the problem is one of practical inter- 
 est, since the vast majority of the individuals 
 throughout the world who use alcohol take it in 
 rather dilute forms (26). 
 
 For his investigation of the 2.75 alcoholic per- 
 centage, Dr. Miles used first one subject well prac- 
 ticed in neuromuscular measurements. The gen- 
 eralized result of eleven series of experiments with 
 this percentage of alcohol, each experiment lasting 
 4 hours, was that. the subject’s efficiency in all tests 
 was lower than normal in the 2 hours following the 
 ingestion of the alcohol dose (26, p. 202). 
 
 In studies of 30-minute periods (26, p. 272), 
 swaying of the body was 23.4 per cent increased by 
 2.75 per cent alcoholic beverage. Coordination for 
 pursuitmeter was 17.8 per cent less adequate, the 
 eye-reaction time was 4.4 per cent slower and the 
 eye-movement velocity 5.7 per cent slower; also code 
 letters transliterated were 7.0 per cent decreased. 
 
 The same experiments were repeated on a group 
 of men selected at random, and the results “thor- 
 oughly substantiated the direction and approximate 
 
214 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 intensity of the more extended results reported on 
 the one trained subject” (26, p. 260), and were also 
 “in essential agreement with those obtained in the 
 series of typewriting experiments in which the 
 alcohol dosage was much more concentrated” (26, 
 p. 260). 
 
 In these studies with the group, the amplitude of 
 the knee-jerk was decreased 21.0 per cent by the 
 2.75 per cent alcohol solution in the first two hours 
 after ingestion; the swaying of the body was in- 
 creased 11.0 per cent; the coordination for pursuit- 
 meter was 14.3 less adequate, and the code let- 
 ters transliterated were 2.3 decreased (26, p. 273). 
 
 It will be difficult to challenge the conclu- 
 sion (said Dr. Miles) that these changes repre- 
 sent other than a decrease in organic efficiency 
 due to depressive action of ethyl alcohol, inas- 
 much as such charges are regularly associated 
 with decreased reflex irritability, slower reac- 
 tion, less keen, 7.e., higher sensory thresholds, 
 slower muscular movements, less adequate and 
 accurate muscular control, and less agile mental 
 operations. . . . (26, p. 272). 
 
 There 1s no longer room for doubt in refer- 
 erence to the toxic action of alcoholic beverages 
 as weak as 2.75 per cent by weight.* (26, 
 p. 276). 
 
 “War” beer, that is, beer containing 2.75 per cent 
 alcohol by weight (3.5 per cent by volume)—so- 
 called “light” beer—was also tested by Professor 
 
 * The italics are mine. 
 
PROPOSALS OTHER THAN PROHIBITION 215 
 
 H. L. Hollingworth, of Columbia University (41, 2, 
 15, 1921), on six men during a period of two weeks. 
 
 From the taking of 32 to 40 grams of alcohol in 
 this form (the equivalent of 3 to 4 glasses of beer), he 
 found that pulse-rate increased 8 per cent, steadiness 
 of the outstretched arm decreased 68 per cent, tap- 
 ping-rate of the forearm decreased 7 per cent, and 
 coordination in placing a stylus in small holes de- 
 creased 6 per cent. 
 
 Expert Opinion on 2.75 Per Cent Beer 
 
 The following statements as to the intoxicating 
 quality of 2.75 per cent beer have been culled by 
 Miss Cora Frances Stoddard, unless otherwise indi- 
 cated, from affidavits by scientific men submitted 
 at the Hearings on the Prohibition Enforcement bill, 
 now known as the Volstead Act, when it was being 
 considered by the Sub-committee of the Committee 
 on the Judiciary of the United States Senate in 
 1919 (42, 4, 2, 1926). 
 
 Arthur Dean Bevan, M.D., then President of the 
 American Medical Association, made the following 
 statement: 
 
 The question as to whether or not beer con- 
 taining 2.75 per cent alcohol is intoxicating 1s 
 not only a matter of scientific medical opinion, 
 but a matter of common knowledge and com- 
 mon sense. It is a matter of common knowledge 
 that beer which has been heretofore sold in 
 the United States, containing from 3.5 to 4.25 
 per cent alcohol, is definitely intoxicating. 
 
Here Can be apsolutely NO adoudt out that peer 
 containing 2.75 per cent alcohol is an intoxi- 
 cating beverage in that an individual can be- 
 come drunk on the amount that is frequently 
 consumed. 
 
 Dr. William A. Evans, Professor of Sanitary 
 Science, Northwestern University Medical School, 
 from 1907 to 1911 Commissioner of Health of Chi- 
 cago, Editor of “Health Department” of The Chi- 
 cago Tribune, stated: 
 
 It is my opinion that beer containing 2.75 
 per cent alcohol by weight is intoxicating. 
 
 William Geagley, Assistant Analyst for the Food 
 and Drug Department of the State of Michigan 
 stated: 
 
 Deponent knows that such beer (3 per cent by 
 volume) is intoxicating by reason of his many 
 analyses conducted for criminal cases in this 
 State; and he further knows that such beer is 
 intoxicating by having tasted, sampled, and 
 drunk the same, and that it has an intoxicat- 
 ing effect upon him personally. 
 
 Reid Hunt, M.D., Professor in the Department of 
 Pharmacology in the Medical Department of Har- 
 vard University, and formerly of the Public Health 
 Laboratory of the United States Public Health 
 Service, after reviewing the results of careful experi- 
 mental work with alcohol given in somewhat less 
 than 2.75 per cent strength, stated: 
 
PROPOSALS OTHER THAN PROHIBITION 217 
 
 If by the term “intoxicating liquor” is meant 
 a liquor which contains sufficient alcohol to 
 cause, when the liquor is taken in amounts 
 which are not unusually taken by men, distinct 
 effects on the nervous system, the effects being 
 characteristic of and due to the contained alco- 
 hol, I am of the opinion that beer containing 
 2.75 per cent by weight of alcohol should be 
 classed as an intoxicating beverage. 
 
 George O. Higley, professor of chemistry, Ohio 
 Wesleyan University, stated as his belief: 
 
 1. That the drinking of beer containing 3 
 per cent alcohol by volume often results 
 in hilarious outbursts followed by surly be- 
 havior. 
 
 2. That in the stage of this excitation, often 
 termed the “jolly” condition, the drinker loses 
 his self-control, and often his self-respect, his 
 actions becoming careless and even immoral. 
 
 3. That a larger dose of this same liquor may 
 cause the subject to become quarrelsome. 
 
 4. That emotional manifestations of fear, 
 jealousy, and hatred may be aroused without 
 cause, so that crimes are committed. 
 
 5. That the subject who shows any of these 
 departures from his normal condition is “intoxi- 
 cated” in the proper meaning of that term 
 though he does not stagger and is not “drunk’”’ 
 in the popular meaning of that term. 
 
 6. That he believes that a court may very 
 properly hold as intoxicating not only whisky, 
 brandy, and gin, but also beer, even if it con- 
 tains alcohol to the amount of only 3 per cent 
 by volume. 
 
218 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 The Chaos of Diverse State Alcoholic Standards 
 
 Presumably the same amount of alcohol that in- 
 toxicates persons of other states intoxicates the 
 citizens of New York State. The condition of chaos 
 that would ensue if the alcoholic percentage per- 
 missible in beverages were left to be variously de- 
 termined by the separate states is well described 
 by Senator William E. Borah, who comments on the 
 proposal in the New York rum referendum as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 That would delegate or leave to the respective 
 States the power and the authority to say 
 whether or not a particular beverage was intox1- 
 cating. If the State fixes a percentage which 
 makes it intoxicating, what is the Government 
 of the United States to dv? The Government of 
 the United States is to remain silent... . 
 
 The great debate that took place prior to the 
 Civil War was over that one great question, 
 whether or not the States should determine 
 what laws should be enforced and what should 
 not, under the Constitution of the United 
 States. .. 
 
 Suppose the State of New York fixes a per- 
 centage of alcoholic content such as to be intoxi- 
 cating. Shall the Congress of the United States 
 and the officials of the United States, the 
 custodians of the Constitution, acquiesce in 
 the proposition and connive at its disregard of 
 the Constitution? Shall we leave it to the 
 State of New York, or to the State of Idaho, 
 or to the State of California, to say when and 
 how and to what extent the Constitution of the 
 
PROFOSALS OTHER THAN PROHIBITION 219 
 
 United States shall be applied and enforced? It 
 would make 48 standards. You might have a 
 standard of 7 per cent alcohol in beverages in 
 New York, and if so, they could ship their 
 product to every State of the Union. 
 
 You might have a standard of 2 per cent 
 alcohol in beverages in the State of Louisiana, 
 and yet New York could send her 7 per cent 
 product into the State of Louisiana against the 
 standard which they had established there. We 
 would have 48 different standards, no one 
 guarding or protecting or enforcing or maintain- 
 ing the Constitution, but 48 different States 
 applying their different rules. 
 
 All this disturbance and all this debate are 
 not for the purpose of securing non-intoxicating 
 liquor. The people who are insisting upon this 
 change are not insisting upon the change for 
 the purpose of getting more non-intoxicating 
 liquor; but wines and beer such as will give 
 them their intoxicating drinks are to be allowed. 
 
 If this question is to be presented to the peo- 
 ple, let us present it in such a way that it will 
 raise the real issue, and either give or deny to 
 them that for which they are asking, to wit, 
 intoxicating liquor (30). 
 
