'^-1 Mill ti^i ■■■% •n ■■ii^ 153 00063351 3 PROHIBITION IN AMERICA PLEASE NOTE It has been necessary to replace some of the original pages in this book with photocopy reproductions because of damage or mistreatment by a previous user. Replacement of damaged materials is both expensive and time-consuming. Please handle this volume with care so that information will not be lost to future readers. Thank you for helping to preserve the University's research collections. PROHIBITION IN AMERICA And Its Relation to the Problem of Public ^ Control of Personal Conduct By ARTHUR NEWSHOLME, K.C.B.,M.D, LATE PRINCIPAL MEDICAL OFFICER OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD OF ENGLAND, AND LECTURER ON PUBLIC HEALTH AT JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, U.S.A. SECOND IMPRESSION LONDON P. S. KING & SON, LTD. ORCHARD HOUSE, WESTMINSTER 1922 rj"f>^ First Published .... November 1921 Reprinted May 1922 PREFACE. During a large part of three years I have had the privilege of receiving hospitality in many parts of Canada and in a large number of American States, from California and Washington in the west to Florida in the south, as well as in many cities in Eastern States, and during the same period have been able to observe American life in different social circles and from many standpoints. I may, therefore, claim to express in the following pages more than casual impressions of an experiment of immense importance to the public health and to prospects of social progress. Those who base their opinion as to prohibition in America on what appears in most English news- papers would be astonished were they made to realize the revolution which prohibition, first local, now national, has made in hfe in the States. The instances of failure to enforce prohibition, which figure so largely in cabled information, give an altogether erroneous impression of the general trend of events. That strenuous efforts will be made to prevent the enforcement of prohibition, and especially to permit the drinking of light wines and beers, is clear ; but these efforts are not likely to succeed. National prohibition in America is the culmination of protracted local experimentation and of the steady education of public opinion in its favour ; 5 6 Pfeface. and from this viewpoint it is unfortunate that each county in Great Britain is not possessed of adequate self-governing power to control the liquor traffic in accordance with preponderant local opinion. To the social student and to the pubhc health administrator prohibition presents problems of supreme interest. I cannot pretend to have more than indicated these problems; they "cut deep," affecting fundamentally the possibilities of social amehoration. Compulsion can only be successfully apphed and continued when the majority persist- ently desire it, and if the minority can gradually be won over to the same view. The lesson of American history, even before national prohibition was enacted, is that this can be done. I have not attempted to apply the lessons of American experi- ence to British possibilities of reform ; but the lesson is writ large in the American record. Great Britain ere long will be compelled to travel far in American footsteps, if she is to recover expedi- tiously from her financial embarrassments and to hold her own in the struggle for national efficiency. No nation liveth to itself. A social example in one country, unless discredited, has world-wide influence. The American experience in my viev^ will not be discredited. This pamphlet is based on the Norman Kerr lecture delivered in the present month before the Society for the Study of Inebriety, with much added material. ARTHUR NEWSHOLME. Ashley House, Shalford, Surrey, October, 1921. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PART I. HISTORY OF PROHIBITION IN AMERICA. PAGE The Steps by which the i8th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States was Secured 12 History of Preceding Anti-alcoholic Efforts in the United States . . . . . 18 Absence of Compensation for Abolished Business 24 Motives leading to National Prohibition in the United States — I. The Teaching in Elementary Schools . . 27 y 2. The Desire for Clean Politics . . - '^7 ,3. Activity of the Anti-Saloon League . . 27 4. The Determination to make Local Prohibition Effective 28 //"l^ The Pronouncements of the American Medical ,,^ Profession . . . . . .28 y^(6j The Increased Industrial Efficiency where Abstinence was Enforced . . . .29 ^^. The Desire to Safeguard American Soldiers. 29 ^8. The Special Importance of Abstinence for Negroes ....... 29 Objections to National Prohibition ... 30 Results — Defective for Enumerated Reasons . . .Si Diminution in Alcoholism . . . .33,40 Diminution in Crime ..... 36 Diminution in Poverty . . . . .37 7 8 Table of Contents. PART II. PROHIBITION IN RELATION TO THE PRIN- CIPLES OF GOOD GOVERNMENT. PAGE Further Objections to National Prohibition Considered ....... 43 Historical Review as to the Reconciliation of Authority and Liberty ..... 49 Interrelation between the Individual and the State ........ 52 Liberation from Unfair Conditions the Desidera- tum 54 The Natural Inequality of Mankind and the Need for Communal Efficiency as affecting Restriction of Individual Liberty in Communal Life ........ 56 Enumeration of Conditions which Equitable Compulsion should Fulfil .... 62 APPENDIX. Summary of the National Prohibition Act. . 63 PART I. HISTORY OF PROHIBITION IN AMERICA. In Washington Irving's Knickerbocker's History of New York we are told of a shrewd ordinance made by Charondras the Socrian legislator in the days of venerable antiquity. Anxious to preserve the judicial code of the State from foolish or un- necessary additions or amendments by faddists or popularity-hunters, he ordained that " whoever proposed a new law should do it with a halter about his neck : whereby, in case his proposition was rejected, they just hung him up — and there the matter ended." The result is stated to have been most satisfactory except for lawyers, who were starved to death for lack of employment ; and we are assured that the Socrians enjoyed the happiness of the people that have no history. Objection to new legislation is properly most manifest when interference with the personal habits of the people is proposed ; and it is not surprising, therefore, that in the early government of New Amsterdam (now New York), if we may trust the Knickerbocker chronicles, various attempts to con- tiol social evils failed ignominiously. The city's autocratic governor, William the Testy, did not 9 10 Prohibition in America. agree with Charondras ; he conceived that the true wisdom of government consists in multipHcity of laws to control current evils. Thus he directed his energies against the crying sin of poverty, and determined to extirpate it from the land. In pursuit of this end vagrants were suspended by their breeches bands on a gallows as high as that of Haman ; and all who were convicted of large debts, which they were unable to pay, were enclosed within the stone walls of a prison until they should reform and grow rich. Unfortunately, however, it was found that " the longer a poor devil was kept in prison the poorer he grew." I must, without attempting to detail other measures of this famous ruler, refer briefly to the action he took to abate the popular discontent following on his many laws. He concluded that, as the pipe was ever in the mouth of the grumblers, it must be at the bottom of the affair, and that there was some " mysterious affinity between politics and tobacco smoke." He, therefore, denounced smoking as a heavy tax upon the pubhc pocket, a vast consumer of time, an incitement to idleness, and a deadly bane to the prosperity and morals of the people ; and prohibited smoking throughout the New Netherlands. I must refer you to Knickerbocker's immortal pages for detailed information as to the effect of this enactment ; merely noting that as a fmal protest, a vast mnhitudc armed with pipes and tobacco boxes, sat down in front of the Governor's house and literally smoked him into capitulation. This alarming insurrection History of Prohibition in America, ii ended in the Governor allowing the people to smoke, but insisting on the substitution of short two-inch pipes for the long pipes which had previously been in fashion. It will interest ethnologists to know, on the authority already quoted, that from that time, arising apparently " from the effect of smoke on the cerebellum," there occurred the physiological change from burly, sleek-conditioned men to a lantern- jawed, smoke-dried, leather-hided race ; and some sociologists have even dated from the same episode, the discovery by the sovereign people of their power, and the substitution of democratic for autocratic government. The veritable story, of which I have given the barest outline, may be held to show how history tends to repeat itself ; but whereas then it was tobacco which, it is stated, was being unsuccessfully attacked, now a successful attack has been made on alcohol ; whereas then a traditional tyrannical ruler was the aggressor, now it is a majority of the sovereign American people themselves who, after elaborate votings and checkings of votings, have decided to rule the alcohol-loving minority with a rod of iron. Is this justifiable ? Is it in accord with elementary principles of right ? How has it come about ? What are the arguments for and against the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of alcoholic drinks ? Can prohibition be enforced ? What will be the results ? These are some of the questions which arise, and which all who are interested in the science and art 12 Prohibition in America. of government or in the diminution and prevention of human misery must wash to study ; and I propose to attempt to answer them, so far as careful obser- vation at close quarters, the limited space at my disposal, and the short duration of the experiment, will enable me to do so. The first two questions posed above, will be considered last in the Hght of the facts as to prohibition, and of collateral experi- ence of other branches of government, in which compulsion has been appHed. The 18th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. In order to secure the national enactment of prohibition throughout the States an amendment of the written Constitution of the States became necessary ; and to secure such an amendment difficulties had to be overcome, which for so vast a country divided into 48 sovereign States, with an aggregate population exceeding a hundred millions, would appear to be almost insuperable. A con- sideration of these difficulties and of the history of local and State Prohibition in various American States disposes of the view that the adoption of the Act embodying the terms of the i8th Amendment could have been the result of a spasmodic effort dictated by the circumstances of war and a tem- porary emotionalism of which the American people are likely soon to repent. The declaration of war by the United States against Germany became operative on April 6th, History of Prohibition in America. 