Arizona republican., 1911-04-09

1 United States aggregated less than a billion gallons. the percapita cOnsump- ton being 1853 gallons. In 1907 the amount of liquor consumed had risen above the two billion gallon mark, the per-capita consumption being 23.53 gallons.
 Throughout this period there had been a steady increase both in the aggregate quantity and in the per capita consumption. And this, be it recalled, is the very decade which the prohibitionists point to with such en- thusiasm as witnessing the rapid spread of local option.
 In 1908 and 1909 however. there was distinct decline from the high mark of 1907, and it did appear that the long-awaited turn in the tide had come. But when the new statistics for the fiscal year ending June, 1910, came to light all the hopes aroused by the statistics of the previous two years were rudely shattered. For it appeared that the recession of those two years was only a momentary eb- ping of the tide as if to gather new force; and the flood of alcohol now rose again close. to the high tide" of 1907.
 In the past twenty years. then, the consumption of liquor has more than doubled in the United States. In 1890 there was comparatively little territory under prohibition laws; in 1910 about half the territory of the United States is under such laws. We are forced to conclude either than one half the territory of the country now consumes more than double what the entire territory consumed twenty years ago, or else to make the alternative concession that the dry territories are far enough from being dry in any literal sense.
 IE point of fact, the conclusion seems forced upon us that the. pass ing of Statewide prohibitory laws, and the great accessions to the locally dry territory in the years 190S9 did for the moment restrict the sale of liquor in these territories; but that only a few months were required in which to establish new channels of illicit distribution. after which the traffic went ahead with renewed inn petus.
 Sixty Years of Prohibition.
 In the. figures just given l have purposely limited the view to the most recent epoch, because the period in question has been marked by steady and rapid progress of the pro- hibition movement. It may be worth while. however. to illustrate on a wider scale the futility of. the tenn perance movement, as hitherto prose cuted. in checking the consumption of alcohol. The figures are no less than appalling and should command the attention of every well-wisher of the races whatever his temperance pro clivities. It appears that in 1850, at the time the first great prohibition movement was just gaining headway. the annual per-capita consumption of alcoholic beverages in the United States was 4OS gallons In 1860 it had risen to 6.49 gallons; in 1870 to TO gallons: in 1880 to 10.0S gallons: in 1890 in 1858 gallons; in 1900 toI 17.6s gallons; in 1910 to more than 23 gallons.
 It appears, then, that the aggregate net result of sixty years of temper ance legislation is that the average American today consumes almost six times as much liquor as did the average American of 1850. The re- deeming feature of the case is that the average man now drinks vastly more beer and relatively less spirits; but this change is not on for which prohibition can be responsible. IL is obvious that in an attempt to evade prohibition laws the more condensed spirits (bei lg easier to handle. ship and conceaD will tend to take the place of the more bulky. ones: hence in so far as prohibition has affected the relative status of distilled spirits and beer its influence must pre- sumably have favored the former In point of fact the consumption of dis titled spirits alone in the veal 1896 (the year in which Kentucky passed the local option law as just noted) had fallen to 1.01 gallons per capita. But now the consumption of spirits again increased year by year. and in 1897 it had risen to 1.63 gallons per capita.
 The Case of Maine.
 If we turn from this general pre- sentation of the results of prohibition to consider an individual instance, the case selected would naturally be that of Maine, which is known as the banner prohibition state. It is ex- tremely difficult to characterize con ditions where the clements of polit- ical partisanship and temperance fa- naticism cannot well be eliminated. The situation in Maine was, however, subjected to d most careful and can did investigation by the Committee of Fifty almost twenty years ago. with results that were far from inspiriting to the friends of temperance.
 MT. Holman Day, himself a loyal resident of the State and a member of the party which for SO many years has dominated the political situation there, summarizes the conditions that