 In a later speech, Senator Borah said also: 
 
 The Republican party was organized to stand 
 for the Federal Constitution against this plea 
 of “discretion” as to its enforcement in the dif- 
 ferent States. Mr. Lincoln, its real founder, 
 stood firm against those of the North who would 
 nullify the Constitution by leaving it to the 
 States to “enforce it in that locality with its 
 
220 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 own peculiar condition’—as illustrated with 
 reference to the Fugitive Slave Law. He stood 
 against the South who under Calhoun would 
 enforce the Constitution “in that locality with 
 its own peculiar condition’”—as illustrated with 
 reference to the tariff law of 1828, and later 
 on the slave cause. 
 
 Now we have the leaders of the Republican 
 party in the great Commonwealth of New York 
 contending that they shall be permitted to en- 
 force the Highteenth Amendment “in that 
 locality with its own peculiar conditions.” 
 
 To such dire expediency we resort and upon 
 such transparent sophistry we would rely 
 (30, New York Tribune, 7, 26, 1926). 
 
 We conclude that “modification” really means 
 evasion or nullification, that so-called “light” wines, 
 and even beer are intoxicating both medically and 
 legally, and cannot be legally admitted under the 
 Eighteenth Amendment. 
 
 The New York xeferendum 
 
 On the face of it, the plan for a referendum in 
 New York State this fall (and the corresponding 
 proposals in other states) represents an honest at- 
 tempt to ascertain public sentiment on Prohibition. 
 Why should not the people have the chance to vote 
 on the question? Why any opposition to the idea? 
 
 But a closer examination shows that the question 
 is not as simple as it seems. 
 
 First, if the idea of a referendum is sound how 
 does it happen that the question of Prohibition 
 
alone should be so submitted! yyouid lt be Propet, 
 for instance, for New York State to submit to a 
 popular referendum the question as to Woman’s 
 Suffrage as provided for by the Nineteenth Amend- 
 ment, the suggestion being that each state is to 
 interpret that Amendment as it sees fit? Would it 
 be proper for the State of South Carolina to sub- 
 mit to popular referendum the question as to 
 negro franchise, the suggestion being that each state 
 should interpret the Fifteenth Amendment as it sees 
 fit? 
 
 Evidently such referenda would really represent 
 an effort to nullify the Federal Constitution. The 
 Civil War was fought to prevent such a degree of 
 states’ rights. The Fifteenth Amendment has been 
 largely (and unwarrantably) nullified, but not by 
 such presumptuous methods. We cannot, in de- 
 cency, today ask our National Government to abdi- 
 cate and let New York set a limit of 5 per cent or 
 10 per cent on alcoholic beverages while the rest of 
 the country has one-half of one per cent. New 
 York has more representation in Congress than any 
 other state and has a perfect right to elect, if it 
 wishes, such representatives as will try to modify 
 the Volstead Act. But it certainly has no right to 
 ask the nation to nullify that act within the borders 
 of New York. 
 
 Secondly, it would add to that disrespect for 
 law which the very proponents of such referenda 
 profess to deplore. I agree with them that we have 
 
222 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 too much disrespect for law already. Granted, for 
 the sake of argument, that the Eighteenth Amend- 
 ment ought never to have been in the Constitution 
 and that it creates the disrespect for law claimed by 
 its opponents, if we are now to leave it in, any 
 proposal to allow an individual state to nullify its 
 plain provisions or those of the enforcement acts 
 tends greatly to increase that disrespect for law. 
 
 Thirdly, such a referendum is futile. Granted, 
 for the sake of argument, that it will faithfully pic- 
 ture public sentiment in New York State, it has 
 no binding effect any more than any other straw 
 vote. 
 
 Fourthly, such a referendum tends to confuse and 
 mislead thousands, perhaps millions, of people into 
 imagining that the State has powers which it has 
 not. 
 
 Fifthly, the result of such a straw vote is sure 
 not to be representative. The number of votes cast 
 will probably be small, the dry votes especially. 
 In a straw vote the “outs” are always more fully 
 represented than the “ins.” Many who believe 
 in Prohibition will fail to vote simply because they 
 have Prohibition already. In fact, rather than 
 write to such voters, at a cost of several hundred 
 thousand dollars, urging them to go to the polls, the 
 dry organizations have emphatically preferred to 
 express their disapproval and contempt for this 
 attempt of the Wets to put them “in a hole” by a 
 voter’s boycott, and have passed resolutions against 
 all non-binding referenda, at the same time urging 
 
PROPOSALS OTHER THAN PROHIBITION 223 
 
 the voters to participate in all genuine and binding 
 referenda as in Montana, Colorado, and California. 
 Until a binding referendum is provided for New 
 York, why dangle before the voters any counterfeit 
 referendum? 
 
 Sixthly, the New York referendum is fundamen- 
 tally insincere in the suggestion that New York 
 should be allowed to fix a far higher limit of aleo- 
 holic content that one-half of one per cent and 
 yet make believe that such “light wines and beer” 
 are “non-intoxicating in fact.” Such beverages are 
 “non-intoxicating in fact” only in the fond imagina- 
 tion of those who want them for the very ‘‘kick” 
 which makes them intoxicating. Let no one mis- 
 take. The referendum aims to secure intoxicating 
 liquors by means of a legal pretense that they are 
 non-intoxicating. 
 
 The straightforward, honest, way would be to pro- 
 pose repealing the Eighteenth Amendment. It is 
 just because they know this cannot be done that the 
 proponents of a referendum want to make faces at 
 the Constitution for propaganda purposes only. 
 
 In short, the truth is these referenda are (1) nulli- 
 fying, (2) disrespectful of the Constitution, (3) 
 futile, (4) misleading, (5) unrepresentative, and 
 (6) insincere. | 
 
 The conclusion of this chapter is that, none of 
 the wet proposals to modify the Volstead act is a 
 practical proposition, since each requires a violation 
 of the Eighteenth Amendment. 
 
GHAPT HR XV EL 
 PROHIBITION CAN BE ENFORCED 
 
 Senate Sub-committee Rejects “Modification” 
 
 After the extensive hearings in Washington in 
 April, 1926, on the proposals to modify the Volstead 
 act, and after the evidence had been briefed by the 
 Wets and Drys, the Sub-committee on Prohibition 
 of the United States Committee on the Judiciary 
 returned its report in support of the Eighteenth 
 Amendment as follows: 
 
 The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States was ratified according 
 to proclamation of the Secretary of State, Janu- 
 ary 29, 1919. We believe this amendment to 
 be morally right and economically wise. 
 
 So long as this amendment is a part of our 
 fundamental law, it is the duty of all officers, 
 legislative, executive, and judicial, to aid in its 
 enforcement. 
 
 The advocates of modification of the present 
 Prohibition laws propose to weaken the same. 
 They seek directly or indirectly to authorize the 
 manufacture and sale of intoxicating beverages. 
 This is contrary to the spirit and intent of the 
 Eighteenth Amendment. 
 
 The Constitution is a grant of power. Those 
 
 224 
 
PY WWVsn OHhiwy 244444 UUUA BSAA VPWUWYSSL 2444440 WEY 240VUU VU 
 be transcended. 
 
 A national referendum is not provided for 
 and it is our belief that it was not the inten- 
 tion of the framers of the Constitution that a 
 national referendum would ever be attempted. 
 No laws have been enacted which provide a 
 machinery for the holding of such a referendum. 
 
 Wherefore, your sub-committee recommends 
 that all of the above named joint resolutions 
 and Senate bills and amendments thereto, be 
 indefinitely postponed (48, 6, 4, 1926). 
 
 Such a verdict was hardly calculated to encourage 
 the Wets in the Fall campaign of 1926. State refer- 
 enda on National Prohibition are futile, and the 
 Judiciary Sub-committee of the Senate declares that 
 all talk of modifying the Volstead act is futile, 
 because it contemplates passing an unconstitutional 
 law. 
 
 Modification Laws of No Avail 
 
 This brings us to the next stage in the argument, 
 that Congress can not stultify itself by passing an 
 unconstitutional law which pretends that ight wines 
 and beer are non-intoxicating. For in the last chap- 
 ter the weight of scientific and legal testimony was 
 shown to be against it. 
 
 The present situation is demoralizing enough, 
 whether or not it is as demoralizing as was the 
 saloon before Prohibition. But neither demoraliza- 
 tion could compare for a moment with the utter 
 
226 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 demoralization that would result if we submitted 
 to the demand for liquor “with a kick in it,” under 
 the pretense that it is non-intoxicating. 
 
 The present limit of one-half of 1 per cent pur- 
 posely draws the line on the safe side just as the 
 “danger line’ on the platform of a country railway 
 station is purposely drawn on the safe side. Only 
 those who want to get on the unsafe side can 
 object. 
 
 Exactly how much above one-half of 1 per cent 
 we could go without making what could reasonably 
 be called an intoxicating drink would be difficult to 
 establish. But this, too, 1s an idle question. For 
 the one aim of those who wish light wines and beer, 
 whether they realize it or not, is to cross that non- 
 intoxicating line, wherever it is, and to secure at 
 least a mild intoxicant—something with a real 
 “kick.” To raise the limit to three-fourths of 1 
 per cent or to 1 per cent would not satisfy them. 
 The only thing that would satisfy them would not 
 satisfy the Eighteenth Amendment. Those advo- 
 cating an amendment to the Volstead act permit- 
 ting light wines and beer without modifying the 
 Constitution are either dishonest with themselves or 
 with the public; for they are leading the public to 
 expect something impossible of attainment, or, at 
 any rate, unconstitutional. If, on the other hand, 
 they advocate merely increasing the alcoholic con- 
 tent up to the limit that will pass muster as non- 
 intoxicating, they will get no “light wines” at all, 
 
PROHIBITION CAN BE ENFORCED — 227 
 
 for these run over 10 per cent, nor even any beer 
 that a beer drinker would call beer. 
 