13 1917. The following particulars as to war pro- hibition are taken from the Anti-Prohibition Manual, 1918 :— A Resolution known as the Sheppard Bill for the sub- mission to the States of a prohibition amendment to the Federal Constitution, was adopted by the United States Senate on August ist, 191 7, with the provision that to become effective it must be ratified within six years. The vote was 65 to 20, or eight more than the necessary two- thirds. Senator Borah's attempt to have the time limit changed from 6 to 10 years was defeated by a vote of 6i to 19. The amendment of Senator Stone to provide distillers and brewers with compensation for the loss of their plants was defeated by a vote of 50 to 31. Senator Newland, of Nevada, offered an amendment to make prohibition extend to " distilled " instead of " intoxi- cating " liquors. This attempt to segregate beer and wine was lost by a vote of 57 to 22. Senator Phellan, of California, presented a substitute amendment whereby the people of the States would have alternatives upon which to vote. The first prohibited all intoxicants ; the second prohibited only distilled liquors. The Senate refused this idea once by a viva voce vote and again by roll-call of 55 to 26. The national prohibition amendment as passed by the Senate on August ist was adopted by the House of Repre- sentatives on December 17th by a vote of 282 to 128. The Senate passed the bill, fixing the limit of time for ratification at six years ; the House extended it to seven years, and the Senate on December i8th, by a vote of 47 to 8, concurred in the action of the House, accepting the seven-year limitation. Under the terms of the Act the amendment does not become effective until one year after final ratification. The resolution as finally adopted read thus : — Section i. After one year from the ratification of this 14 Prohibition in America. article the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicat- ing liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory- subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. Section 2. The Congress and several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the Legislatures of the several States as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the sub- mission thereof to the States by the Congress. An amendment offered by Representative Lea, of Cali- fornia, providing that the prohibition provision should not apply to light wines and beer, was rejected by a rising vote of 232 to 107. The above action by the Federal Senate and House of Representatives gave a clear lead to the individual States, and appeared to indicate the preponderant state of public opinion. It was, however, assumed by many that this action was taken under the stress of energetic lobbying and that real public opinion remained unheard. If so, it would appear that many senators and representatives were engaged in " passing the • buck ' " to the State Legislatures ; and were hoping that the necessary majority would not be secured in these. It was also emphasized by many that the concurrent powers conferred by Section 2 in reahty infringed State rights, and deprived the several States of an important part of their individual sovereignty. Ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment by the Several States. state. (i) Mississippi . (2) Virginia (3) Kentucky . (4) South Carolina (5) North Dakota (6) Maryland . (7) Montana . (8) Texas . . (9) Delaware . (10) South Dakota (11) Massachusetts (12) Arizona (13) Georgia. (14) Louisiana . (15) Florida (16) Michigan ^ (17) Ohio . . (18) Oklahoma . (19) Maine . (20) Idaho * (21) West Virginia (22) Washington (23) Tennessee . (24) California . (25) Indiana (26) Illinois . (27) Arkansas . (28) North Carolina (29) Alabama . {30) Kansas* . (31) Oregon . . (32) Iowa (33) Utah 1 . . (34) Colorado . (35) New Hampshire (36) Nebraska . (37) Missouri (38) Wyoming * (39) Wisconsin . (40) Minnesota . (41) New Mexico (42) Nevada. (43) Vermont . (44) New York . (45) Pennsylvania Senate. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Feb. Feb. Feb. Mar. Mar. Apr. May June i Aug. i Nov. I Jan. Ijan. I Jan. Jan. I Jan. ! Jan. ■Jan. j Jan. I Jan. j Jan. I Jan. jjan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan, Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. I Jan. ; Jan. . Jan. i Jan. I Jan. I Jan. jFeb. House. 8, 1918, 28 to 5 10, 1918, 30 to 8 14, 1918, 28 to 6 18, 1918, 28 to 6 25, 1918, 43 to 2 13, 1918, 18 to 7 19, 1918, 35 to 2 28, 1918, 15 to 7 18, 1918, 13 to 3 19, 1918,43 too 2, 1918, 27 to 12 23, 1918, 17 to o 26, 1918, 34 to 2 6, 1918, 21 to 20 27, 1918,25 to 2 2, 1919,30 too 7, 1919,20 to 12 7, 1919,43 too 8, 1919,29 too 8. 1919,38 too 9, 1919, 26 to o 13, 1919,42 too 9, 1919, 28 to 2 10, 1919,24 to 15 13, 1919,41 to 6 8, 1919,30 to 15 14, 1919,34 too 10, 1919, 49 to 14, I919, 23 to II 14, 1919,39 too 15, 1919,30 too 15, 1919,42 to 7 15, 1919, 16 too 15, 1919, 34 to I 15, 1919, 19 to 4 13, 1919,31 to I 16, 1919, 22 to 10 16, 1919, 26 too 16, I919, 19 to II 16, 1919,48 to II 20, I919, 12 to 4 21, I9I9, 14 to I 16, 1919, 26 to 3 29, 1919, 27 to 24 25, 1919, 29 to 16 Jan. 8, 1918, 93 to 3 Jan. II, 1918, 84 to 13 Jan. 14, 1918, 66 to 10 Jan. 28, 1918, 66 to 29 Jan. 25, 1918, 96 to 10 Feb. 8, 1918, 58 to 36 Feb. 18, 1918, 77 to 8 Mar. 4, 1 918, 72 to 30 Mar. 14, 1918, 27 to 6 Mar. 20, 1918, 86 too Mar. 26, 1918, 145 to 91 May 24, 1918, 29 to 3 June 26, 1918, 129 to 24 Aug. 8, 1918, 69 to 41 Nov. 27, 1918, 61 to 3 Jan. 2, 1919, 88 to 3 Jaa 7, 1919, 85 to 30 Jan. 7, 1919, 90 to 8 Jan. 8, 1919, 122 to 20 Jan. 7, 1919, 62 to o Jan. 9, 1919, 78 to 3 Jan. 13, 1919, 90 too Jan. 13, 1919, 81 to 2 Jan. 13, 1919, 48 to 28 Jan. 14, 1919, 87 to II Jan. 14, 1919, 84 to 66 Jan, 13, 1919, 93 to 2 Jan. 14, 1919, 93 to 10 Jan. 14, 1919, 64 to 34 Jan. 14, 1919, 121 too Jan. 14, 1919, 53 to 3 Jan. 15, 1919, 86 to 13 Jan. 14, 1919, 43 to o Jan. 15, 1919, 63 to 2 Jan. 15, 1919, 221 to 131 Jan. 16, 1919, 98 too Jan. 16, 1919, 104 to 36 Jan. 16, 1919, 52 too Jan. 17, 1919, 58 to 35 Jan. 17, 1919, 96 to 32 Jan. 16, 1919, 45 to I Jan. 20, 1919, 33 to 3 Jan. 29, 1919, 155 to 58 Jan. 23, 1919, 81 to 66 Feb. 4, 1919, no to 93 * Unanimous in both Houses. * Repassed in House to correct error January 23rd. Total Senate vote — 1,287 for to 213 against — 86 vote — 3,742 for to 931 against — 80 per cent. dry. 15 per cent. dry. Total House i6 Prohibition in America. Accompanied by active criticism of this kind, the i8th Amendment went to the States. For it to become law, the legal two-thirds majority of Con- gress and Senate required to be ratified by three- fourths of the State Legislatures. In each State the Amendment required to be ratified by two chambers. The result is shown in the table on page 15, extracted from the Anti-Saloon League Year Book for 1920. By January, 1918, 36 of the State Legislatures had ratified the Amendment, and within fourteen months after Congress had submitted the Amend- ment to the 48 States, 45, with a population of over 100 millions, had formally approved. The actual votes are shown in the preceding tabic. Only 3 States, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey, with an aggregate census population in 1910 of 5,004,000 refused to ratify, and their noncon- formity did not prevent the next stage. The needed majority having been secured from the State Legislatures, the Federal House of Representa- tives passed the National Prohibition Act on July 22nd, 1919, by 287 to 100. On September 4th the Senate passed it with a slight amendment without a roll call. On October 27th, 1919, President Wilson, who had always favoured local option, vetoed the Bill. On the same day the House of Representatives passed the measure over his veto by 176 to 55, and next day the Senate passed it by 65 to 20. The main contents of the " National Prohibition Act " are summarized in the Appendix, page 63. The idea that the public had been taken by surprise, or that the active organization in favour History of Prohibition in America. 17 of the Amendment to the Constitution had succeeded contrary to the will of the majority of the people, by the coercion of legislators into voting contrary to their opinions — through fear of loss of votes — is not borne out by the facts. The futility of this view is shown by the events of the Presidential Election in 192 1. Both candidates (Messrs. Harding and Cox) pledged themselves, if elected, to enforce the i8th Amendment to the Constitution. They would scarcely, both of them, have done this, had the majority of the people been opposed to the principle. Thus Senator Harding on the eve of the Presidential Election issued a statement in which he said : " The Hquor traffic was destructive of much that was most precious in American life. ... In another generation I believe that hquor will have disappeared not merely from our politics but from our memories . " In fact, the disappearance or partial disappearance of the saloon had completely altered the centre of gravity of politics. Perhaps the "wettest" city in the United States is New York, and in forecasting the results for the election of its Mayor in 1921, Mr. E. Harvier in the New York Times points out that the power of the saloon as a vote-getting or vote-influencing agency has been shattered. Saloons no longer are the rallying point for poHtical campaigners. Women are con- cerned for the first time in the election. Nearly 10,500 saloons have disappeared from the city, carrying with them " out into the deep waters of the sea of obHvion in pohtics not only the saloon keepers, the bar keepers, the brewery B i8 Prohibition in America. workers, the brewery collectors, the whisky salesmen, the wagon drivers, and the bar fixture makers, but the very large number of convivial patrons of what used to be called • the trade.' " There is a consensus of opinion that the Federal Senate and House of Representatives are now more markedly " dry," i.e. more in favour of prohibition, than when the i8th Amendment was passed. Furthermore, the American constitution was framed purposely to make amendments to it difficult to secure and still more difficult to revoke ; and it appears to be highly improbable that any early change in the pohcy of the United States will occur. The ultimate issue will depend on the results of the enforcement of the present law and on the extent of its enforcement. Before considering what results can be already shown, it is desirable to outUne the earlier history of Prohibition in the United States. This appears to me to show that National Prohibi- tion was the natural culmination of the history of many years of anti-alcoholic efforts. History of Anti -Alcoholic Efforts in U.S. The history of the United Kingdom is studded with attempts to control the hquor trade, and to put it in shackles which have not been found necessary for any other industry, except that of prostitution. In 1724 according to Lecky the passion for gin drinking appeared to have infected the masses of the population, and a new and terrible source of mortahty had been opened for the poor. About History of Prohibition in America. 19 this time the grand jury of Middlesex declared that the greater part of the poverty, the murders, and the robberies of London might be traced to this single cause. In 1736 a duty was imposed on spirituous liquors ; but with restrictions on sale a lucrative and popular clandestine trade sprang up. The price of retail licenses was subsequently lowered from £50 to 20s. to reduce the temptation to smug- gling. In 1751-3 new and stringent measures were introduced, restricting licenses, subjecting public houses to severe regulations, and introducing heavy punishment for the clandestine dealer. The history of Great Britain since that date shows that the sale of alcoholic drinks stands in a separate category from other industries, and that this sale has been restrained and limited by enactments increasing the cost of liquor, diminishing the hours for its sale, and in various other ways. The British limitations on the production and sale of alcoholic drinks during the Great War, although partly determined by economic considerations, were also directed towards securing increased temperance, and in substitution for the more drastic proposals which had been expected and perhaps even intended at an earlier part of the war. It is common ground, then, that the sale of alcoholic drinks requires to be made the subject of restrictive measures. Attempts to promote total abstinence on voluntary lines appeared early in the history of the United States. The names of Father Matthew (1849) and of J. B. Gough (1855) ^re well known in this connec- 20 Prohibition in America, tion. These efforts undoubtedly influenced greatly the habits of the people ; but the evidence of mischief from alcoholic excess persisted, and there- fore voluntary efforts were supplemented by attempts to prohibit the sale of intoxicating drinks. State government rendered attempts in this direction easy ; Maine in 1846, under the leadership of Neal Dow, securing the first State prohibition law, which according to its opponents was " the embodiment of the stake, the faggot, and the torture-wheel spirit of bygone ages." Other States followed ; and compulsory prohibition in the nineteenth century may be said to have occurred in two waves, the first beginning with Maine and spreading to 13 States, and the second beginning with the adoption of State prohibition in Georgia in 1907, and then affecting chiefly some 16 southern and western States. There were many relapses in policy, and in some States prohibition after its enactment was only a dead letter. Prohibition extended by alternate advance and retreat. State after State under the compulsion of public opinion tried pro- hibition, first by local option in rural communities ; these succeeded in time in outvoting the obstructive cities, and finally State prohibition was secured. In bringing about this result, it is generally agreed that the Protestant Evangelical Churches played a great part. State prohibition was wider action of the same character as local option ; and national prohibition may be similarly regarded. The gibe that in ceasing to trust to educational and moral advocacy the promoters of Prohibition History of Prohibition in America, 21 were abandoning their true role and becoming intolerant coercionists may more appropriately be considered at a later stage. It suffices for our present purpose to show that prohibition has for some 80 years been the policy of a section of the American public ; that this policy has found favour with a steadily increasing proportion of the total population ; and that it has eventually culminated in the National Prohibition Act of 1920. This Act came into force January 17th, 1920. Prior to that, prohibition under State or more localized enactments was in operation, with varying success, in many parts of the United States, as shown in the following table : — Population of States (Census, 1910) under Varying Degrees OF Prohibition. 