The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-06-06
The Question
 Of Prohibition
Explanation of Large Increse in
 Use of Alcoholic Beverages

The following address. explaining the large increase in the use of alco- holic beverages as admitted by. the Northern Presbyterian Assembly in it's meeting at Atlantic City, is being mailed to leading ministers of the United States by T. M. Gilmore, Pres ident of the National Model License League:
 To the Ministers Of the United States:
 Some years ago in my first address to the ministers of the United states l declared that a prohibitory law that only prohibited the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages, and did not prohibit the purchase, possession and use of such beverages, would be merely destructive to revenues and to private property. and would not in any way curtail either the use or the abuse of whisky. wine and beer.
 Since that address was issued the prohibition agitation has been kept up by its devoted and deluded follow CTS and until a year ago the move ment made great headway, but now comes the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, speaking from Atlantic City on May 23, and declares that There is an alaRxning increase in the use of alcoholic liquors in the United States, on the whole,' and that Only harm can result from decelv- ing the public by charts which indi- cate a rapid advance in temperance legisla ton and by boastful statem ents a bout making the map all white while we are doing nothing of the kind
 '"rhe Assembly also declared that the per capita drink biIl in the year 1910 was $24.17, or $111.1S as the annual drink bill of the average Am erican family"
 This is an honest admission from the Presbyterian General Assembly that prohibition iS a Stupendous fail ure and furthermore, that mislead- ing charts and statements have been isSsued to deceive the public and dis guise the actual results arising from such legislation.
 My address to the ministers of the United States was issued after quarter of century's study of the liquor question and a thorough inves- iigation of prohibitions; and I knew that prohibition had never prohibit ed was not expected to prohibit and would never be adopted if it did pro- hibit; and I knew 1t was destroying the peace and good will in our var iOus communities turning Iong- time friends into bitter enemies, convert ing thousands of pulpits into political rOstrums and thousands of preachers into political agents of a political or SaniZa ton.
 ''In conseCuence of which I felt justified in advising against the adop- ton of such destructive legislation when I was absolutely certain that TO good could result from it.
 of course, I was very much criti- cized by the agents of the Anti-Sa- loon League, by a large number of ministers and to some extent by the press. and the question was asked me Then why does the liquor trade oppose prohibition if prohibition does not prohibit?'
 T tried to expIain that liquor men were opposed to prohibition because they did not want their business out lawed, and did not want to ship whisky into forbidden territory and did not want their property destroy ed as it was destroyed whenever pro- hibitien was adopted.
 II explained that the newspapers of the country would h. opposed to a movement to prohibit newspapers, all though the effect of such a move ment would undoubtedly be to in crease the sale of newspapers, and I am sure that ministers would be op- posed to movement to prohibit the sale of Bibles, although such a move ment would undoubtedly increase enormously the sale of the BibIe.
 Furthermore, I am sure that min isters would oppose such prohibition on the ground that it would be an in- reference with individual liberty and freedom of thought.
 Time has passed since these first addresses were sent out, effects have followed causes and testimony is now being borne as to the futility of pro- hibition, not merely from the so-call- ed dry states but from the states that have prohibition in the form of coun- ty option.
 Prohibition has not only not pro-