 Repeal of Eighteenth Amendment Impossible 
 
 Evidently the only legal method of introducing 
 light wines and beer is through amending the 
 Highteenth Amendment, to permit these milder 
 intoxicants. But such an amendment is quite out 
 of the range of practical possibilities. 
 
 Whether the Prohibition sentiment has gained or 
 lost during the last year of the Anti-Prohibition 
 movement, no one pretends that it has lost enough 
 to have the slightest chance of repealing the 
 Eighteenth Amendment, and: few reasonable people 
 even pretend to believe that it will ever get that far. 
 We must not forget that there are only six states 
 to-day which may properly be called wet, that before 
 National Prohibition came, thirty-five states had 
 already adopted State Prohibition and that only 
 thirteen states are needed to block repeal of the 
 Eighteenth Amendment. Is there any Wet optimis- 
 tic enough to imagine that he and his friends 
 can convert all but thirteen states to his way of 
 thinking? 
 
 We Must Enforce 
 
 If, then, the only method of bringing out light 
 wines and beer is to repeal the Eighteenth Amend- 
 ment, and if this is impossible, the only honorable 
 course left is to enforce the law and take full advan- 
 
NE NE MER RRR URE RRR SEE OUUEEUIEEEY, LEIUULTIIC Willie 
 that will bring about, to say nothing of better 
 health, better morals, and greater national self- 
 respect. 
 
 We Can Enforce 
 
 But we are told that enforcement is impossible. 
 Those who say this'are for the most part those who 
 want it to be impossible. Experience proves the 
 contrary. It took a quarter of a century in Kansas 
 to make Prohibition decently effective, but it was 
 done. It was done in a shorter time in the State of 
 Washington. It can be done in a much shorter time 
 in the United States if we will “face the facts” and 
 build on the experience of the past. 
 
 Federal Attorney Emory R. Buckner, of the city 
 of New York, stated in his testimony, as reported 
 in the Washington hearings, that the law could be 
 enforced. 
 
 “Won’t you tell us what the present condi- 
 tion is, and give your recommendations?” was 
 asked of him by Senator Reed. 
 
 “Certainly,” replied Mr. Buckner, “and I 
 have no doubt, personally speaking, that the 
 law could be enforced in my district if we had 
 the right kind of machinery.” 
 
 He also stated: 
 
 “T think it would be easily enforced if people 
 begin to go to jail in substantial numbers.” 
 
 In many places Prohibition was at first better 
 
PROHIBITION CAN BE ENFORCED 229 
 
 enforced than it is now. This fact is apparently 
 reflected in the death rates from the various diseases 
 most closely associated with alcohol. For instance, 
 the death rate per 100,000 in all registration cities 
 from alcoholism averaged 5.0 for the four years 
 preceding Prohibition, and then fell to an average 
 of 2.9 for the first four years of Prohibition. During 
 those four years, however, it rose from 1.4 the first 
 year, to 4.5 for 1923, thus apparently registering a 
 silent tribute to the laxities of law enforcement. 
 
 In Connecticut, one of the States that did not 
 ratify, we find, as Professor Farnam testified, two 
 cities, side by side, Bridgeport and New Haven, of 
 about the same size and location, in one of which 
 the law had been well enforced, and the other the 
 contrary, simply because in one there had been the 
 requisite machinery, and in the other, not. In 
 Bridgeport the number of cases on court records of 
 violations of the liquor law decreased until in 1924 
 they were only 162, while in New Haven the number 
 increased and in 1924 was 328, double Bridgeport’s. 
 Moreover, of the New Haven cases, over 25 per cent 
 were acquitted, against only 11 per cent in Bridge- 
 port. 
 
 What Needs to Be Done 
 
 As to the various means necessary for bringing 
 about the effective enforcement, we have ample 
 opportunity for expert advice. Mr. Buckner has 
 made his suggestions for increasing the legal 
 
230 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 machinery. We certainly need an enforcement act 
 in New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts, Civil 
 Service requirements for Prohibition officials, and 
 more and better judges. 
 
 As to our Judges, it 1s reported that one particular 
 judge fined a bootlegger five cents and then gave 
 the convicted man the money with which to pay the 
 fine. Of course this is not representative. Fines 
 have become severer and jail sentences have come 
 oftener and have been longer; but there is still a 
 great deal that can be improved in our judiciary. 
 
 To the criminal small fines mean less than an 
 excise tax. To many foreigners who come in touch 
 with our courts and learn through these courts of 
 American ideals and institutions, the luke-warm 
 attitude of certain judges does not foster respect for 
 our government and they probably expect the same 
 lack of severity if they should choose to violate other 
 laws. 
 
 General Andrews should be granted by Congress 
 the powers for which he asks essential to effect en- 
 forcement, also the wherewithal to exercise such 
 powers. 
 
 There are several bills pending in Congress 
 which he deems essential. Some are necessary to 
 effect a complete reorganization of the Prohibition 
 Unit; others are necessary to cut red tape. If he is 
 to be held responsible, he must be given every oppor- 
 tunity to accomplish his task. 
 
 General Andrews began his work by effecting an 
 
PROHIBITION CAN BE ENFORCED — 231 
 
 understanding with the Mexican government, on 
 the problem of smuggling arising along the border. 
 His effort to meet the same problem on the Cana- 
 dian border, also his recent endeavors with the gov- 
 ernments of Great Britain and other countries, 
 should bring about better enforcement of the law 
 against foreign smugglers. 
 
 Many, if not most, bootleggers are alien. It is 
 they who do the most to cause disrespect for 
 American law, having no respect for it themselves. 
 I believe that alen bootleggers who are caught 
 should be deported. 
 
 It appears that—with the advent of Prohibition 
 —many schools have relinquished instruction on the 
 physiological effects of alcohol. But if ever our 
 youth needed scientific instruction it is now. Such 
 education should be resumed and improved. 
 
 If the temperance organizations have relin- 
 quished, or curtailed, their popular educational 
 work, it is because many friends of Prohibition— 
 mistakenly assuming that the fight was over—have 
 curtailed their subscriptions. 
 
 In connection with this question of educating 
 public sentiment, should be mentioned the need of 
 combating the fashion, among the wealthy in many 
 places, of serving bootleg liquor in their homes. 
 This custom apparently originated in the resent- 
 ment of certain people against a law reflecting on 
 their personal habits. It represents a spirit of 
 defiance. Subconsciously these people were saying: 
 
“Well show you Prohibitionists! We are your 
 superiors and propose to be superior to the law 
 you put over on us.’ But, as the novelty and deyvil- 
 try of it have worn off, the custom has become a 
 burden which many would gladly be rid of if they © 
 had the moral courage. In my own acquaintance 
 I know of several who would heartily like to see 
 the custom dropped, but do not dare break it yet. 
 Ultimately the custom will doubtless crumble as 
 the conscience of the “scofHlaws”’ asserts itself, over 
 their sneaking patronage of the law-breaking boot- 
 legger. Conscience will prick still more the instant 
 the hostess begins to sense the fact that she is losing 
 the respect of those whose respect she most values, 
 even though they try to conceal that fact from her. 
 Such is the lesson of Western experience and the 
 Same causes will produce the same effects in the 
 Kast. The very moral cowardice which now keeps 
 this silly custom alive will kill it as soon as a certain 
 dead center of public sentiment is passed. Then 
 a few courageous social leaders will be surprised to 
 find how rapidly a good example once set will be 
 followed. 
 
 This is primarily a woman’s job; but the rich 
 husband can help not only from moral motives, but 
 from economic. He can be made to realize that 
 Prohibition enhances his own income too much to 
 justify imperiling its success and bringing back the 
 saloon to diminish the profits in his own business. He 
 can also be made to realize that his own disrespect 
 

 
 PROHIBITION CAN BE ENFORCED 233 
 
 for law not only creates resentment among those 
 too poor to do as he does, but sets a lawless example 
 of which bolshevists, the enemies of private prop- 
 erty, will not fail to take advantage. 
 
 This custom is perhaps the most important obsta- 
 cle to the success of Prohibition. Although the 
 class which practices the custom probably consti- 
 tutes much less than one per cent of the population, 
 to them it seems that “everybody is doing it” and 
 the influence of their example is powerful. 
 
 “Obey the Law, Even If Bad” 
 
 Success is purely a question of public sentiment. 
 I entirely agree with those who say that we cannot 
 enforce a law of this kind without a strong public 
 sentiment behind it. 
 
 I also agree to a large extent with those who be- 
 lieve that, as a practical proposition, we shall get 
 very little codperation out of the legalistic precept 
 that laws should be obeyed, right or wrong. Theo- 
 retically this is true, and the more it is recognized 
 in practice, the better. But practically, among inde- 
 pendent Americans, we do not get far merely by 
 shouting, “Obey the law because it is the law, even if 
 it is a bad law.’ The voters resent any idea of 
 “theirs not to reason why!” 
 
 It is my firm conviction that a great tactical blun- 
 der has been made by those responsible for drop- 
 ping the educational program, and turning to a 
 mere law observance program. Prohibition made 
 
234 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 its great strides when the evils of alcohol were 
 stressed. It lost ground as soon as that emphasis 
 was lost. | 
 
 The public who had not already been converted 
 to Prohibition, and who never understood the basic 
 reasons for it have acquired the impression, from 
 being preached to by judges and clergymen and 
 exhorted to obey the law merely because it is law, 
 that no other good reason for obeying this law 
 exists. They have acquired the idea that this Pro- 
 hibition law is a bad law, resting only on the whim- 
 sical ideas of fanatics. No one can be really enthu- 
 silastic over obeying a bad law believed to have been 
 “put over’ on an unsuspecting people. 
 