32 States and District of Col umbia . State of Ken tucky 1 5 States . 6 States . . 4 States . Entire State, 46,113,632 2,289,905 48,403,537 At least 50 per cent, of population 7,583,709 7.583,709 25-50 per cent, of population. Less than 25 per cent. of population. 16,126,518 16,126,518 19,858,582 19,858,58: The distribution of the population in these various groups is shown in the following summarized table. * In Kentucky State-wide prohibition only came into opera- tion June 30th, 1920. 22 Prohibition in America. In each instance the census populations of 1910 are given. Prohibition States States in which the propor- tion of the population under prohi- bition is over 50% 25-50% « under 25% Population with Population total or partial without Prohibition. Prohibition. 48,403.537 4,246,659 3.337.050 6,682,498 I 9,444,020 3.430,958 I 16,427,544 1 I 62,763,652 i 29,208,614 91,972,266 2 This was the official position soon after America entered into the war. The prohibition area had already been greatly extended. American opinion was doubtless influenced by European events. The day after the Great War began the sale of absinthe was prohibited in France. A few weeks later popular imagination was struck by the Imperial Ukase pro- hibiting the sale of vodka in Russia ; and in Decem- ber, 1914, the House of Federal Representatives passed a resolution proposing to submit a prohibition amendment of the constitution to the vote of the States. About the same time whisky and brandy were dropped from the American pharmacopoeia. * The four States of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. ' The figures given in the above two tables arc taken from the Anti-Saloon Year Book, 1920. History of Prohibition in America, 23 Importance must be attached also — for in these days no nation liveth unto itself — to the only partially successful example of King George in abandoning the use of intoxicants in the Royal palaces ; and to the speech of Mr. Lloyd George (191 5), which was not followed by the drastic action which alone would fit the following words : — " We are fighting Germany, Austria and drink, and so far as I can see the greatest of these three deadly foes is drink. I have a growing conviction based on accumulating evidence that nothing but root and branch methods would be of the slightest avail in dealing with the evil." The later action taken by the Liquor Control Board, in scheduling munition areas and placing them under special control, in diminishing the hours of opening of public-houses, and in reducing the alcoholic strength of spirits, was undoubtedly useful ; and the higher prices of drinks and their restricted supplies probably had a still greater effect in reducing the mischief done by alcoholic drinks ; but had prohibition been generally enforced, more particularly among officers in the military forces, it would have materially increased efficiency. It must always be the subject of profound regret that the King's example was not universally followed. War Prohibition came into operation in the United States on July ist, 1919, and the National Pro- hibition Act (Volstead Act), which was passed on July 1st, 1.919, demonstrated the determination of American representatives and people to ensure industrial and social efficiency and economy during the war, and to safeguard their sons from moral 17S N4 T4 24 Prohibition in America. perils. This Act was merged in the Enforcement of the i8th Amendment to the Constitution, which became effective January i6th, 1920 (see Appendix). Compensation for Abolished Business ? The history of Prohibition in America has been profoundly influenced by legal decisions as to compensation for destruction of business engaged in the manufacture or sale of alcoholic drinks. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. But in 1887, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the brewing and distilling properties of the count r}^ being subject to the police powers of the State, were not entitled to this guarantee. In Kansas the business of certain brewers had been destroyed, and their property rendered value- less by prohibition. The Court, after postulating that " the public health, the public morals and the public safety may be endangered by the general use of intoxicating drinks," pronounced judgment in these terms : — " A prohibition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are declared by valid legislation to be injurious to the health, morals or safety of the community cannot, in any just sense, be deemed a taking or an appropriation of property for the public benefit. . . . The power which the States have of prohibiting such use by individuals of their property as will be prejudicial to the health, the morals or the safety of the public is not — and, consistently with the safety and existence of organized society, cannot be History of Prohibition in America. 25 — burdened with the condition that the State must com- pensate such individual owners for pecuniary losses they may sustain by reason of their not being permitted, by a noxious use of their property, to inflict injury upon the community." In this judgment it was definitely decided that prohibition is not confiscation, the deprivation being of a privilege, no property being taken. The liquor traffic thereafter continued only on sufferance. The subject again came before the Supreme Court on November loth, 1890, in the case of Crowley v. Christensen (137 U.S. '89-92), and the above decision was re-affirmed, as will be seen by the following extracts from the judgment. Reference was made to the decision already established that the law imposes conditions, e.g. as to noise, odours, dangers, on the pursuit of any lawful trade. Against the application of this decision to the sale of alcoholic drinks, it was urged that the injury produced by these occurred only when there was excessive indulgence and was voluntary. The judgment agreed as to the personal injury of health, weakening of morals and self-abasement produced by alcoholic excess, and added : — " The statistics of every State show a greater amount of crime and misery attributable to the use of ardent drinks obtained at these liquor shops than to any other source. ***** ' ' By the general concurrence of opinion of every civilized and Christian community, there are few sources of crime and misery to society equal to the dram shop, where intoxicating liquors in small quantities to be drunk at the time, are sold indiscriminately to all persons applying. . . . 26 Prohibition in America. " Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted liberty to act according to one's will. It is only freedom of restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is, then, liberty regulated by law." The practical application of these principles was contained in the following words : — " There is no inherent right in a citizen of a State or of the United States to sell intoxicating liquor. ♦ * * « ♦ " The police power of the State is fully competent to regulate the business — to mitigate its evils or to suppress it entirely. ... As it is a business attended with danger to the community it may ... be entirely prohibited or be permitted under such conditions as will limit to the utmost its evils." Motives leading to National Prohibition in America. The history of the movement over nearly a century points to the conclusion that National Prohibition in America is the result of a real national sentiment in its favour on the part of a majority of the population. Over six million citizens peti- tioned Congress to submit the Prohibition Resolu- tion already mentioned to the individual States ; and at that time in 76 per cent, of the area, and for 57 per cent, of the population of the States, the saloon had already been outlawed. I. It may be agreed that in recent years a chief agent in bringing about this sentiment has been the pertinacious propagandism of the powerful Anti-Saloon League in each State. This while it History of Prohibition in America. 27 stopped short of the militancy which in Britain was associated with the collateral movement for Female Suffrage, is said to have cowed many politi- cians into support of prohibition who would have preferred not to give this support. There is no peculiarity in this yielding of politicians to pressure. They are usually astute enough to appreciate on which side lies the balance of public opinion. 2. The teaching in elementary day schools of the dangers of alcohol, which had been continued through many years, must have gradually formed a vast public opinion favourable to total abstinence. 3. There is no doubt that the desire for " clean " politics has largely helped prohibition, many moderate drinkers voting for it, in order to get rid of saloons. In the States the saloons were the centres of an organized traffic which " corrupts elections, debauches voters, debases many legislators and their officials." Theodore Roosevelt said " the American saloon has been one of the most mischievous elements in American social, political and industrial life." The overwhelming sentiment in the States has been and continues to be in favour of abolition of the saloon ; though thoughtful persons regret that clubs and other places of amusement are not yet generally provided in their place. In conversation with moderate drinkers I have been repeatedly assured that although they voted against prohibition, they would not vote for retrac- ing the action taken, in view of the beneficial results already derived from the abolition of saloons. 28 Prohibition in America. 4. A main motive in bringing National Prohibi- tion into force was the fact embodied in the boast of the great liquor trusts that in States " prohibition does not prohibit." There was some truth in this boast ; though probably even in the prohibition States in which administration was most lax, the difficulty in obtaining liquor reduced, if it did not actually stop, drinking by those who could least afford it, and for whose families this indulgence meant partial privation. Where a State or only a section of a State adopted prohibition, illicit traffic in alcoholic drinks has been common, with all its concomitant evils. National enforcement of prohibition came as the result of the overwhelming opinion that State prohibition could only curtail, and that national legislation was needed to secure fairly complete prohibition ; and the energies of reformers were therefore concentrated on the effort to this end, which has been crowned with success. 