Arizona republican., 1911-04-09

l ! probable utility of laws absolutely
 prohibiting the sale of intoXicants
 may advantageously be considered from two quite different standpoints: l first the standpoint of feasibility, and second the standpoint of eXpediency.
 In other words we have to inquire 1 first whether prohibitory laws do in 1 fact prohibit. or even retard, the sale
 of liquor; and second whether such laws. even if they were effective, would advance the cause of temper
 ance in the best way.
 The Prohibition Movement in Epitome.
 First as to the efficacy of prohibit tory laws. Theoretically. and argu-
 ing from the history of sumptuary | laws in general. it could not well be
 expected that an attempt to control | by drastic laws so deep seated an ap- petite as the desire for intoxicants would be effective. But fortunately we are not confined to theories; the question has been put to the test again and again. and the results are matters of record that, in their larger aspects at least, are scarcely open to dispute. It is a matter of history, for example, that a widespread and ardent crusade in the interest of prohibition was prosecuted in the United States more than half a century ago. with such practical results that between the years 1S46 and 1855 no fewer than sixteen of the thirty-one states had voted prohibition. ProhibitOry laws were in the year 1855 on the statute books of the following States: Maine, New Hampshire. Vermont, Massachu- setts. Rhode Island. Connecticut, New York. PennsyIvania, Deleware. India ma. Michigan, Iowa, Illinois. and Wis consin and the Ohen) Territories: Nebraska and Minnesota
 From Maine to the Rocky Noun tains." says Doctor Crafts, every Northern State outlawed the barroOm
 by legislature or plebiscite, or both, between 1S45 and 1855, with the sin gle exception of New Jersey, which gave its people local option in 1S47 for one year"
 That, it has been said. was yer itable wave of prohibition; but 1t
 was a rave that soon receded. The fact that these prohibitory laws were soon repealed in every State but one suggests rather unequiVocally that the laws were not regarded as having accomplished what was expected of them; and it is noteworthy that the generation which witnessed this fiasco was allowed to pass from the scene before it became possible to arouse public interest and enthusiasm to the pitch of again testing prohibition on so comprehensive a scale.
 Nevertheless prohibition experiments of one kind or another continued to be tested from time to time in various parts of the country. In 1880 Kansas
 incorporated prohibition into its State Constitution by popular vote. Maine followed four years later. and Iowa soon after. The voters of Iowa soon became dissatisfied with the law and so modified it as to permit local op-. tion.
 Local option was, indeed. the chan mel through which the new wave of prohibition found inlet The first prominent victory indicative of the new movement was won in the year 1896. when Kentucky passed a local
 option law under which. in due course, Bourbon County itself went dry for local and retail sales. The ensuing decade saw the phenomenally rapid spread of local option until in the aggregate vast territories were under this form of prohibitory law. Then came the new wave of Statewide pro- hibition; this time first appearing in
 the South, where Georgia went dry in 1907: followed within three years by Oklahoma, Alabama. North Carolina, Mississippi and Tennessee. Maine.
 Kansas and North Dakota already had prohibtory laws.
 Therefore no fewer than nine States now prohibit the sale of liquor within their bounds Meantime the spread of local option has continued, and prohibition charts show that about half the territory of the United States is now nominally dry Specifically it is claimed that forty-One million people now live in nOminally dry 1 territory.
 The Rising Flood of Liquor. If we were to seek evidence as to
 the actual "dryness" of these regions.
 Statewide or local, we should get devious testimony according to the
 bias of the reporter. There is. how ever. sO it seems to me- source of conclusive evidence that lies entirely | without the bounds of personal pre- | judice This is found in the bald sta tistics of the liquor production and consumption in the United States.
 Thanks to our revenue laws these sta- tistics are unequivocal So far as
 they err at all they underestimate the
 amount of liquor through not being able to include the products of illicit stills
 Now what are the facts of liquor production for, let us say, the past | twenty years, during which time the prohibition movement had made such spectacular advances?
 | Why briefly these: In 1890 the