 What is needed now is to go back to first prin- 
 ciples, to educate the public to understand that there 
 is a reason and a good one. Here is a parable: 
 
 Once upon a time there was a town on the 
 outskirts of which a large field was enclosed 
 by a high fence with signs to “keep out!” 
 
 As a consequence of putting up the fence, 
 many people wanted to get in. They hated the 
 Sonia “keep out!”, and saw no reason 
 Orit: 
 
 The fence was nearly battered down, where- 
 upon the sign was changed to “Danger, Keep 
 Out!” Even then some people resented the 
 sign because they did not understand what the 
 danger was. Finally over the sign was placed: 
 “Dynamite stored here!” Then all but a very 
 few foohardy people were content to “keep 
 out.” 
 
PROHIBITION CAN BE ENFORCED ~— 235 
 
 Those few who still insisted on their “per- 
 sonal liberty” to enter were restrained by the 
 majority who said, ““We would not prevent your 
 entering if the result would be to blow up only 
 yourselves. The reason we insist on compelling 
 you to obey the law is that your disobedience 
 would endanger the lives of others. Call it a 
 restriction of your “personal liberty” if you 
 will, but it is no real deprivation to you and it 
 is a very real safeguard to us. 
 
 This parable, I believe, applies in every detail. 
 We cannot make the people “keep out” until they 
 know that they are playing with dynamite. For 
 the rank and file, education is needed more than 
 force. Reasonable people will obey the law when 
 its reasonableness is demonstrated. 
 
 The trouble is that. very few people really know 
 how dangerous this alcoholic dynamite is. There 
 
 are few popular books on the subject. Some time 
 after Prohibition was adopted, I called on the tele- 
 phone the publisher of Dr. Eugene L. Fisk’s book, 
 “Alcohol” (the best popular book in America on 
 this subject), and was surprised and disappointed to 
 find that Prohibition had not created much, if any, 
 new demand for the book. The average man does 
 not even know how little he knows on the subject. 
 He is generally sure (1) that alcohol is a stimulant 
 (2) that beer and even light wines are healthful 
 rather than otherwise, (3) that his “thirst” for these 
 is a natural one, and (4) that most people can use 
 them in moderation without danger of using them 
 
236 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 “in excess”—every one of which four notions is 
 false and has been proved false. Nor does he realize 
 that the interrelations of modern life inevitably in- 
 volve us in the derelictions of a few. He needs 
 to study the social cost of alcohol in poverty, ineffi- 
 ciency, crime, and vice. 
 
 Full Success Well Worth Waiting For 
 
 When, ultimately, the majority in the East under- 
 stands these things, even as well as do those in the 
 West and South, Prohibition will become as popular 
 here as there, and enforcement as easy. As in Kan- 
 sas, the slogan will not be the elusive and hollow 
 ery of “Personal Liberty,’ but “Better Boys and 
 Better Business!” 
 
 It is idle to say that the law cannot change habits. 
 By itself, of course, it can do little. But combined 
 with education it can do much. Experience in the 
 West proves this. We must remember: this is a 
 scientific age. If the laboratory says “vitamines,” 
 the demand for tomatoes and cabbages increases 
 forthwith. Who can doubt that Science will review 
 every habit and custom? It is manifest destiny that 
 alcohol will not survive this scrutiny. 
 
 Just how many good people are losing faith in 
 Prohibition? There is the inevitable reaction that 
 follows every reform. The Prohibition movement 
 has always been something of a see-saw. First, the 
 people see clearly the evils of the saloon and put it 
 
out of business. Ihen we iorget those evils, and | 
 see the evils of the illicit traffic, thereupon we aban- 
 don or modify Prohibition. Then the inevitable 
 happens. The saloon comes back, and we begin all 
 over again. Yet the general forward movement 
 never seems to stop. With all its ups and downs, 
 generation by generation, it goes on and upward 
 substantially. 
 
 The best observer I know in Kansas said to me 
 that National Prohibition may take a quarter of a 
 century to blossom out fully, as did State Prohibi- 
 tion in Kansas, but that, even so, “it is well worth 
 waiting for.” A former health officer of Chicago 
 told me that if we are now foolish enough to try 
 light wines and beer, it will merely supply the object 
 lesson needed to reconvert to Prohibition those who 
 are now being influenced by the wet propaganda 
 against it. Henry Ford tells us that the Wets help 
 the Drys by drawing attention to the need of 
 tightening up on Prohibition. General Andrews 
 said in the hearings at Washington that a knowl- 
 edge of the abuses of Prohibition would help en- 
 forcement. 
 
 Not only should education, both formal and 
 popular, be pressed, but research. Every result con- 
 tested should be retested until there can be no 
 room for doubt left. 
 
 In short, we need more research and education, 
 resulting in improved public understanding and 
 
238 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 sentiment; constructive legislation, including Civil 
 Service provisions, permitting better admuinistra- 
 tion; and severer judgments in our courts. 
 
 Summary 
 
 What, then, is the situation? We may end as we 
 began: 
 
 (1) Present conditions are intolerable and must 
 be corrected. 
 
 (2) Even so, they are not as dark as they have 
 been painted. Moreover, if we do ultimately cor- 
 rect them, they are now in the nature of temporary 
 evils, destined to fade away in a few years, while 
 the good from Prohibition will go on indefinitely. 
 
 (3) A great net good is already being realized, 
 including over six billion dollars a year in cold cash 
 values. 
 
 (4) Real personal liberty, the liberty to live and 
 enjoy the full use of our faculties, is increased by 
 Prohibition. 
 
 (5) Light wines and beer cannot be legalized 
 without another Constitutional Amendment. 
 
 (6) No such Amendment can be passed. 
 
 (7) All that the Wets can possibly accomplish 
 is laxity of enforcement or nullification; in other 
 words, enormously to increase the very disrespect 
 for law which they profess to deplore. 
 
 (8) Therefore, the only satisfactory solution lies 
 in fuller enforcement. 
 
PROHIBITION CAN BE ENFORCED ~— 239 
 
 (9) This can be accomplished, especially, with 
 the aid of education—when we “face the facts.” 
 
 Prohibition is here to stay. If not enforced, its 
 blessings will speedily turn into a curse. There is 
 no time to lose. Although things are much better 
 than before Prohibition, with the possible excep- 
 tion of disrespect for law, they may not stay so. 
 Enforcement will cure disrespect for law and other 
 evils complained of, as well as greatly augment the 
 good. American Prohibition will then go down in 
 history as ushering in a new era in the world, in 
 which accomplishment this nation will take pride 
 forever. 
 

 
LIST OF AUTHORS, TITLES, AND PUBLISHERS 
 
 No. 
 F 
 
 Hearings: Before the Sub-committee of the Committee on the 
 Judiciary, 69th Congress, 2 Volumes, 1660 pages, April 
 5-24, 1926. 
 
 The Prohibition Situation, Research Bulletin 5, Federal 
 ean of Churches of Christ in America, N. Y., September, 
 1925. 
 
 Tuomas Nrxon Carver: The Present Economic Revolution 
 in the United States. Little, Brown & Co., 1925. 
 
 Hearings: Brewing and Liquor Interests and German Propa- 
 ganda. U.S. Senate, 1919. 
 
 Annual Report Bureau Internal Revenue. U.S. Treasury, 
 1923. 
 
 Ernest H. Straryina: The Action of Alcohol on Man, chapter 
 by Raymond Pearl on “Alcohol and Mortality.” Longmans, 
 Green & Co., N. Y., 1923. 
 
 Irving FisHer and Evcene Lyman Fisx, M.D.: How to 
 Live. Funk & Wagnalls, New York, 18th Edition, 1926. 
 
 North American Review. Sept., Oct., Nov., 1926. 
 
 Methodist Board of Temperance. Clip Sheet. Washington, 
 Dac: 
 
 Evcensp Lyman Fisx: Alcohol. Funk & Wagnalls, New 
 Work, N. Y., 1917: 
 
 . Ben H. Spence: The Case for Prohibition, Toronto, Ontario, 
 
 1925. 
 
 . Water A. Bastepo: Materia Medica, Pharmacology, and 
 
 Therapeutics. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia and Lon- 
 don, 1918, 2nd Edition. 
 
 P. Larmmnes: Norman Kerr Lecture on the Influence of Alco- 
 hol on Immunity. Medical Record, Ixxvi, 1909. 
 
 . Georce Rusrin: Journal of Infectious Diseases. 1904, 1. 
 . F. V. Fruuincer: Med. Wochenschrift. 1912, xxxviii, p. 999. 
 
 W. W. Wernsura: New York Medical Journal. Russky & 
 Vratch, 1912, ii, p. 1824. N. Y. M. J. 1912, xvi, p. 1040. 
 
 . Georce W. Crite: Blood Pressure in Surgery. J. B. Lippin- 
 
 cott.Co., Philadelphia, 1903. 
 241 
 
242 
 
 17. 
 18. 
 19. 
 20. 
 
 21. 
 
 22. 
 23. 
 24. 
 25. 
 26. 
 27. 
 28. 
 29. 
 
 30. 
 
 31. 
 
 32. 
 
 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 Ricuarp C. Casor: Studies of the Action of Alcohol in Dis- 
 ease, Especially upon the Circulation. Med. News, xxii, 
 1903, pp. 145-153. 
 
 Dennic, HinpELAND, and GruensAuM: Deutsch. Arch. f. Klin. 
 Med. 1909, xcvi, pp. 153-162. 
 
 Emitie ALEXANDROSS: Cor. Bl. f. Schweiz, Aerzte. 1910, xl, 
 pp. 465-475. 
 
 Action of Alcohol During Febrile and Other Pathologic Con- 
 ditions. Journal A.M.A., 1910, lv, p. 174. 
 