5. The declaration of the American Medical Association in 1917 had much weight with the thoughtful public. It was as follows : — Report of the Council on Health and Public Instruction of the American Medical Association. [Journal of the A.M. A., 191 7, vol. 69, July 21st, p. 226.) The House of Delegates passed the following resolution : Whereas, We believe that the use of alcohol as a beverage is detrimental to the human economy, and Wliereas, its use in therapeutics, as a tonic or a stimulant or as a food has no scientific basis, therefore be it Resolved, That the American Medical Association opposes the use of alcohol as a beverage, and be it further History of Prohibition in America. 29 Resolved, That the use of alcohol as a therapeutic agent should be discouraged. 6. The increase in industrial efficiency secured by abstinence, as shown by various published reports, formed a weighty argument in the same direction. On the Reading U.S.A. railway line, so long ago as 1890, the practice had been instituted of dismissing employees who frequented drinking places, and the Baltimore and Ohio railway announced that it would not employ persons addicted to alcohol. It was found that a large proportion of industrial accidents occurred on Mondays, after week-end debauches of workmen; and "big business" fol- lowed the lead of the railway com.panies and tabooed drinking. 7. The desire to secure industrial efficiency, as well as to economize, became greater when America entered the European War ; and along with this ran the additional motive to safeguard American troops against the moral temptations to which alcoholic indulgence often forms the introduction. 8. The negro problem and especially the desire in the Southern States to save white women from negroes inflamed by drink, had large influence in turning the Southern States in favour of prohibition. The above and other circumstances have worked for prohibition ; and there can, I think, be no doubt that as shown by the fact that prohibition by local option had for more than half a century been inter- mittently extending its area, a majority of the American population were determined to make local prohibition a success, by the only method by 30 Prohibition in America. which this appeared to be possible, viz., by uni- versal prohibition. Objections to National Prohibition. 1. It is unnecessary to enter into the vexed question as to whether the enactment of universal prohibition by the Federal Government was an infringement of the sovereign rights of the individual States. An Amendment of the Constitution was needed to enable national prohibition to be enacted ; the Constitution provides the machinery for making amendments, but hedges changes around with multiform difficulties ; and if any infringement of the autonomy of the States occurred, it was with the active consent of the States themselves. 2. It is urged that the prohibition of the sale of spirituous drinks, except on medical prescription, with a limitation in the alcoholic contents of wines and malt liquor would have been preferable. Such action might have succeeded in a small compact country like England. In the province of Quebec action on these lines is said to have failed ; and evidently it was the predominant opinion that no middle course was practicable between the status quo and a " bone dry " prohibition. In this connection the heterogeneity both as to birth and colour of the American population must be remembered ; while 3 per cent, of London's population, 36 per cent, of that of Chicago and of Boston, and 41 per cent, of that of New York City is foreign born ; and the degree of law-abiding may be surmised from the following figures taken History of Prohihition in America, 31 from the introductory chapter to R. B. Fosdick's American Police Systems : — Number of Murders in the Years 1914. 1915- 1916. 1917. 1918. England and Wales . London .... Liverpool .... Chicago .... 92 16 5 87 81 7^ 85 9 4 105 81 16 4 91 Si 26 5 95 Chicago has about one-third the population of London. Nor is Chicago very exceptional in its excess of crime with violence. In 1917 New York had six times as many homicides as London, and a much higher proportion of burglaries, and of robberies and assaults with intent to rob. There is no doubt that the large foreign element in the United States constitutes the chief present difficultj^ in enforcing prohibition. Aliens are the chief lawbreakers in respect of prohibition. The statement of these and like difficulties merges into consideration of the Results of National Prohibition during the first year of its operation which v^as completed January 16th, 1921. I. It has to be noted that in the main Federal agents alone during this year have been responsible for the enforcement of the new law ; and that the aid of the State and city police has commonly not been forthcoming ; and this being so it is unreason- 32 Prohibition in America. able to expect a record of complete success in the enforcement of prohibition. Its partial success in a large number of areas where enforcement has been honestly attempted is beyond dispute ; and it is highly probable that not lo per cent, of former drinkers can now regularly or frequently obtain alcoholic drinks. It is not surprising that a large part of the majority are determined on the enforce- ment of the law against this minority ! 2. Numerous channels for the introduction of alcoholic drinks into the States have remained. A large quantity of liquor has been brought across the Canadian and Mexican borders/ much from overseas, and there has been a great increase of illicit manufacture and of domestic^ manufacture. The permit system allowing the use of alcohol for medicinal purposes has been greatly abused ; and patent medicines containing a large amount of alcohol have had an extensive sale. There is no evidence that prohibition has caused increased consumption of drugs in substitution for alcohol. ^ * The United States have a three thousand five hundred miles northern boundary', much of it an imaginary line, the remainder being formed by the Great Lakes and the St. Law- rence, which are frozen solid during a considerable part of the year. There is also a southern boundary some 1,500 miles long, much of it an imaginary line. The Ontario voting of April i8th, 1921, carried prohibition by approximately 200,000 majority; and nearly the whole of Canada, except the Province of Quebec, is now on the prohibition side. This will greatly diminish the difficulty in enforcing prohibition in the United States. In Quebec investigation appears to show that in places authorized to sell beer and wine, stronger liquors are sold surreptitiously. * Dr. A. D. Bevan, former President of the American Medical Association, states " the number of these cases (drug addicts) is very small compared with the number that were made drug addicts by the free use of alcohol in the past." History of Prohibition in America. 33 3. On the other hand all the old-time legitimate distilleries and breweries have been closed down, tens of thousands of saloons have been closed, and liquor has, for most people, become extremely difficult to obtain. It has, furthermore, become a very dangerous commodity to sell ; its enormous increase in price has put it out of reach of the mass of the people ; and probably in over something like nine-tenths of the territory of the United States, prohibition is being enforced fairly well. The official figures issued by the Federal Govern- ment confirm these statements. New York in 1 91 5 brewed about 13*2 million barrels (American) of beer ; the amount in the year ending June 30th, 1920, was only 924,000 gallons, including large quan- tities of " near " beer. The corresponding figures in 1915 and 1920 respectively for Pennsylvania were 7,166,300 and 1,269,600 gallons ; for Illinois 6,270,000 and 287,000 gallons. In 1915 the United States, as a whole, brewed 59,808,210 gallons, but in 1920, 9,231,280 gallons. Evidently neither smuggling nor home-brev/ing can have replaced more than a small part of the enormous reduction shown in these figures. For spirits secret transport and storage are easier ; but they cannot account for more than a small fraction of the reduction shown in the official figures. In 1915 the national consumption in American proof gallons was 127,159,098 gallons ; in 1.920 it was 28,568,202. The figures for wine in the fiscal year 1919-20, of which only one-half was under constitutional prohibition, were 12,718,319 o 34 Prohibition in America. American gallons as against 32,911,909 in 1915. Transposed into the corresponding British measures, the per capita official figures of consump- tion in the United States are as follows : — Spirits (British Proof). Beer (Imperial Gallon). Wine (Imperial Gallon). I9I5 . • • •91 I5-I •26 I9I6 .98 14-6 •38 I9I7 . • • i-i6 14-9 •34 I9I8 . . . •64 I2-I •39 I9I9 . . . •58 6-5 •41 1920 •19 2-2 •09 United King- dom, 1920 . •47 26-8 •32 According to Mr. W. H. Williams, the Federal Commissioner of Internal Revenue (January 15th, 1921), " from the reports received from the bureau's agents throughout the country, it appears that there is a con- stantly growing sentiment on the part of the people for a strict enforcement of the law. The courts, it is believed, are beginning to realize that only prison sentences for violating the law will be sufficient." Prohibition Commissioner Kramer states the difficulties arising in connection with industrial alcohol, which are being gradually overcome ; and the steps which are being taken to tighten up the permit system for medical practice, and so to medi- cate patent medicines that they will cease to be popular prohibition beverages. History of Prohibition in America. 35 It is a striking fact that of the 152,627 physicians in the United States 78 per cent, or approximately 4 out of every 5 physicians have refrained from taking out permits to prescribe alcohol ; while in 24 States not a single physician has taken out a permit. 4. According to unofficial figures it appears that the Federal cost of enforcing prohibition and in loss of revenue from taxation amounts to $280 millions, not reckoning the large sums lost by each State in taxation, etc. It has been stated, however, that convicted violators of the law pay about three times as much in fines and penalties to the Govern- ment as it costs to enforce the i8th Amendment. 5. There is little doubt that the domestic manu- facture of alcoholic drinks has greatly increased. It is said that domestic drinking has also increased. The last statement is doubtful, except in households where illicitly distilled spirits or home-manufactured drinks are obtained ; and in balancing up results, it must, I think, be agreed that smuggling, illicit manufacture and sale, and increased domestic production of alcoholic drinks, together are not on such a scale as to counterbalance the increased abstinence resulting from prohibition. The essential point is that the majority of the American popula- tion are rapidly losing their appetite for alcoholic drinks, and young people have no opportunity to acquire this appetite. If this be admitted, it must also be agreed that people can be made sober by legislation, and that the temptation to be otherwise can be removed by this means. 36 Prohibition in America. Effect of Prohibition on Poverty and Crime. 6. In this and the next paragraph on disease, I do not propose to attempt a general survey. Any statistics advanced must be illustrative rather than demonstrative, as is inevitable when one considers the short time and the varying degree to which in different areas prohibition has been enforced, and the other causes of variation, including war condi- tions and the immense diffusion of prosperity between 1914 and 1920, with its increased ability to spend money on luxuries. But, although national prohibition has been in operation only a single year, there are many indications of its influence, some of which may be noted. There has been a great decline in drunkenness. A return of arrests for drunkenness in 54 American cities which became " dry " by reason of national prohibition, and not from local enactments, shows that in these cities the number of arrests for drunken- ness — In 191 7 were 327,497 ,, 1918 ,, 294,006 „ 1919 ,. 205,391 „ 1920 ,, 14^,071 a corresponding decline in total arrests occurring in the same years. The figures for individual cities, excepting New York, give even more striking instances of decrease. Thus : — History of Prohibition in America. 