The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-02-22


destroyed by any amount of ridicule
and falsehood.
Consumption of Intoxicants.
Another test of the failure or sue
cess OF the prohibitory movement is
found In the manufacture OF intoxi-
cants, The liquor traffic and Its part
ners in profits, the wet newspapers,
have shouted gleefully that prohibit
ton is q failure, because more intoxi-
cants were produced and consumed
the past year than the year before.
But this horrible glee at the proof of
the great growth of the alcohol habit
among its victims Is not only a shock
ing exhibition of the callous, unpa-
triotic selfshness, OF the people who
make their money by the ruin. of
their fellows. but Is also an exhibition
of their lack Of logic, If not of their
lack of truthfulness. Commenting
upon these charges. the editor of the
Religious Herald bore testimony Of
the kind that all of us are capable
of bearing who have travelled in our
own State of Virginia and in other
! States where the prohibitory law has
been in force. The editor Of the
! Herald declares that his observation
in dry" sections OF Virginia does not
agree with the claim that there has
been an increase IN the consumption
of intoxicants. Some members of your
legislative committee have travelled
over practically every section OF Viz
ginia, and are familiar with the con
ditions of the growth Of the area
under the "prohibitory law" for the
past ten years. We unhesitatfngly
bear testimony that, in our opinion,
the amount of intoxicants used in the
State to-day IN not more than one
tenth as much In the country districts
and villages as it was ten years ago,
and that II Is not one-fifth as much
in dry towns and cities as 1t was
ten years ago, and this estimate. we
believe to be very conservative. Care
fully compiled statistics for the city
Of Lynchburg indicate that the amount
OF intoyicants imported into that city
during the wet" year was at least
four times as large as during the
| dry year
Any man who has travelled in pro-
hibition States and examined eondi-
tions to-day as compared with ten
years ago will find practically the
same result as in Virginia.
The Government Report.
But, as a matter of fact, the official
government reports gice no ground for
contention tGat prohibition is a fail
ure. because there was an increase In
/ the production and withdrawal Of dis
titled spirits in the United States IN
1910 over the amount produced In
1909. IL the prohibitory law was In
force all ever the United States, an
increase in consumption of liquor
would prove the failure Of prohibit
ton. But unfortunately, prohibition
! is not the law in very many Of the
very large States. The question. there
fore. Is not. Was there an increase
in the consumption Of intoXicants In
the United States7" But. Was there
an increase In the consumption in pro-
hibition territory" The report gives
no direct answer to this question An
indirect answer, however, is given by
this same Internal revenue report.
which indicates decrease in con-
sumption IN prohibition territory. The
report shows that in the prohibition
States ofw Alabama, Mississippi, Geor-
gia, Kansas, Oklahoma, Maine. North
Carolina, Tennessee, North and South
Dakota, there was manufactured, In
the year 1909. l.370.527 gallons of
distilled liquors: while in 1910 there
We're manufactured only 632.005 gal
/ Ions, showing a decrease in the pro-
} hibition States of 7Ss.522 gallons, or
over so per cent. In contrast with
this decrease In the prohibition States
the licensed States of New York.
! Pennsylvanis and Illinois, containing
the three largest wet cities In this
country. show q production OF 52,261.-
92S gallons in 1903 and q production
! of 56.124.Si2 gallons in 1910, showing
an increase in these States alone OF
I 3,Ss2,s43 81 liCns, more than one
third of the total increase for the
year 1910 In this whole country.
II ne In 70
prohibition Ii q failure and the law
Is persistently violated, and more IL
quor is sold in dry territory than
under license, why Is there not an in
crease in the amount of tntoxicants
manufactured in dry States? If it
pays to violate the State law to sell
intoxicants, why will II not pay to yio-
late the State law to manufacture In
toxicants? Does not the fact that the
United States report shows a great
decrease in the manufacture OF intox-
, tcants in dry" territory give a rea-
sonable indies tion that there has also
been q. reasonable. decrease In cara4
sumption and not an increase. as the
drunkard-nakers cisim7 Certainly
there has been no proof advanced to
show any increase in consumption.
/ The Growth of the Alcohol Habit.
| The claim that the increase in with
? III q W @iS Va 0tStt4iSd DOnI
of 1l.691,1fS gallons in the year 1909
IN II proof OF the failure OF prohibi-
!. thon fSafly ignores the wefi-knoWn
fact that the alcohol habit grows on
it's victim. and calls for an increased
: supply of sstmafants.- Our knowledge
of individual users of intoxicants does
not make 1t at all surprising that the
great army of drinkers should demand
en- increase in alcohol of per cent.
within year, which is about the
amount OF Increase in CONSUMPTION In
I The United States in 1910. Many men
with whom We are acquainted in our
own wet cities have increased their
drink bill the past year far more than
1 . per cent. Some of them have In
! creased 20, some so. and some have
( doubled. Unfortunately, there is no
/ difficulty IN explaining the increase
of the consumption OF liquor in the
! United States 3 per cent The in
| crease is alarmingly apparent among
all who are cursed by the habit. The
| Virginian- Pilot attempted to prove
Congressman Hobson to be Illogical.
because he declared that the con-
sumption of intoxicants had largely
( increased IN the United States. and
! yet that the area under prohibition
had largely increased at the same
time. There is nothing illogical about
that. as is wei understood by those
who live in wet communities, and
have dram drinkers among their
J that, 10 YhAyr dnA@o~n