 J. Hérrcourr: The Social Diseases. Routledge, London, 1920. 
 
 Journal American Medical Association. 
 
 Cesare Lomproso: Crime: Its Causes and Remedies. Wal- 
 ter Scott, London, 1891. 
 
 Exrz Mercunikorr: The New Hygiene. Keener, Chicago. 
 1906. 
 
 Raymonp Dopce and Francis Benepicr: Psychological 
 Effects of Alcohol. The Carnegie Inst. of Washington, Pub. 
 No. 232, 1915. 
 
 Henry SmirH Wiiuiams: Alcohol. The Century Co., New 
 York, 1909. 
 
 E. L. Transeau, C. T. Stopparp: Alcohol in Every Day Life. 
 Amer. Issue Pub. Co., Westerville, Ohio. 
 
 Cora Frances Sropparp: Shall We Save Beer and Wine? 
 International Reform Bureau, Washington, D. C., 1919. 
 Proressor C. T. W. Patrick: In Quest of the Alcohol Motive. 
 
 Popular Science Monthly. 
 
 Water R. Mites: Alcohol and Human Efficiency. Carnegie 
 Inst. Washington, Pub. No. 333, March, 1924. 
 
 FRANKFURTHER: Psychologische Arbeiten. 1896 and 1904. 
 
 W. H.R. Rivers: The Influence of Alcohol and Other Drugs 
 on Fatigue. Edward Arnold, London Interstate Med. Jour., 
 XXill. 
 
 Ernest Gorpon: Russian Prohibition. Am. Issue Publishing 
 Co. 
 
 Wurm E. Borau: Address before Presbyterian General 
 Assembly, Baltimore, Md., May 30, 1926. Quoted in New 
 York Herald Tribune. 
 
 State v. Powell: 50 N.E. 900, 902, 58 Ohio St., 324, 41 L.R.A. 
 854. 
 
 Kentucky Board of Pharmacy v. Cassidy, Crowley v. Chris- 
 tensen. 74 S.W. 730, 732, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 102 citing C. v. 
 C., 137 U. S. 86, 11 Sup. Ct. 13, 34 L. Ed. 620. 
 
33. 
 
 34. 
 30. 
 
 36. 
 37. 
 38. 
 39. 
 
 40. 
 
 41. 
 42. 
 43. 
 44, 
 
 45, 
 46. 
 
 47. 
 48. 
 
 49. 
 
 50. 
 
 LIST OF AUTHORS, ETC. 243 
 
 In the case of State vs. Doe. 139, Pac., on p. 1170 the 
 Supreme Court of Kansas. 
 
 Crowley vs. Christensen. 1387, U. 3S. 
 
 Ernest Gorpon: Studies and Documents of the Anti-Alcohol 
 Movement. Boston, 1916. 
 
 J. A. Danrtevson: Prohibition As It Is. 1926. 
 
 National Daily. 
 
 Ernest H. Cuerrincton: The Evolution of Prohibition in 
 The United States of America. The American Issue Pub- 
 lishing Co., Westerville, Ohio, 1920. 
 
 Ernest H. Cuerrineton: The Anti-Saloon Year Book. The 
 American Issue Publishing Co., Westerville, Ohio. 
 
 Francis G. Benepicr: Alcohol and Human Physiology, Car- 
 negie Inst. Washington, reprinted Industrial and Eng. 
 Chemists., xvii, 4, 428, April, 1925. 
 
 H. L. HottincswortH: A Comparison of Alcohol and Caffe- 
 ine. Therapeutic Gazette, Feb. 15, 1921. 
 
 The Pioneer: Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 
 
 U.S. Daily: Washington, D. C. 
 
 Rosert E. Corrapint: Broadway Under Prohibition. World 
 League Against Alcoholism, 1924. 
 
 Henry W. Farnam in Yale Review. April, 1920. 
 
 American Issue. American Issue Publishing Co., Westerville, 
 Ohio. 
 
 Bulletin, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., New York, N. Y. 
 
 Washington Convention at the Woman’s National Commit- 
 tee for Law Enforcement. April 10-11, 1924. 
 
 Henry Hersert Gopparp: Feeble-Mindedness—Its Causes and 
 Consequences. Macmillan, New York, 1920. 
 
 international Monats. f. Erforschung des Alkoholismus. July, 
 1904. 
 
 . Citizen’s Committee of One Thousand. New York, N. Y. 
 . Percy H. Evans: The Record. American Institute of 
 
 Actuaries, vol. xiv. pt. 1, No. 29. June, 1925. 
 
 . Literary Digest. New York. 
 . Lapy Astor in: Annals of the American Academy of Politica] 
 
 and Social Science. Sept., 1923. 
 
 . Exurzaspruo Tiuton: Save America. Woman’s National Com. 
 
 mittee for Law Enforcement, Boston, Mass. 
 
 . J. Srumre: Compilation of Tables. 
 . Proressor Von StruMPELL: Journal Amer. Med. Assoc. 
 . Dr. Jonannes LEoNHART: Journal Amer. Med. Assoc. 
 
72. 
 
 PROHIBITION AT ITS WORST 
 
 Bayer: Influence of Use of Alcohol on School Children, 
 Vienna, 1899. 
 Scuiavi: L’Abstinence, Nov. 13, 1909, Brescia, Italy. 
 
 . Roserr E. Corrapini: The Bowery. World League Against 
 
 Alcoholism, New York, 1923. 
 
 . Rosert E. Corrapinr: Saloon Survey, World League Against 
 
 Alcoholism, New York, 1925. 
 
 Rosert E. Corrapinit: The Passing of Saloons in N. Y. C. 
 World League Against Alcoholism, New York, 1925. 
 
 Henry W. Farnam: The Liquor Problem. Houghton, 
 Mifflin Co., Boston, 1905. 
 
 Wayne B. Wueswer: Abstract of Investigation of Brewery 
 and Liquor Interest and German Propaganda. Senate 
 Resolution, 307. 
 
 Spnator ArTHUR Capper: Annals, American Academy, Sept., 
 1923. 
 
 JoHN Koren: The Economic Aspect of the Liquor Problem, 
 Annals, Amer. Acad. of Political Social Science, Sept., 1923. 
 
 . Rosert A. Woops: Notes About Prohibition from the Back- 
 
 ground. Annals, Amer. Acad. of Political and Social Sci- 
 ence, Sept., 1923. 
 
 . Rosert E. Corrapinr: The Production and Consumption of 
 
 Alcohol in the United States. Research Dept. W. L. A. A, 
 1926. (Not as yet published.) 
 
 . Reports of the Prohibition Unit. Annual Reports of the 
 
 Bureau of Internal Revenue. U.S. Treasury Dept. 
 
 . Medico-Actuarial Mortality Investigation. Vol. 4, Part I, 
 
 pp. 11-13. The Association of Life Insurance Medical 
 Directors and the Actuarial Society of America. New York, 
 1914. 
 
 Percy H. Evans: Note on Mortality by Habits Representa- 
 tion. Transactions, Actuarial Society of America. October 
 10-11, 1918. Vol. 19, Part 2, No. 60; p. 235. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Abel, Professor, cited, 212 
 
 Abstainers, statistics concern- 
 ing, 103, 104, 105, 106, 111, 
 112-113 
 
 Accidents, increased probabil- 
 ity of, 68-69; increased rate 
 of, among drinkers, 108-109 
 
 Agar, John C., 16 
 
 Alcohol, poisonous qualities of, 
 Pee os a hla, 14118 Fo 
 212-215; economically costly, 
 2; war conference on, 5-6; 
 illegal diversion of industrial, 
 43; total consumption fig- 
 ures, 44; change in formule 
 for denatured, 93; therapeu- 
 tic value of, denied, 114-116; 
 effect of, on disease germs, 
 118-121; a depressant, not a 
 stimulant, 121-123; habit- 
 forming action of, 133-136; 
 craving for, acquired, 135 
 
 Alcoholic standards, diversity 
 in, 218-220 
 
 Alcoholism, environmental con- 
 trol of, 138ff.; death rate 
 from, 141; dangers of, among 
 the rich, 184-186, 231-233 
 
 Alexandross, cited, 119 
 
 Allegheny County Liquor Deal- 
 ers’ Association, activity of 
 the, 206 
 
 American Federation of Labor, 
 187 
 
 American Institute of Actu- 
 
 aries, Record of, cited, 110 
 
 245 
 
 American Issue, The, articles 
 in, cited, 202 
 
 American Medical Association, 
 resolution passed by, on me- 
 dicinal use of alcohol, 115 
 
 American Mercury, article in, 
 cited, 110 
 
 Andreae, Percy, organizer for 
 Brewers’ Association, quoted 
 and cited, 101, 195, 198, 203 
 
 Andrews, Lincoln C., 28, 91, 
 92, 93, 230-231 
 
 Angell, James R., quoted on 
 conditions at Yale, 76 
 
 Angier, Roswell P., quoted on 
 conditions at Yale, 75 
 
 Anglin, Mrs. Viola M., cited 
 and quoted, 95-96 
 
 Anstie, Dr., cited, 212 
 
 Anti-Saloon League, 8, 10, 12, 
 85 
 
 Arrests for drunkenness, statis- 
 tics of, 28, 30-32, 34; reduced 
 by State Prohibition, 47, 49- 
 51; decrease in, 94, 182, 183 
 
 Aschafienburg, Professor, effi- 
 ciency experiments of, 124 
 
 Association Against the Prohi- 
 bition Amendment, 18, 187, 
 205 
 
 Association of Commerce and 
 Labor, 195 
 
 Automobiles, drunken drivers 
 of, 62, 64-65; increase in non- 
 professional drivers of, 65-66, 
 68 
 
246 
 
 Barker, Dr. Lewellys F., cited, 
 16, 138 
 
 Bastedo, cited, 118 
 
 Bayer, E., school children in- 
 vestigation conducted by, 
 132 
 
 Beatty, Lee W., improved con- 
 diticns reported by, 177-178 
 
 Beer, control of, 93; deleterious 
 effects of, 123-136. See Near 
 beer. 
 