37 Arrests for Drunkenness. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. Baltimore, Md. 5>i29 7.552 5.096 1,785 Boston, Mass. 73>393 54.948 35.540 21,800 Louisville, Ky. . 1,865 2,814 2,041 500 Minneapolis, Minn. 7.014 5.084 3.715 2,363 New Orleans, La. 6,690 9,477 5.338 2,399 New York, N.Y. 16,311 8,795 7,028 7,804 Philadelphia, Pa. 43,040 34,655 23,613 20,410 San Francisco, Cal. 14.725 15,437 11,288 2,257 Waterbury, Conn. 3.132 2,401 1,341 748 In a famous judgment of the United States Supreme Court the traffic in drink was described as " the most prolific source of insanity, pauperism, vice, and crime." This statement may be exag- gerated, but it is certain that alcohoHc drinks are a frequent source of the four great social evils enumerated in the quotation. There is a consensus of statement that social rescue work has changed its character since prohibi- tion began. Many municipal and private lodging- houses for vagrants and other derelicts are " going out of business." The Salvation Army rescue and other similar agencies are substituting preventive for rescue work. Refuges for " down and outers " are closing their doors. Similarly the experience of the great insurance organizations for the industrial classes is that payment made under certificates indicating alcoholism have greatly declined in the last year.^ ^ Commander Evangeline Booth of the Salvation Army in the issue of the War Cry for September 3rd, 192 1 (New York) , discusses 38 Prohibition in America. In elucidation of my own views on alcoholism I may quote the two following paragraphs from Public Health and Insurance : American Addresses, Baltimore, 1920. [Johns Hopkins University Press.) Alcoholism is a potent enemy of the race. It is a great creator of avoidable poverty. It makes the bed ready for the benefits of prohibition as seen by the Salvation Army ; and the following extracts from her statement may be given : " Our social secretaries tell us that drunkenness among the men frequenting our Hotels and Industrial Homes has almost entirely disappeared. That men who previously had not enough money to pay their way from one day to another, now have money in the bank. In one of our hotels there are 120 men with banking accounts of considerable amounts, who previ- ously could not keep a dollar for twenty-four hours. " In another hotel twenty-five men, who before prohibition could not muster a dime among them, have deposits ranging from $100 to $500. Paul Stoker, a man who drank every cent of his earnings, has saved S700 since Prohibition came into effect. An increase in prosperity and thrift is universally acknowledged. The State of Minnesota reports a savings increase of $17,000,000 for the year. " Our officers engaged in prison work report that the penal institutions are rapidly being depopulated, many of them, like Paterson, New Jersey, reduced from 150 to 14 ; and Hacken- sack, the same State, is converting its jails into dwelling apart- ments. Prisons in other places are being turned into schools. In our social institutions there have been more conversions, and more soldiers have been made during the past year than in any previous year of our history. Several of our Rescue Matrons, who are also police court officers, say that they arc not receiving any cases from the courts ; whereas before prohibition they had an average of eight to ten commitments per week. . . . " The nurses of the Baby Hygiene Association, visiting throughout the city, already find a marked improvement in young children. The sword of sorrow and shame which overhung their homes has been snatched away, which has meant develop- ment, beauty, and vitality to tens of thousands. " Needless to say, the experience of our own slum officers emphasizes these benefits. ' Father buys us clothes since prohibition. He used to drink all the money up,' said a httle girl of six in Hell's Kitchen last week. They find the home better cared for, and less divided, and where they used to get mother and children only to the meeting, the whole family now attends." History of Prohibition in America, 39 tuberculosis. It is a frequent excitant of exposure to the infection of venereal diseases ; it swells the ranks of father- less children, and of neglected infants ; it helps to fill our prisons and our hospitals. Let it be admitted, if you like, that light wines and beers are pleasant, and in strict modera- tion with meals are beverages to which little or no harm can be traced ; but heavier drinks and all non-medicinal spirit drinking are to be condemned ; and the country which distinguishes itself by abolishing these drinks will, other things being equal, in my opinion, inevitably attain quickly an industrial and economic superiority over all countries which continue to follow the older ways. ***** We have in the fact that the whole of the United States has " gone dry " a remarkable example of a " short cut " towards social salvation from alcoholism which will be most instructive. Apart from such universal prohibition of alcoholic beverages, the physician has to think of an alcoholic patient under his care as the possible victim of one or more or all of several co-operating influences conduc- ing to intemperance. The alcoholic habit may be gradually acquired as the result of protracted social indulgence in moderation acting on a person of unstable mental constitu- tion ; it may, especially in wage-earners, have been hastened by the evil custom of treating. It not infrequently follows overwork, with the associated feeling of need for stimulants ; it accompanies bad housing, with unsatisfactory sleeping accommodation ; and it is aided by poor and badly cooked food, due to shiftlessness, overwork, or lack of domestic training of the man's wife. If there is to be successful control of alcoholism, action in all the directions briefly indicated above, and in other directions which will suggest themselves, is necessary ; and although the physician cannot himself do all this, his efforts should run parallel with social efforts in these directions. Even when the " short-cut " of compulsory abstinence has been taken, the efforts indicated above are still needed ; for alcoholism is not the only resultant of bad social habits. 40 Prohibition in America. of overwork, of unsatisfactory feeding, of deficient sleep, and so on. But although alcoholism should properly be regarded as one link in a vicious circle, or as one part of a mesh of evil circumstances needing to be combated if a cure of alcoholism is to be effected, or if better still the vicious entanglement leading to alcoholism is to be prevented, it is none the less true that the " short-cut " towards social salvation from alcoholism constituted by the enforce- ment of prohibition may prove to be the most important means for aiding efforts against the bad social habits, the overwork, the unsatisfactory feeding, the deficient sleep, the lack of wholesome recreation, all of which have a share in the problem ; and attention to which is still necessary, even when alcoholism is put out of court. Effect of Prohibition on Disease. In New York City and also to a less extent in the State of New York prohibition has probably been more imperfectly enforced than in any other State. Its statistics, therefore, have special interest. The following table gives the official figures of deaths in New York City from Alcoholism in the calendar years of — 1916 680 191 7 559 1918 .243 1919 ..... 186 1920 ..... 69 Since July ist, 1919, there have been (June, 1921) twenty-one weeks with no recorded deaths from History of Prohibition in America, 41 alcoholism. During the years 191 2-18 the average annual number of deaths from cirrhosis of the liver was 722 ; the average annual number during the two years 1919-20 was 370. Not much stress can be placed on the figures for cirrhosis of the liver, in view of the short duration of the experiment. The two chief hospitals to which alcoholics are admitted in New York are the Bellevue Hospital (General Medical Superintendent, Dr. George O'Han- lon) for Manhattan, and the King's County Hospital (Deputy Medical Superintendent, Dr. T. I. Price) for Brooklyn . To these two Medical Superintendents I am indebted for the following information : — Total Admissions of Alcoholics to Year. Bellevue Hospital. King's County Hospital. Persons. Males. Females. Persons. Males. Females. 1914 . 6,869 __ _ _ „ 1915 • ^.'-57 — 1,435 1,386 49 1916 . 7,oS6 — 1,910 1,873 37 1917 • 5,714 4,462 1,252 1,873 1,811 62 IQlS . 2,439 1,809 1,873 1,030 944 86 I9I9 . 2,211 1,716 495 736 686 50 1920 . 2,312 1,845 467 651 596 55 I92I . 496^ 398 98 206 2 185 21 It will be noted that prior to the partial enforce- ment of national prohibition, there had occurred in the experience of both hospitals a marked reduction in the alcoholic admissions. In April, 1917, the United States entered the war, ^ To March 23rd. ^ Xo March 30th. 42 Prohibition in America. and even before this the widespread war spirit had given momentum to efforts to conserve food and energy. From this time a rapidly increasing number of young men were congregated in training camps, the sale of liquor within two miles of which was forbidden. All available statistics show that the mobilization of men rapidly had a favourable effect on statistics of crime and of alcoholism in hospitals. Statistical evidence need not, however, be pursued in detail. As available from various States it shows that reduction of alcoholism, and of resultant crime and poverty, has occurred under prohibition. Concerning much of this evidence final judgment would be premature. Nor am I greatly concerned with these figures. We can afford to wait until several years' experience has accumulated, and until partial has been replaced by more complete prohibi- tion. Evidence in all civilized countries points to the same conclusion, that alcoholism is responsible for a large amount of disease and mortality, that it is a prolific source of destitution and crime, and that it is responsible for the under-nourishment and ill-development of many children. The with- drawal of this source of mischief must be a potent factor in the diminution of disease, poverty, and crime ; and it would be neither judicious nor judicial to base the case for or against prohibition on statistical evidence dealing with the first year of its attempted enforcement, although there is already abundant evidence pointing to the conclu- sion that valuable results in the reduction of the above-named social evils have already accrued. PART II. PROHIBITION IN RELATION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF GOOD GOVERNMENT. I. In summing up previous paragraphs the con- clusions seem to be justified that National Prohibi- tion in the United States is the will of the majority of its people, that the vast majority are law-abiding people who intend to obey and enforce prohibition, that to the extent to which it has been enforced it has doubtless been a factor in causing decrease of poverty, crime, and sickness. It has also been associated with greatly increased expenditure in useful directions, thus enhancing national prosperity and efficiency. Hitherto, no reference has been made to the possible sinister influence of Prohibition on the moral fibre of the people, to the conceivable encouragement of the " Thou Shalt Not '* spirit of intolerance, " the joy of persecuting one's fellow- men " (Leacock), which in the past has been behind various forms of political and religious persecution, and to the possibility that ''prohibition cranks" may enter into crusades against other forms of enjoyment, such as smoking, or theatre going, or Sunday games, even although these differ from alcohol in that no widespread social injury can be ascribed to them. 43 44 Prohihitmi in America. Some events in the United States are quoted in support of this fear. During the war the free expression of opinion in the pubHc press or in pubHc meetings was interfered with to a remarkable extent, going, I believe, far beyond any corresponding action in England. The apocryphal history of William the Testy, already outlined, may be regarded by some as a forecast of future possibilities. I confess that such fears appear to me fantastic. It may be confidently anticipated that the general pubUc will never give a majority vote in favour of the abolition of a personal habit, unless this habit is associated with national evils of serious magnitude. In this confi- dence we may confine our attention to more general arguments against the principle of Alcoholic Prohibi- tion. 2. It is asserted that " prohibition does not prohibit," and that law is thus brought into dis- respect ; that in large cities and elsewhere, if one "knows one's way about," it is easy (though expensive) to obtain a supply of Hquor. Liquor thus obtained, furthermore, is often much more deleterious than the spirits openly sold in the past. That, hitherto, prohibition, especially in cities in eastern States, has only been partially enforced is true ; but the statement sometimes made that there has resulted from this a lowered respect for law in general, and that the value of the oath has sunk, cannot in my view be justified. The enforcement of any law against a practice which only becomes reprehensible when the law is Relation to Principles of Good Government. 