Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-04-06
me Funny Ynr,. Of XXX


To the Editor Of the Dispatch:
When any one is under obligation as
an advocate TO prove that grog-shop
drinking does not promote crime and
pauperism he needs the sympathy OF his
audience. 1t Is not his fault that the
experience Of every one Of his readers
is against him, and honest failure would
bring no disgrace. But XXX has a
second time been exceedingly uufortu-
nate in his use OF figures, as will now
appear. In his first article, in which
he showed "by official facts " that
900, 600 gallons Of intoxicating liquors
we're consumed in four prohibitory
States, he neglected to add that if they
had consumed their proportion Of the
liquors drunk in the United States the
amount would have been over 6,000,-
600 gallons instead Of $4,000. The
fresh "oflicial facts which cannot be
impeached or controverted" which he
msrshals in the Dispatch of the 18th
will prove equally disastrous to his
cause.
NIX begins by separating the white
and colored races in his statistics "i0r
reasons which are doubtless obvious to
all" When one remembers that crime
is proportloned to poverty and social
condition rather than to race, 1t may
not be so clear TO him why NM
should have divided his criminal Stats
tics on the color-line instead OF making
a comparison of lsborers with laborers,
tradesmen with tradesmen, &C., in the
States selected, ss statisticians usually
do. The reader might also not exactly
see why communities so different in the
character of their population and social
customs as are Maine and Virginia
were selected for comparison when the
same page from which the writer got
| his statistics for these gave him the
figures of much more similar commu-
mites, such as Maine and Connecti-
cut. But some light will come as
to the reasons of Xxx when the
reader reflects that in cutting OIL
the G3l,6l6 colored people in Vir-
einia he set aside the great bulk Of the
| laboring class in our State, while the
omission Of the | ,45l cOlored people OF
Maine left the great mass Of the labor
ing class in that State in the white
column. Thus, by excluding colored
people, be is enabled to compare the
comparatively well-to-do classes Of
Virginia with practically the whole
mass of the population of Maine. rich
and poor. This, | say, gives us sug-
gestion as to the cause of such an
anomalous method, but as soon as we
try the effect of a comparison without
such separation the reasons why it was
made become perfectly obvious. The
question at issue is, " Does prohibition
diminish crime?" That is, Is the
entire number of criminals in Maine
greater or smaller, in proportion to
population, than in Virginia?
The effect of the division on the color
line is to make it appear that in both
white and colornd races crime was more
prevalent in Maine than in Virginia
thus, white prisoners in Maine were one
in 1913; in Virginia, one in 2,jlC; and
colored prisoners in Maine there were
Just seven of them, one in 2O1 /; in Nlr-
ginia, one in j2j. Does not this lead
the reader to believe that the entire
number Of criminals is larger in pro-
portion to population in Maize than in
Virginia (which was the thing to be
proven:
But let us try it without separating
the races Il quote from his own au-
thority- the United States Census Of
ISSO): Total prisoners in Maine, 40S;
population, Gas, 93G, or one in 1880.
Total prisoners in Virginia, 1854
population, $40, 5G5, or onein 973.
Thus it is seen that comparison is
largely in faror Of Maine, the prohibit
foyy State, as all sound reason would
lead one to expect, and it is also seen
that XXX, in composing the fallacy
of Mr.. Crenshaw's haDhazard asSer-
TONS" separated the total criminals
into white and colored for reasons
which are now at least obvious" But
why did not xxx select two States
close together, with similar laboring
population and social customs: lie
had the whole table Of the United
States statistics before him. Why not
compare Maine with some New Eng
land State not under prohibition! lie
might, for example, have taken from
his table Maine and Connecticut for
comparison, and the figures would have
been Prisoners-Maine (prohibition),
in $50; Connecticut Qicensel, in
S57. That is nearly two to one in
favor of the prohibition State.
Is anything further needed to show
that prohibition diminishes crime: |
would thank "XXX" for the two
striking demonstrations he has been the
occasion of bringing before the public
" from official facts which cannot be
impeached" that prohibition greatly
diminishes the amount of liQuor.con-
sumers and lessons criminal expenses
did | not think that such an unfair and
dsipgenuous use Of figures as he has
attempted to use should rather be re-
buked as unworthy Of the adyocateeven
of bad cause. 1t is my rule in con-
troyersial writing 10 sign my own name,
and ! am, very truly.
W. W. SMITH.