 Bellevue and Allied Hospitals, 
 decrease in deaths from alco- 
 holism. in, 142-143 
 
 Benedict, Dr. Francis G., cited 
 and quoted on alcohol as a 
 depressant, 121-123; psycho- 
 logical experiments of, 129- 
 131; quoted on physical ef- 
 fects of alcohol, 211-212 
 
 Bevan, Dr. Arthur Dean, quoted 
 on 2.75 beer, 215-216 
 
 Blood poisoning, effect of alco- 
 hol on, 118-119 
 
 Bootlegger, the, 101, 102, 231 
 
 Borah, William E., quoted, 
 170-171, 218-220 
 
 Boston, improved conditions in, 
 183 
 
 Boy, Lieutenant, cited, 126 
 
 Brain, effect of alcohol on the, 
 120-121 
 
 Brewer, H. O., testimony of, for 
 Prohibition, 184 
 
 Brewers, war-time Prohibition 
 blocked by, 6 ff.; Lever Ford 
 Bill blocked by, 8-9; meth- 
 ods of propaganda employed 
 by, 189-190, 191-196; exploi- 
 tation of honest “Wets” by, 
 191-196; appeals of, to pop- 
 ular sentiment, 197 ff.; use of 
 newspaners by, 197-200; use 
 
 INDEX 
 
 of Chautauquas by, 199-200; — 
 acquisition of writers by, 198- 
 202; German propaganda 
 used by, 200-201; plan of, for 
 exploiting women, 202-205 
 
 Brewers’ Association of Massa- 
 chusetts, activity of, 206-207 
 
 Brewing interests. See Liquor 
 interests. 
 
 British Central Board of Con- 
 trol of the Liquor Traffic, 
 data of, 138-139 
 
 British Medical Journal, arti- 
 cle by Dr. Pearl cited in, 107 
 
 Brooks, cited, 119 
 
 Brown, E. N., 15 
 
 Broyles, Judge, quoted on near- 
 beer law, 209 
 
 Bruce, Mrs. Helen, testimony 
 of, on conditions in Ken- 
 tucky, 182-183 
 
 Bruce, William C., 19, 100, 134- 
 135, 187 
 
 Buckner, Emory R., 19, 43, 94, 
 228 
 
 Cabot, Dr. Richard C., quoted 
 on medicinal use of alcohol, 
 114, 119 
 
 Callahan, Patrick H., testimony 
 of, on conditions in Kentucky, 
 182-183 
 
 Campbell, E. Fay, quoted on 
 conditions at Yale, 74 
 
 Canada, effect of Government 
 distribution in, 209-210 
 
 Capper, Arthur, 169, 192, 205- 
 206 
 
 Carver, Thomas Nixon, 66, 163 
 
 Central Pennsylvania Brewing 
 Company, activity of, 206 
 
 Cherry Street Settlement, im- 
 proved conditions in, 177 
 
INDEX 
 
 Chicago, Shirk’s statistics on, 
 37, 40 
 
 Children, investigation among, 
 132-133; improved conditions 
 among, 176-178 
 
 Cholera germs, effect of alco- 
 hol on, 120 
 
 Clarke, Charles C., quoted on 
 conditions at Yale, 75 
 
 Cleveland, effect of Prohibi- 
 tion in, 182 
 
 Codman, Julien, 187, 188 
 
 Colleges, Prohibition in, 172 ff.; 
 improved conditions in, 178 
 
 Committee of Fifty, investiga- 
 tion by, 165 
 
 Congress, War-time Prohibition 
 blocked in, 8-10 
 
 Connecticut, crucial test in, 51, 
 59-61; lower death rates in, 
 140; enforcement in, 229 
 
 Connecticut Brewers’ Associa- 
 tion, activity of, 206 
 
 Conradi, cited, 120 
 
 Constitutional Liberty League 
 of Massachusetts, 187, 192 
 
 Constitutional Prohibivion. See 
 National Prohibition. 
 
 Coolidge, Calvin, quoted, 17; 
 Massachusetts beer bill ve- 
 toed by, 207 
 
 Corradini, Robert E., statistics 
 of, on arrests for drunkenness, 
 32 n.,41; statistics of, on con- 
 sumption of alcohol, 44; 
 “Dry” State statistics of, 47; 
 cited on survey of former sa- 
 loon sites, 164 
 
 Crile, Dr. George W., cited, 119 
 
 Crime, misleading _ statistics 
 concerning, 20 
 
 “Crime Wave,” exaggeration of, 
 94, 95 
 
 247 
 
 D’Abernon, Lord, cited on en-~ 
 vironmental control, 139 
 
 Dana, Dr. Charles L., 16, 138 
 
 Danielson, J. A., quoted on 
 “good liquor’ elimination, 
 195-196 
 
 Darlington, Bishop James H., 
 quoted on conditions in 
 Pennsylvania, 181 
 
 Death rate, decrease in, from 
 alcoholism, 138-1438, 152-153. 
 See Mortality. 
 
 Delinquency, decrease in juven- 
 ile, 78, 94, 182 
 
 Denatured alcohol. See Alcohol. 
 
 Denaturing plants, curb on, 93 
 
 Dennig, cited, 119 
 
 Dever, Mayor, quoted on 
 Shirk’s statistics, 37 
 
 Disease, data of, reduced, 138 
 Heyl bs 
 
 Disease germs, effect of alcohol 
 on, 118-121 
 
 Dispensary system, discussion 
 of, 209-210 
 
 Distillers, effort of, to beat na- 
 tional prohibition law, 206 
 
 Dodge, cited and quoted on 
 alcohol as a depressant, 121- 
 123; psychological experi- 
 ments of, 129-131 
 
 Doran, Dr. J. M., 43 
 
 Drink, aristocratic tradition of, 
 184-186 
 
 Drink habit, diminution of the, 
 44, 47, 51, 59-64, 73 ff. 
 
 Drivers, drunken, 62, 64-65; in- 
 crease in non-professional, 
 65, 66, 68 
 
 Drugs, craving for, acquired, 
 135 
 
 Drunkenness, increase in, exag- 
 gerated, 20-21; decrease in, 
 
248 
 21-25; Shirk’s statistics on, 
 26-41 ; statistics of arrests for, 
 28, 30-32, 34; Corradini’s 
 statistics on, 41; comparative, 
 47, 49-51; reduction of, in 
 Connecticut, 59-61; decrease 
 in arrests for, 94 
 
 Dunn, Gano, 16 
 
 Durig, cited, 126 
 
 Dwyer, William V., Federal 
 conviction of, 91 
 
 Dykman, William N., 16 
 
 Edge, Walter E., 19, 187 
 
 Editors, replies of, to question- 
 naire, 179 
 
 Education, necessity for public, 
 2-4, 231-239 
 
 Efficiency, effects of alcohol on, 
 123-136; increase in, under 
 Prohibition, 156 ff. 
 
 Kighteenth Amendment, 12, 13; 
 ratification of, 84; Senate 
 Sub-committee report on, 
 224-225; repeal of, impossible, 
 227 
 
 Eleetion issues (1926), 210-211 
 
 Emerson, Dr. Haven, 8; quoted 
 on alcohol as a poison, 119, 
 120; quoted on alcohol as a 
 habit former, 134; charts of, 
 cited, 142, 143; quoted on the 
 relation between alcohol and 
 mortality, 151-152 
 
 Enforcement, effect of laxity 
 in, 61-62; degree of Federal, 
 90 ff.; effect of local codpera- 
 tion on, 92; effect of im- 
 proved, 141; report of Senate 
 Sub-committee on, 224-225; 
 can be effected, 227 ff. 
 
 England, decrease in female 
 drunkenness in, 139-140 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Eugenics, alcohol and, 138n. 
 
 Evans, Percy H., cited and 
 quoted, 110, 111 
 
 Evans, Dr. William A., quoted 
 on 2.75 beer, 216 
 
 Farmer, the problem of the, 
 168-169 
 
 Farnam, Henry W., 59, 60, 87, 
 165, 229 
 
 Federal Council of Churches of 
 Christ in America, 17, 18, 179 
 
 Feigenspan, C. W., President of 
 the United States Brewers’ 
 Association, 9; quoted on 
 brewers’ writers, 202 
 
 Females, decrease in deaths 
 from alcoholism among, 140- 
 141 
 
 Filibuster, War-time Prohibi~ 
 tion blocked by, 8-10 
 
 Fillinger, cited, 119 
 
 Fines, 230 
 
 Finland, increased productivity 
 in, 158 
 
 First offenders, 20-24 
 
 Fisk, Dr. Eugene L., 8; quoted 
 on medicinal use of alcohol, 
 114-115; quoted on alcohol as 
 a habit former, 134; quoted 
 on mortality, 152-153 
 
 Fiske, Haley, 16 
 
 Fiske, Right Reverend Charles, 
 16 
 
 Fordney-MacCumber tariff, ef- 
 fect of, on the farmer, 168 
 
 Foster, Mrs. Katherine Condon, 
 report of, on improved condi- 
 tions in colleges and universi- 
 ties, 178 
 
 Fox, Austen G., 15 
 
 Fox, Hugh F., secretary of the 
 United Brewers’ Association, 
 
INDEX 
 
 100-101, 191-192, 202; scheme 
 of, for exploiting women, 203- 
 204 
 Frankfurther, efficiency experi- 
 ments of, 131 
 