45 enacted, e.g. smuggling, or as in this case the sale of alcoholic drinks containing more than 0*5 per cent, alcohol, provokes the adventurous spirit and the covetous desire for illicit gain. But, as will be seen later, the same tendency holds for many infringements of laws which nevertheless it is universally agreed must be enforced. The law merely converts potential into actual law-breakers and perjurers. The partial failure to secure prohi- bition in some States in the first year after it became the law of the land is but a repetition of what has happened in respect to other laws for the control of prostitution, of robbery and violence, etc. 3. Stress is laid on the inequitable operation of prohibition. True, it is said, it diminishes the total consumption of alcohol ; but it withdraws alcohol from the vast majority to whom its con- sumption gives pleasure and satisfaction and whom it cannot be shown to injure appreciably, while intensified harm is done to the minority who still surreptitiously obtain alcohol and to whom it is especially dangerous, owing to their tendency to inebriety. So far as the majority are concerned, this point merges into the consideration dealt with later, as to the extent to which it is justifiable to deprive them of an enjoyment for the sake of others to whom this enjoyment is dangerous and injurious. As concerns the minority it may be that persistent drinkers in a few instances are being more seriously injured than in pre-prohibition days ; but this is a small offset to the vast multitude of such persons who now compulsorily are abstainers. 46 Prohibition in America. 4. The argument from analogy is brought into play. Railway travelling, in recent years automo- biles still more, are a frequent cause of accident ; but regulation not prohibition is the remedy proposed. Many men are ruined on the Stock Exchange ; many others suffer from cardiac irregularity and defective vision as the result of tobacco smoking ; but there is, and can, I think, be no serious intention to stop speculation or smoking. On the other hand public gambling is prohibited, and the public approve this law. It is evident that each case must be decided on its merits. There can be no pedantic consistency in regulations affecting personal con- duct ; but we may confidently expect that in a democratically governed country, a majority will not be induced in substance to prohibit a habit which brings enjoyment to many, but which in other instances frequently leads to poverty and to disease and crime, unless the majority is convinced on adequate evidence that the evil is of such a magnitude as to justify the limitation of enjoyment of a large part of the population. 5. It has been said that while the above view may receive acceptance, we cannot be certain that public opinion (i.e. a majority of the population) favours prohibition ; it has been asserted that the American population have been overwhelmed by floods of emotional literature, and inflammatory oratory ; that furthermore a large section of the population are more anxious to "be in the swim " on any popular question, than to form a considered judgment on it ; and that prohibition is therefore Relation to Principles of Good Government. 47 merely a popular hysterical aberration to which there will be awkward reactions. On this point it will, I think, suffice so far as the position in the United States is concerned, to refer the reader to the paragraphs dealing with the history of prohibi- tion. 6. A more serious objection is that prohibition, as a remedy for alcoholism, is the social analogue to the empirical treatment of symptoms in medicine, and is not directed to the removal of the causes of excessive alcoholic indulgence. This point has already been mentioned on page 39. It suffices to add here, that in the chain of events or network of entanglements which leads to drunkenness, absten- tion from alcohol, compulsory if necessary, is the most direct step towards the prevention and cure of drunkenness ; and that, although compulsory abstinence may not be the ideal remedy, it at least prevents the formation of drinking habits, and on behalf of the drunkard gives time and opportunity to bring into action the physical, social, and moral remedies for the complex condition, which expressed itself in drunkenness. It may, at the same time, be agreed that moral suasion and individual initiative are healthier and more valuable motives to secure temperance than the enforcement of prohibition ; and that prohibi- tion only becomes justifiable as a policy when it is clear that intemperance is an evil of serious national importance, and that other measures for its preven- tion cannot be put into effect, or that these other measures can only have a very partial success, or 48 Prohibition in America. that this success will only be secured after many years or even generations of suffering from alcohol- ism. It may, I think, be confidently asserted, that notwithstanding the present increased sobriety as compared with past generations, the amount of injury and suffering to innocent persons as well as to alcoholics themselves caused by alcoholism is still a serious national evil, and that there is no early likelihood of adequate amelioration of this evil, under present conditions of manufacture and sale of alcoholic drinks. This being so, is not the case complete for the enforcement of prohibition, if a majority of the people definitely and persistently demand prohibition, and when it becomes evident that prohibition can be enforced ? There remains for consideration the relation of compulsion, with alcoholic prohibition as a specific type of compulsion, to the general problem of Good Government. This is a subject in which every social well-wisher and worker, and especially every public-health w^orkcr, is concerned, and although I cannot hope to throw new light on it, we may, I think, with advantage consider Alcohohc Prohibi- tion in its setting in the midst of the other forms of compulsion which communal life has brought into being. The fundamental problem of government and social order is the reconciliation of authority and liberty. The schools of thought extend from collec- tivism which implies authority in its extreme form, to anarchy which is individualism carried to an extreme Relation to Principles of Good Government. 49 Historical Review. In the history of the civilized world two great ideals of government have prevailed, which have been described as the Roman and the British ; the former consisted of centralized government of conquered peoples without any representation of these on the governing body ; the latter embodies the principles of representative government and of local representative control of local affairs. That the British view had become firmly rooted as early as the seventeenth century is illustrated by a remark made by William Hooker, an early New England pastor, in a sermon delivered in May, 1638,1 "The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people." The perennial problem is how to create and maintain a strong government without sacrificing self-government ; and in all English-speaking nations it is not difficult to discern occasional relapses to the Roman method. But we may agree with Fiske, nevertheless, that it is possible to discern in historical events, current and past, " the solemn work of the ages that is slowly winning for humanity a richer and more perfect life." Prior to the eighteenth century the State had not hesitated to control the intimate acts of individuals. In Britain at various times there were enactments as to the style of dress for the living, the shrouds for the dead, the number of horses a man might keep, whether he was of a station to be allowed to keep ^ Quoted by Fiske in The Beginnings of New England, p. 154. D 50 Prohibition in America. dogs to hunt, and what games, consistent with his social position, he might play. In America also minute regulations were common. Thus in Boston in the early Colonial days the price and size of the loaf of bread were repeatedly fixed by public autho- rity, and so also was the price of many commodities. Thus when during the Great War food prices were regulated and retail profits limited in an attempt to stop profiteering, history was repeating itself, under special stress of circumstances. The fourth quarter of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century were the zero days of State intervention in private life. In 1776 appeared one of the world's greatest works, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which presented the eighteenth-century philosophy of industrial liberty. It is significant, as indicating the different perspec- tive in which liberty was then viewed, that in the same year appeared the American Declaration of Independence, with its axiom that liberty is the inalienable right of all men. They have been " endowed by their Creator with inalienable Rights : that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." The liberty then advocated implied absence of State intervention and unrestricted private competi- tion whenever interests conflicted. Thus those who in the early part of the nineteenth century secured the abolition of the Corn Laws and introduced Free Trade objected to the Factory Acts, as limiting " free " contracts. In fact the free-trade agitation appears to have been based chiefly on so-called Relation to Principles of Good Government. 51 *' economic laws " ; instead of on the consideration that, under ordinary circumstances, the good done by Protection was limited to a fraction of the community, the rest being injured. In 1851 Herbert Spencer in his Social Statics asserted the right of man to disregard the State ; this, as Ely has said,^ is but one step removed from " philosophical anarchy which in the interests of liberty would abolish the State altogether." The views of John Stuart Mill were not altogether consistent. Although he defined liberty as " being left to oneself," he appears to have appreciated that sometimes force was required to ensure liberty. T. Hill Green taught the doctrine that true liberty means the expression of the positive powers of the individual, and not merely the absence of inter- ference from others. He added significantly : — " We do not mean merely liberty to do as we like, irrespectively of what it is that we like." These words, I think, represent present-day philo- sophy as to the liberty which is desirable for communal well-being ; and in accordance with it, in the history of the last hundred years, as well as to a less extent earlier, there are instances in all branches of com- munal life of intervention by the State between individual and individual, or between groups of persons, controlling their conduct, in order to secure liberation from oppression of large groups in the community. 1 Studies in the Evolution of Industrial Society. 52 Prohibition in America. The Interrelation between the Individual and the State. When families gather in communities they need — 1. Protection for Hfe and Hmb and belongings against crime and violence ; and for these purposes regulations and enactments have been made, and armed forces, police, and a judiciary have been developed. Until selfishness entirely disappears, trade and commerce as well as the integrity of family life in communities will continue to depend on these forms of compulsion. 