The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-11-29
each thousand or population; the aver
age OF arrests per saloon lis 1913.
s3The NUM- he + of salonila In New Work

each Thousand or population; the aver
age of arrests per saloon Ifs 1914
The number Of SALOONS 90 IN New YORK
with an average OF 1897 arrests for
each saloon In tho course Of a year.
In Philadelphia there Is an average
lof 1.41 saloons for each 1000 popula.
ton, and 37.S4 arrests per saloon. Bal
population, and there are 1880 ARE
per Year for each saloon In the CITY,"
Now, Is hot the fallacy clear ii, those
figures? The chief fnllacy Of these ilg.
lprinciple: Given, the number of arrests
IN a town was 500. Then the larger
the divisor--the number of saloons--
the smaller the auotient-number Of
arrests per saloon" For example, with
In Milwaukee or Cincinnati or Dayton,
and with, substantially the same degree
OF drunkenness there will be Sub
stnntth1 fixed Number of arrests in each
town. pyaa, say for &, there are 5oo
can easily see that II there are six sh-
lloons for encl, inhabitant, that would
g be + 9 certain number Of arrests per
nan2n spp ssoea aoRele ths
result is that you double your divisor
OF the number Of arrests and iialve
your quottent II you auadruple the
saloon by four. This process of null
tiplying the number of saloons stead
lily dimfnisfes the proportion OF arrests
Tor each saloon, you can see. But 1t by
no means argues that the number OF
drunken people In Milwaukee or any
where else diminishes by increase of
saloons. I,
Let us suppose there were 1000
snaep killed last year in Virginia by
1000 sheep-killing dogs; this would
mako fntlr ahnpn r,
pose. however. that the following year
but 1000 sheep were Killed. while 1t
turned out that twice the number OF
sheep-killing dogs were at large. and
proposition that the greater the num-
Der OF sheep-killing dogs. the less the
proportion Of sheep that were killed.
what a nice argument that would be-
One thing sure, if4I Were to make 1t
l would feel like killing dog
When its fallacy was exposed. :,
\, Inc article is fully as unfair. fur
thermore, in the Isolated cases selected
from Which to make comparisons, with
outaconsidering the conditions. For in
some cities persons are arrested merely
for drunkenness, while in other cities
ono must be down and out" nui-
sance or greatly disturbing the peace
In order to be arrested for drunken
ness, while many drunken men are ar.
rested in some cities, and the cases are
charged to disturbing the peace,'' ana
not drunkenness.
f,or instance, Harerhill, Mass. with its
rigid enforcement or law and concen-
Ira, OF saloons and 1857 arrests;
and Springfield, O.. with 1856 saloons
II Is notorious that the law has been
we'll enforced in Haverhill, while in
Springfield conditions were SO bad that
AZ least two drunken mobs. in success
n fNn1 a - -
and had to be auelled by calling out
thsA State militia. To have arrested
the drunken people in Springfield pre-
v wiss to g. the r, present administration.
have gotten hold of the management,
would have been practically to have
arrested thousands OF her population.
The saloon and drunkenness SO ruled
that It became impossible to convict OF
murder. Part of the foreign popula-
ton, itself a drunken, debauchsd lot,
rose at last in wrath against dives and
saloons in the control part OF SPRING
held. and In two successive riots burn
ed them out. hung one or two people
IN the public square and held the city
In terror until the State militia was
hurried to restore order. How lifting
to compare such a city with such con-
ditions until recently with the quiet
city of Haverhill, with SO much less
drinking and drunkenness.
Tho fallacy of the figures and the
untalTneSS IN comparing prohibition
cities with certain selected cities under
license. selected out of large mum
ber is fully apparent. and taking some
of the worst law enforcement prohi-
bitlon cities to make comparisons with
and leaving out over half of the prohi-
bition cities which nave such a fine
record.
In the interest OF fair play, 1 feel
confident that you will give us a hear
ing after publishing the other article
50 full of unfairness. j. w. WEST,
Field Secretary Virginia Anti-Saloon
Lea que.
Richmond, Va.
1.-THE Times Dispatch publication was
based on All article from the Washing
ton Herald us o matter of public infor-
nation. But the editor of the Herald
afterwards stated that, although the
article was printed in good faith. 1t
was misleading and that no Census Bu-
reau official or employee. directly or
indirectly. had part in the promulga-
ton of the statements and figures In
question. They werS based upon thel
census figures of 1908, but wholly un-
official and clearly designed to support
one side OF an argument.-Ed. Times
Dispat ch.]
49, "a. -