 Gary, Indiana, federal convic- 
 tions in, 91 
 
 Gary, cited, 162 
 
 Geagley, William, quoted on 
 2.75 beer, 216 
 
 Georgia, experience of, with 
 near beer, 209 
 
 German-American Alliance, 
 brewers’ donations to, 200-201 
 
 German propaganda, brewers’ 
 interest in, 200-201 
 
 Germs, effect of alcohol on, 
 118-121 
 
 Gettler, A. O., 28 
 
 Gompers, Samuel, 7 
 
 Gordon, Ernest, cited on in- 
 creased productivity in Rus- 
 sia, 158; quoted on methods 
 employed by liquor interests, 
 191; cited on Mr. Koren and 
 Mr. Fox, 202 
 
 Government distribution, dis- 
 cussion of, 209-210 
 
 Green, Mrs. Helen H., testi- 
 mony of, on conditions in 
 Cleveland, 182 
 
 Gruenbaum, cited, 119 
 
 Habit former, alcohol as a, 133- 
 136 
 
 Hadley, Arthur Twining, quoted, 
 17 
 
 Hamon, Lieutenant - Colonel, 
 quoted on improved condi- 
 tions among the poor, 177 
 
 Harwood, Frank J., testimony 
 of, for Prohibition, 181-182 
 
 249 
 
 Health, increase in, due to Pro- 
 hibition, 153 
 
 Heart, effect of alcohol on the, 
 121-123 
 
 Heffenreffer brewing interests, 
 188 
 
 Hemoglobin, effect of alcohol 
 on, 120 
 
 Héricourt, Dr., quoted on alco- 
 hol as a habit former, 133 
 
 Hesse, Major Edwin B., cited, 
 71 n. 
 
 Hewes, James A., testimony of, 
 for Prohibition, 183 
 
 Higley, George O., quoted on 
 2.75 beer, 217 
 
 Hindelang, cited, 119 
 
 Hollingworth, H. L., beer tests 
 made by, 215 
 
 Hoover, Herbert, quoted on in- 
 crease in productivity, 162- 
 
 _ 163 
 
 How to Live, article in, cited, 
 110 
 
 Humes, Major, interrogations 
 of, before Senate Committee, 
 193-195 
 
 Hunt, Dr. Reid, quoted on 
 medicinal use of alcohol, 115; 
 quoted on 2.75 beer, 216-217 
 
 Indiana, Shirk’s statistics on, 
 34, 37, 47 
 
 Industry, effect of Prohibition 
 on, 157 ff. 
 
 Infant suffocation, 140 
 
 Infection, effect of alcohol on, 
 120 
 
 Insanity, decrease in alcoholic, 
 153 
 
 Installment buying, 167-168 
 
 Intoxicants, therapeutic value 
 of, denied, 114-116 
 
250 
 
 Jones, Frederick S., quoted on 
 conditions at Yale, 73-74 
 
 Judges, need for better, 230 
 
 Juvenile delinquency. See Del- 
 inquency. 
 
 Kansas, enforcement in, 228 
 
 Karsten, Karl G., 21 
 
 Keating, Edward, report of, 
 cited, 179-180 
 
 Kelly, Clyde, quoted on activi- 
 ties of liquor interests, 205- 
 206 
 
 Kelly, Dr. Howard A., quoted 
 on medicinal use of alcohol, 
 114 
 
 Kentucky, effect of Prohibition 
 in, 182-183 
 
 Koren, John, brewers’ writer, 
 201-202 
 
 Kraepelin, Emil, efficiency tests 
 of, 124-126 
 
 Labor, brewers’ appeal to or- 
 ganized, 198-199 
 
 Laitines, cited, 118 
 
 Lambert, Dr. Alexander, quoted 
 on alcohol as a habit former, 
 133-134 
 
 Lambert, Dr. Samuel W., 16 
 
 Leland, cited, 152 
 
 Leonhart, Dr. Johannes, quoted 
 on beer, 127 
 
 Lever Ford Bill, passing of, 
 blocked by brewers, 8-9, 10 
 
 Liberty, meaning of, 170-175 
 
 “Liberty leagues,” 192 ff. 
 
 Liberty League, Inc., Washing- 
 ton, D. C., 195 
 
 Liége, comparison of arrests for 
 drunkenness in, 95 
 
 Life insurance statistics, infer- 
 
 INDEX 
 
 ences drawn from, 109, 110, 
 111, 112, 113 
 
 “Liquid Bread,” brewers’ propa- 
 ganda, 199 
 
 Liquors, high price a deterrent 
 in obtaining, 102 . 
 
 Liquor dealers, death rate 
 among, 152-153 
 
 Liquor interests, activity of, 
 205-207 
 
 Lnterary Digest, replies to ques- 
 tionnnaire sent out by, 77 
 
 Local codperation, 92 ff. 
 
 London, comparison of arrests 
 for drunkenness in, 95 
 
 Longevity, effect of alcohol on, 
 103 ff. 
 
 Lothrop, Theodore A., quoted 
 on improved conditions 
 among women and children, 
 176-177 
 
 Lowden, Governor, 169 
 
 McClintock, Emory, 
 111-112 
 
 McCormack, Dr. J. U., quoted 
 on medicinal use of alcohol, 
 115 
 
 McCullough, Lieutenant- 
 Colonel, quoted on medicinal 
 use of alcohol, 116 
 
 McDermott, John A., testimony 
 of, before Senate Committee, 
 192-195 
 
 Madison Square Church House, 
 improved social conditions in 
 neighborhood of, 177 
 
 Maguire, Thomas F., 166-167, 
 187 ff. 
 
 Martin, Dr. Franklin, 7 
 
 Massachusetts Constitutional 
 Liberty League, 187, 192 
 
 quoted, 
 
INDEX 
 
 Medical Science, report in, 
 cited, 115 
 
 Medico-Actuarial Investigation, 
 113 
 
 Mellon, Secretary, quoted, 61- 
 62 
 
 Memory, effect of alcohol on, 
 126, 130 
 
 Mendell, C. W., quoted on con- 
 ditions at Yale, 74 
 
 Metchnikoff, quoted on alcohol, 
 121 
 
 Metropolitan Life Insurance 
 Company, death rate figures 
 of, 142 
 
 Miles, Dr. Walter R., efficiency 
 experiments of, 128; cited 
 and quoted on physiological 
 effects of alcohol, 212-214 
 
 Mobins, Professor, quoted on 
 deleterious effect of beer, 126- 
 127 
 
 “Moderate” drinkers, 103, 104, 
 105, 106, 107, 111, 112, 135, 
 137 
 
 Moderation League of New 
 York 15-18, 19, 20, 24, 30, 31, 
 32, 34, 41, 46, 47, 62, 85, 86, 
 106, 138, 156, 183, 187, 188, 
 190, 192 
 
 “Modification,” impracticability 
 of, 208-209, 225-227 
 
 Moral suasion, flaw in program 
 of, 3 
 
 Mortality, statistics on, 103 ff.; 
 113, 141 
 
 Motor functions, effect of alco- 
 hol on, 123-136 
 
 Motor Vehicle Law, violations 
 of, 95 
 
 Muller, cited, 118 
 
 Mullen-Gage law, effect of re- 
 peal of, 24, 143 
 
 251 
 
 Narcotics, decrease in sale of, 
 in Pennsylvania, 181 
 
 National Bureau of Child Wel- 
 fare, cited on infant suffoca- 
 tion, 140 n. 
 
 National income, increase in, 
 due to Prohibition, 159-160 
 National Model License League, 
 
 190 
 
 National prohibition, 10, 13; 
 premature adoption of, 11-12, 
 83; effect of, on “Dry” states, 
 47; effect of, on “Wet” States, 
 51 
 
 National Prohibition hearings. 
 See Senate. 
 
 Near beer, impracticability of, 
 as non-intoxicating drink, 184, 
 209, 211-217; brewers’ activity 
 in regard to production of, 
 206-207; physiological tests 
 with, 212-215 
 
 Neumann, quoted, 120-121 
 
 New York City, drunkenness 
 in, 62; juvenile delinquency 
 in, 78; lower death rates in, 
 140, 142 
 
 New York Gazette, quoted, 86- 
 87 
 
 New York Legislature, 
 bill repealed in, 207 
 
 New York Referendum (1926), 
 plan for, 220-223 
 
 New York State, repeal of en- 
 forcement act in, 92; efforts 
 at enforcement in, 93; Prohi- 
 bition sentiment in, 93-94; 
 lower death rates in, 140 
 
 New York State Hospital 
 Commission, report of, cited, 
 153 
 
 Newspapers, use of, by brewers, 
 197-200 
 
 beer 
 
252 
 
 North American Review, ar- 
 ticle in, quoted, 61-62 
 
 Ontario, sentiment in, against 
 use of alcohol, 115-116 
 
 Palmer, A. Mitchell, quoted, 
 201 
 
 Pampoukis, cited, 120 
 
 Paris, comparison of arrests for 
 drunkenness in, 95 
 
 Parkinson, cited, 119 
 
 Pearl, Raymond, quoted, 103, 
 104, 105, 106; unreliability 
 and inadequacy of data, 104- 
 110; cited, 138 n. 
 
 Pearson, Karl, cited, 188 n. 
 
 Pennsylvania, benefits of Prohi- 
 bition in, 180-181 
 
 Penrose, Senator, War-time 
 Prohibition measures delayed 
 by, 9 
 
 “Personal liberty,” limitations 
 of, 170-175; fallacy of, 184, 
 187 
 
 Philadelphia, efforts at enforce- 
 ment in, 92-93; brewers’ ac- 
 tivity in, 206 
 
 Pioneer, The, result of question- 
 naire sent out by, 116 
 
 Pneumonia germs, efiect of al- 
 cohol on, 119 
 
 Potter, Dr. Ellen C., quoted on 
 need for enforcement, 180- 
 181 
 
 Poverty, decrease in, 165-166, 
 182, 183 
 
 Pritchett, Henry S., 16 
 
 Productivity, increase in, 157 ff. 
 