2. There is needed protection against extremity of want, whether caused by unfavourable cycles of trade, by natural calamities, by local or family adversity, or by personal misconduct. The Eliza- bethan Poor Law embodied the first organized realization of this necessity in British life ; and it furthermore compelled contributions from those able to pay for this purpose. 3. Protection is needed against evil conditions of industrial work, whether caused by absence of provisions against accident or overwork, or by the employment of persons for whom a given kind of work is injurious or undesirable for social reasons. Factory and mine legislation, Shops and Work- shops Acts, and Education Acts supply numerous illustrations of communal compulsion in their respective spheres. 4. Protection is needed against disease, and especially against communicable diseases ; and this protection implies the necessity of severe Relation to Principles of Good Government. 53 restrictions limiting the freedom of action of employers and employed, of landlords and tenants, of parents and children, of vendor and purchaser. 5. The State regards ignorance of its constituent members as mischievous to the community ; hence arise restrictions of the industrial employment of children (health considerations are also involved in this) and insistence on attendance at school at least from 6 to 14 years of age. In these various relationships the increasing intervention of the State in personal and family life has received general approval. Increasing coercion for social purposes has been adopted. 6. Such coercion is seen even more markedly in the financial relationships of members of the community. In certain sweated industries Trade Boards have been set up to prescribe minimum wages for workers. Taxation is imposed for many communal purposes, over which the taxpayer has no control, except in the aggregate with other tax- payers. Differential taxation has been adopted to an extent which would have been regarded as monstrous by our fathers, as in the steeply graduated income tax and inheritance duties. Its equity is now generally, though ruefully, admitted. Some illustrations of modern social coercion will show how widely the nexus of restriction extends. The parent is no longer free absolutely to control the education of his child ; the child is deprived of his liberty to play truant ; and taxpayers and ratepayers are constrained to pay for the education of other people's children. Liberty of contract 54 Prohibition in America. between employer and employed, between vendor and purchaser, has been strictly limited. This is justifiable because, in the first place, employed persons and purchasers in the past were helpless to protect themselves, although theoretically " free " ; and in the second place because in defence of health and honest dealing other than mere economic considerations have greater importance. In medical treatment there are important exten- sions of compulsion. In Britain a parent can be prosecuted for neglect of his child, and this neglect may consist in neglect of medical aid when required ; medical practitioners alone can, without risk of prosecution, treat illness due to a venereal disease ; and each parent is required to have his infant vac- cinated, subject in this instance to exemption on declaration of conscientious objection. Many infringements of personal liberty when it extends to license, are in the interest of liberty. The liberty of the parent or employer to deal \\ith children as he thinks fit is infringed to secure for these the possibility of becoming useful citizens, able to benefit by adult liberty. Coercion may be necessary for greater liberty, to secure the libera- tion of those who are imperilled or actually injured under present conditions. In short, liberation from unfair conditions rather than liberty is the social desideratum ; and perhaps the word " liberty " should be read in this sense in the words : " Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty." The reconciliation of liberty and law, of freedom and coercion, can only be made when it is approached Relation to Principles of Good Government. 55 from the standpoint of society and not of the individual member of society. The two should not be considered as in antithesis, in which case, the less the intervention in personal life the better ; nor should the action of the State be assumed to be one merely of restraint, and therefore a neces- sary evil to be endured. We may agree that the end of all government is to make government superfluous, an ideal which is only attainable when every single person is imbued with the spirit of the two Great Commandments ; meanwhile the most valuable conception is that of society as the starting-point in the organization of mankind, the success of organized society being judged by its degree of success in securing the well-being of every person or short of this, of the highest propor- tion of the total community. From another point of view society can be regarded as the chief instru- ment preventing waste of mankind's resources ; and the end in view is the prevention of waste, the mitigation of struggle, and the release of individu- ality for the development of personal culture, in its best sense. This is the answer to those who regard prohibition of whatever kind as diminishing the joie de vivre : thus the abolition of the saloon has destroyed the poor man's club, but it has opened up wider avenues of enjoyment. Historically liberty and equality during the eighteenth and the first part of the nineteenth century were the objects of reformers. In the American and French revolutions they were funda- mental articles of faith. Nothing is more striking 56 Prohibition in America. than the fact that the United States — " sweet land of Hberty "• — should be the seat of the greatest experiment in personal coercion which the world has known. This change in outlook and policy is an index of the needs of the community. Then the liberation of the individual was the most press- ing task ; now preventive and remedial work, especially work to minimize the evils of large aggre- gations of population, are the need of congested mankind. Both policies are rational, as was also the doctrine of non-intcrfcrcncc, which preceded them both. The justice and expediency of a doc- trine — which at one time may be advisable, at another time inexpedient — must be determined by its historical position in relation to the com- munity, and by considerations of equity and of the welfare of the people. At the least we liave passed beyond the stage at which it can be said with Tacitus that the amount of corruption in the community varies directly with the number of its laws [corrupiissima rcspub- lica, plurimcB leges) ; or even when it is possible to agree entirely with Goldsmith's Traveller :— " How small of all that human hearts endure That part which kings or laws can cause or cure." ** Inequality '' of Men in relation to Compulsion. Perhaps quite as remarkable as the altered view of Liberty, is the shifting in the view as to Equality, from that held in the revolutionary period of the Relation to Principles of Good Government. 57 eighteenth century. Natural equaUty is non- existent ; the only equality desirable or obtainable for every member of society is that of opportunities and responsibilities. The existence of individual inequalities is obvious ; the only doubt being as to the extent to which they are innate ; and how far differences of intelligence, education, posses- sions, usefulness are explicable by family or social influences. Figures published in the United States give a picture of mental inequalities which suggests some doubt as to the methods of testing employed. According to East ^ feeble-mindedness is present in a recessive form in one person in fourteen of the entire population of the United States. Of the American troops drafted during the Great War, 1,700,000 were subjected to mental tests. Known feeble-minded men had not been drafted. The results recorded were that — 45 percent, of these men had a mental state equivalent to that of a normal person aged 10-12. 25 per cent, of these men had a mental state equivalent to that of a normal person aged 13-14. 16-5 per cent, of these men had a mental state equivalent to that of a normal person aged 15. i3'5 P^r cent, of these men had a mental state equivalent to that of a normal person aged over 15. 1000 per cent. If these figures be taken as a fair sample of the possibilities of the total population of approxi- ^ Conklin, E. A., The Direction of Human Evolution, 58 Prohibition in America. mately lOO millions, they show that nearly one-half " will never develop mental capacity beyond the stage represented by a normal 12 years old child and that only 13^ millions will ever show superior intelligence." Even if the above figures be largely discounted, it remains true that a considerable proportion of the population need, during the whole of their lives, some degree of protection, which may and often does imply compulsion. The normal majority may go even further and regard themselves as entitled to exercise judicious compulsion over the defective minority, even though, and — it may be suggested, especially when — in doing so they find it necessary to deprive themselves and other normal persons of a source of enjoyment. The real equality which modern life is gradually making possible for all is equal-handed justice, absence of special privileges, and freedom from hindrances which hamper a man in finding his own place in life. The true view of equality is implied in the words of Professor A. Monger, of the University of Vienna, " there is no greater incquahty than the equal treatment of unequals." Apply this axiom to the economic world, to women, to children, to tenants of insanitary houses, to persons engaged in dangerous occupations, to sick persons, to persons whose conduct increases the risk of injury of or misconduct by others, and it becomes possible to realize that coercion may be and often is a channel or avenue to greater liberty, to Relation to Principles of Good Government. 59 liberation from bondage, whether economic, social, family, or personal. Steam only realizes its possi- bilities of utility when imprisoned, and a river only when canalized within banks. If this be so, and inasmuch as compulsion admit- tedly is indispensable in the control of the feeble- minded, of children, and of primitive races, then its use in civilized society must be regarded as a necessity of social life. That it is at least defensible if not also desirable is suggested by the national schemes of insurance against sickness in Germany and the United Kingdom, an instance which has not been adduced above. Here the State deliber- ately decided that, although voluntary Friendly and other thrift Societies existed on a large scale and were doing admirable work, a system of com- pulsory State-aided thrift, in which State-aid (the employer's contribution as well as that from the Exchequer is State-aid by taxation) was thrust on the insured persons, and they on their part were compelled to pay a fraction of the total expendi- ture. Here, undoubtedly, public policy assumed the superiority of social over individual interests ; and compelled all below a given income limit, or those who are employed persons, to insure against certain contingencies in life. In communal life unrestricted individual liberty is impossible. " Utility interpreted in its highest ethical sense should determine when coercion is to be applied " (Willoughby) ; and the reconcilia- tion of liberty and government is to be attained by 6o Prohibition in America. the governed being a willing partner in government, by his identifying his own will with the social will, and thus " obeying his own will, purified from selfishness. ' ' When thus viewed citizenship becomes the practice of Christianity. The justification of coercion in a particular direc- tion, is that it is action based on recognition of the real value of humanity, and aimed at the increase of this value. It has necessary limitations, result- ing from the unwilhngness of minorities to be coerced ; and this unwillingness has been very manifest in recent pohtics. In general, however, a law which has been enacted under popular govern- ment can be enforced ; and the difficulties suggested above are a most potent factor in preventing hasty legislation. The same difficulties lead to the revocation of a law or to its becoming a dead letter. The statute books of the American States are crowded with enactments, a large proportion of which are not enforced ; and it may be that this will be the fate of the National Prohibition Act. But that present public opinion will not permit this is evident ; and there is the further guarantee against inertia that the States and the Federal Government have concurrent powers for enforcing the Act. A recent declaration of Governor Miller to the New York State Legislature is significant. *' We have nothing to do with the policy or the wisdom of the law. ' ' He adds that ' ' honest enforce- ment of the law may lead to its modification." That is the constitutional method of action. A law which will not bear the test of enforcement stands Relation to Principles of Good Government. 