 Profits, increase in, due to Pro- 
 hibition, 161 
 
 Prohibition, example of prosper- 
 ity following, 5; effect of, on 
 
 INDEX 
 
 food supply, 8; alleged fail- 
 ure of, exaggerated, 20; ill 
 effects of, exaggerated, 20-21; 
 effectiveness of, 21-22, 24-25; 
 relation of lawlessness to, 64- 
 65; effect of, on youth, 72 ff.; 
 public sentiment against, ex- 
 aggerated, 83ff.; growth of 
 state-wide, 84, 85; historical 
 note concerning, 86-89; foun- 
 dation of, 1385-136;  self- 
 poisoning habit reduced by, 
 137-138; falsity of eugenic 
 argument against, 138n.; 
 public health improved by, 
 158; increase in economic 
 good under, 157 ff.; increase 
 in national income due to, 
 159-160; rise of wages due 
 to, 161; increase in profits 
 due to, 161; increase in gen- 
 eral prosperity due to, 162- 
 164; economic value of, 163- 
 164; poverty diminished by, 
 165-166; improved _ social 
 conditions due to, 176; bene- 
 fits of, in Pennsylvania, 180- 
 181; effect of, in Cleveland, 
 182; effect of, m Kentucky, 
 182-183; effect of, in Boston, 
 
 183; brewers’ propaganda 
 against, 187 ff.; enforcement 
 possible, 227ff.; need for 
 
 better qualified officials, 230. 
 See State prohibition. See 
 War-time prohibition. 
 
 Prosperity, effect of recent, 66; 
 increase in, 162-164 
 
 Prostitution, relation of wom- 
 en’s drinking places to, 204- 
 205 
 
 Public health, increase in, due 
 to Prohibition, 153 
 
INDEX 
 
 Public sentiment, need for ed- 
 ucating, 231-233 
 
 Quebec system of distribution, 
 209-210 
 Quensel, cited, 120 
 
 Rabies, effect of alcohol on, 
 120 
 
 Rackemann, Charles S., 188 
 
 Randall, Congressman, amend- 
 ment of, to Lever Food Bill, 
 8 
 
 Raymond, Dr., testimony of, 
 for Prohibition, 183 
 
 Redfield, William C., 16 
 
 Reed, Senator, 28, 187 
 
 Reich, cited, 120 
 
 Remington, Franklin, 16 
 
 Repeaters, 20-21, 24-25 
 
 Resistance, alcohol lowers vital, 
 118-121 
 
 Rivers, efficiency experiments 
 of, 131 
 
 Root, Elihu, 16 
 
 Rubin, cited, 119 
 
 Rum running, Federal convic- 
 tion for, 91 
 
 Russia, increased productivity 
 in, 158 
 
 Saloon, necessity to outlaw, 4; 
 disappearance of the, 100, 
 102; replacing of, by new 
 businesses, 164 
 
 Salvation Army, improved so- 
 cial conditions reported by, 
 177 
 
 Schiavi, school children inves- 
 tigation by, 132-133 
 
 Schnyder, cited, 126 
 
 Scottish Life Assurance Com- 
 
 253 
 
 pany, mortality statistics of 
 the, 113 
 
 Senate, United States, War- 
 time prohibition blocked in, 
 8-10; War-time Prohibition 
 passed too late by, 11-12, 13; 
 testimony presented at hear- 
 ings of the Sub-committee of 
 the Committee on the Judi- 
 ciary, 28, 43, 90-93, 165, 166, 
 177-184, 187 ff., 209, 215; re- 
 port of Sub-committee in 
 support of the Eighteenth 
 Amendment, 224-225 
 
 Sheppard, Senator, 9 
 
 Shirk, Stanley, faulty statistics 
 of, 20, 26 ff.; statistics of, on 
 Indiana, 34, 37; statistics of, 
 on Chicago, 37, 40; inaccu- 
 racy of statistics of “Dry” 
 States, 46-47; quoted on 
 “Dry” state conditions, 47; 
 tale of drunken drivers, 62, 
 64-65; quoted on drinking 
 among the youth, 70 
 
 Shooting, effect of alcohol on 
 accuracy in, 126 
 
 Sickness, decrease in, 153 
 
 Smith, Dr. A., experiments of, 
 cited, 126 
 
 Social conditions, improvement 
 in, 176, 180-184 
 
 Social responsibility, new ideal 
 of, 186 
 
 Spence, Benjamin, cited, 210 
 
 Speyer, James, 16 
 
 Starling, Dr., 109 
 
 State Prohibition, effect of, in 
 Washington, 5; arrests re- 
 duced by, 47, 49-51 
 
 Stelzle, Charles, 8 
 
 Stewart, Dr. George David, 16 
 
 Stiles, Charles W., quoted 
 
254 
 
 on women ana drink, 204- 
 205 
 
 Stockard, Dr., cited, 138 n. 
 
 Stoddard, Cora Frances, 215 
 
 Stone, Warren S., quoted on 
 _ Prohibition, 165-166 
 
 Szeckley, cited, 120 
 
 Talley, Alfred J., cited on 
 “crime wave,” 95 
 
 Taylor, Alonzo, 8 
 
 Taylor, Frederick W., Prohi- 
 bition favored by, 158 
 
 Temperance, ideal of, shattered, 
 135 
 
 “The Need of a Personal Lib- 
 erty Day,” address by brew- 
 ers’ representative, 198-199 
 
 “The Passing of Hans Dippel,” 
 brewers’ propaganda play, 
 199 
 
 Tilton, Mrs. Elizabeth, quoted 
 on Government distribution 
 in Canada, 209-210 
 
 Toxicity, no allowance for in- 
 creased, 28 
 
 ‘Typesetting, effect of alcohol 
 on efficiency in, 124 
 
 Typewriting, effect of alcohol 
 on efficiency in, 128-129, 
 131 
 
 Typhoid germs, effect of alco- 
 hol on, 118, 120 
 
 United Kingdom Temperance 
 and General Provident In- 
 stitution of London, mortal- 
 ity statistics of the, 113 
 
 United States, lower death rates 
 in, 140-142 
 
 United States Brewers’ Asso- 
 ciation, propaganda of the, 
 189-190 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Venereal diseases, effect of al- 
 cohol on, 120: 
 Vogt, Professor, 
 of, cited, 126 
 Volstead Act, 15, 19, 26, 41, 
 47, 59, 64, 84, 90, 173, 179, 
 
 208 
 
 Von Bunge, Gustav, quoted on 
 beer, 127 
 
 Von Strumpell, quoted on beer, 
 127-128 
 
 experiments 
 
 Wages, rise of, due to Prohi- 
 bition, 161 
 
 Walden, Percy T., quoted on 
 conditions at Yale, 76 
 
 Wallace’s Farmer, cited, 169 
 
 Walsh, Senator, 188 
 
 War conference on alcohol, 5-6 
 
 Warren, Charles H., quoted on 
 conditions at Yale, 74-75 
 
 War-time Prohibition, 6ff.; 
 blocked by brewers, 6-10; 
 becomes a law, 12 
 
 Washington (State), prosperity 
 following State Prohibition 
 in, 5; enforcement in, 228 
 
 Washington, D. C., drunken- 
 ness among the youth in, 70- 
 71 
 
 Washington Times, bought by 
 brewers’ interests, 9 
 
 Weinburg, cited, 119 
 
 Welch, Dr. William H., 16 
 
 “Wet” States, improvement in, 
 47, 49-51 
 
 Wheeler, Wayne B., 13 
 
 Whisky, tax on illicit, 93 
 
 Willard, Daniel, 7 
 
 Willebrandt, Assistant Attor- 
 ney General Mabel Walker, 
 cited on federal convictions, 
 
INDEX 
 
 90-91; cited on State and 
 Federal codperation, 92 
 
 Wilson, Dr. Clarence True, 40 n. 
 
 Wilson, President, action of, on 
 Lever Food Bill, 10; War- 
 time Prohibition Bill signed 
 by, 12 
 
 Wine, control of sacramental 
 and domestic, 93; effect of 
 use of, on efficiency, 123- 
 136; objection to lght, 184, 
 209 
 
 Wirgin, cited, 118 
 
 Women, decrease in drunken- 
 ness among, 139-140; de- 
 crease in deaths from alco- 
 holism among, 140-141; brew- 
 
 2595 
 
 ers’ plan for exploiting, 202- 
 205 
 Women’s Christian Temper- 
 ance Union, 12 
 Wood, Robert A., quoted on 
 women’s drinking places, 204 
 Woolley John G., quoted, 88-89 
 Work, effect of alcohol on, 120 
 World League Against Alcohol- 
 ism, 30, 41, 94, 164 
 
 Yale University, drinking con- 
 ditions at, 72-77 
 
 Youth, need for educating, 2-4; 
 drinking among, 70 ff. 
 
 Zabriskie, George, 16 
 

 

 

 

 
Date Due 
 
 ee ee 
 
 ei iat  | 
 
 = @ 
 
 
 
 C 
 = 
 

 
UI 
 
 Speer Library 
 
 | 
 
 | 
 
 Il 
 
 | 
 
 | 
 | 
 
 O 
 © 
 — 
 , 
 O 
 = 
 5 ioe 
 O 
 io) 
 N 
 
 Prohibition at its worst 
 Princeton Theological Semina 
 
 HV5089 .F54