6i self- condemned. Whether Prohibition will endure the test of enforcement in an increasing degree in every part of America remains to be seen. It will certainly be put to this test. My own view is that the American public will endorse the action already taken, insist on its continuance and extension, and that prohibition will remain in operation as the law of the land. The above general considerations lead to the following fairly obvious conclusions : — 1. Compulsion is a necessary element in govern- ment. 2. Success in government can only be permanent when government is with the consent of the governed, i.e. democratic. 3. Democratic government is government by majorities. 4. Majority government is practicable perman- ently, and can secure the general benefit of society, only if the welfare of the majority is given priority over personal liberty ; if majority rule is accepted even when contrary to personal views ; and if no large proportion of the population demand the privilege of disobeying laws which run counter to their own appetites or opinion. 5. In nearly all civiHzed communities there has been systematic and increasing intervention, not only in regard to freedom of contracts and the distribution of wealth, but also in matters which imply diminished freedom of action for the many in order to protect the few, e.g. in the limitation of hours of labour, in the war-time provisions against 62 Prohibition in America. excessive rent, and in impediments to the sale of alcoholic drinks. 6. In all such matters, moral action voluntarily undertaken would be preferable to compulsory action. But moral suasion acts slowly. Mean- while multitudes of innocent persons continue to suffer, and the community suffers in pocket and in efficiency. This is the case for compulsion, and it is a good case. When such compulsion is proposed to be exercised it should, as a rule, fulfil the following conditions : (i) It should, of course, be with the consent of the majority of the people ; (2) compul- sion must be practicable ; (3) it must not be of such a nature or to such an extent that it will cause greater difficulties or evils than the evil which it is proposed to overcome ; on the contrary it should be of such a character that the enforcement of the law will be likely to convert a recalcitrant minority to its support. Applying these considerations to the case of pro- hibition of the manufacture and sale of alcoholic drinks, America can afford to hear with compla- cency G. K. Chesterton's gibe: "Your country began with the Declaration of Independence and ends with prohibition." For Americans prohibition is not a habit of mind, but a means to secure libera- tion from a great slavery ; and if the will of the people remains constant, then America will have successfully carried through the boldest and most momentous experiment in social reform which the world has known. Appendix. SUMMARY OF THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION ACT. The exact title of the Act is as follows : — An Act to prohibit intoxicating beverages, and to regulate the manufacture, production, use, and sale of high-proof spirits for other than beverage purposes, and to insure an ample supply of alcohol and promote its use in scientific research and in the development of fuel, dye, and other lawful industries. Title I. To provide for the Enforcement of War Prohibition, Section i . Defines an intoxicating liquor as any beverage which contains one-half of i per centum or more of alcohol by volume. Section 2 . Makes the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and his agents responsible for investigating and reporting violations of the War Prohibition Act. Section 3. Any room, house, building, boat, vehicle, structure, or place of any kind where intoxicating liquor is sold, manufactured, kept for sale, or bartered in violation of the War Prohibition Act, and all intoxicating liquor and all property kept and used in maintaining such a place, is hereby declared to be a public and common nuisance, and 63 64 Appendix. any person who maintains or assists in maintaining such pubhc and common nuisance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than %ioo nor more than $1,000, or be imprisoned for not less than thirty days or more than one year, or both. It further makes the owner of the implicated property liable to the same penalties, if he has knowingly permitted the trade. Sections 4-6. Give powers for temporary injunctions, etc. Title II. Prohibition of Intoxicating Beverages. Section i. Repeats and expands the preceding definition of intoxicating beverages. Section 2. As above. Section 3. No person shall on or after the date when the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States goes into effect, manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, furnish or possess any intoxicating liquor except as authorized in this Act, and all the provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed to the end that the use of intoxicating liquor as a beverage may be prevented. Liquor for non-beverage purposes and wine for sacramental purposes may be manufactured, pur- chased, sold, bartered, transported, imported, exported, delivered, furnished and possessed, but only as herein provided, and the commissioner may, upon application, issue permits therefor. Section 4. Provides for exceptions as regards denatured alcohol, medicinal pharmacopceial preparations, " patented, patent, and proprietary medicines that Appendix. 65 are unfit for use for beverage purposes," toilet, etc., preparations, vinegar, sweet cider. Section 5 . Provides for analysis of any suspected articles under Section 4. Section 6. Gives the rigid conditions under which " permits " to " manufacture, sell, purchase, trans- port, or prescribe any liquor " can be given. The following items may be quoted : — No one shall be given a permit to prescribe liquor unless he is a physician duly licensed to practise medicine and actively engaged in the practice of such profession. Every permit shall be in writing, dated when issued, and signed by the commissioner or his authorized agent. It shall give the name and address of the person to whom it is issued and shall designate and limit the acts that are per- mitted and the time when and place where such acts may be performed. No permit shall be issued until a verified, written application shall have been made therefor, setting forth the qualification of the applicant and the purpose for which the liquor is to be used. The commissioner may prescribe the form of all permits and applications and the facts to be set forth therein. Before any permit is granted the com- missioner may require a bond in such form and amount as he may prescribe to insure compliance with the terms of the permit and the provisions of this title. In the event of the refusal by the commissioner of any application for a permit, the applicant may have a review of his decision before a court of equity in the manner provided in Section 5 hereof. , A special exception is made in respect of wine for sacramental purposes, or like religious rites. 66 Appendix. Section 7. No one but a physician holding a permit to prescribe liquor shall issue any prescription for liquor. And no physician shall prescribe liquor unless after careful physical examination of the person for whose use such prescription is sought, or if such examination is found impracticable, then upon the best information obtainable, he in good faith, believes that the use of such liquor as a medicine by such person is necessary and will afford relief to him for some known ailment. Not more than a pint of spirituous liquor to be taken internally shall be prescribed for use by the same person within any period of ten days and no pre- scription shall be filled more than once. Any pharmacist filling a prescription shall at the time endorse upon it over his signature the word " can- celled," together with the date when the liquor was delivered and then make the same a part of the record that he is required to keep as herein provided. Every physician is required to keep a record of prescriptions for liquor. Section 8. Forbids physicians to prescribe and pharma- cists to dispense liquor except on blanks officially provided, except in cases of emergency, in which event a record and report shall be made and kept. Sections 9-16. Set out regulations for manufacturers, vendors, etc., safeguarding conditions under which liquors may be manufactured or sold, and means of tracing such liquors. Sections 17-19. The advertisement of manufacture, sale, etc., of liquor or of machines, etc., for its prepara- tion is prohibited. Section 20. Gives the right to any person injured by reason of the intoxication of any person of action Appendix, 67 legally against the person who unlawfully supplied the liquor or assisted in providing it. Section 21. Is simUar to Section 3 in the War Prohibi- tion Act. Sections 22-24. Set out conditions of legal procedure against offenders, by temporary or permanent injunctions. Section 25. Makes it unlawful to have or possess any liquor or property designed for the manufacture of liquor intended for use contrary to this Act ; and gives power for the issue of search warrants. Sections 26-28. Are directed against the act of trans- portation of liquor, and authorizes the officer to take possession of the vehicles being employed and to arrest the person in charge of it. They give power for the disposal of articles seized. Section 29. Makes a person manufacturing or selling liquor contrary to this Act liable to a maximum penalty of $1,000 or six months' imprisonment for a first offence. Any offence in connection with a permit or for making a false report is liable to a fine of half the above amount. Sections 30-32. Chiefly legal details. Section 33. After February ist, 1920, the possession of liquors by any person not legally permitted under this title to possess liquor shall be prima facie evidence that such liquor is kept for the purpose of being sold, bartered, exchanged, given away, furnished, or otherwise disposed of in violation of the provisions of this title. But it shall not be unlawful to possess liquors in one's private dwelHng while the same is occupied and used by him as his dwelling only and the possession of such liquors need not be reported, 68 Appendix, provided such liquors are for use only for the personal consumption of the owner thereof and his family residing in such dwelling and of his bond fide guests when entertained by him therein ; and the burden of. the proof shall be upon the possessor in any action concerning the same to prove that such liquor was lawfully acquired, possessed, and used. Section 34. Authorizes inspection of records and reports under the provisions of this Act by the Commissioner or his agents, etc. Sections 35 et seq. Chiefly legal. Title III. Relates to Industrial Alcohol. Printed by P. S. KiNG & SoN, Ltd.. Orchard House, Westminster University of Connecticut Libraries 39153028220871 i*''^, jn-ifV' ^ •i- ".t»:i. »<:-.^iU.^ • V" ■if .%{ *i^. '■:^^5f:*^ f.^i^v;| :-^:;:^;lu-. i 1