The copper era and Morenci leader. [volume] (Clifton, Ariz.) 1911-1929, 1914-10-23
IS PROHIBITION THE
REMEDY FOR THE
LIQUOR EVIL?
(By Henry Smith Williams. M D.
LII d.
(EN-ov,, Aba olie.c, Horne Tnyrvno1 Ion

LII. ID.
(From the Ladies' Home Journal, Jan.
LIST, 1917
The choice of Doctor Williams to dis
cuss this subject in The journal is
due to the fact that he has made a
special study of the whole question for
many years, and has written authori-
tatively about it in his book on THE
Effects of Alcohol" He has attended
universities, medical schools and hos
pitfalls, both in this country and in
London, Paris and Berlin; and as a
member of the staff of several State
hospitals and asylums, and particular
" as medical superintendent of the
RandalHs Island hospitals in New
York, as we'll as specialist in mental
and nervous diseases, he has had I'M
usual opportunities to note and investi-
gate every side Of the problem. The
Editor
The question of the possible or prob
able utility of. laws absolutely prohib-
iting the sale of intoxicants may adj
vantageously be considered from two
quite different standpoints; first the
standpoint of feasibility, and second
the standpoint of expediency. In other
words, we have to inquire first
whether prohibitroy laws in fact pro-
hibit, 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, 1t could not well be
expected that an attempt to control
by drastic laws so deep-seated an APP
petite as the desire for into~icants
would be effective. But fortunately
we arr not confined to theories; tie
question has been put to the test
again and again, that in thsir larger
aspects a. least, are scarcely omen 20
Dispute. 1t is a matter of h;Sto:E,.
for example, that a wfdeSpr 3ad ands
ardent crusade H. the interest u, ,.ro-
hib.tioti was prosecuted in tho Unit
I'd States mere tran half y CO: ~
ago, with such practical resu rs that
be ,~een the years 1916 End 10
fewel than si>,een of the thru -Jlle
States had voted prohibition oror Liz
TOR. laws were IN the year 1855 GA the
s-dtute books of the following states:
NJ ,:ac, New Hampshire, Vermont,
NJ. .sachlI*ets. Rhode Island, t'onLcctI-
cnt. New Torl Pennsylvania, .lele-
ware, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, IL
DDS. cnd " Is consin and the ,tliel)
Territories: Nebraska and Minnesota
From Maine to the Rocky Noun
tains," says Doctor Crafts, every
Northern State outlawed the barrooln
by legislature or plebiscite, or both,
between 1S45 and 1855, with the
gave its people local option in 1S47
for one year.
That, it has been said, was a VERT
able wave of prohibition; but it was
a wave that soon receded. The fact
that these prohibitory laws we're soon
repealed in every State but one sug-
gests rather unequivocally that the
laws were not regarded as having ac-
complished what was expected Of
them: and it is noteworthy that the
generation which witnessed this fiasco
was allowed to pass from the scene
before 1t became possible to arouse
public interest and enthusiasm to the
pitch of again testing prohibition on
so comprehensive a scale.
Nevertheless prohibition experiments
one kind or another continued to
be tested from time to time in various
parts of the country. In 1880 Kansas
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 OPP
ton.
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
fo{1 soil hn n o.
decade saw the phenomenally rapid
spread of local option until in the ag-
gregate vast territories were under
this form of prohibitory law. Then
came the new wave of Statewide prohi
bition; this time first appearing in the
South, where Georgia went dry in
1907; followed within three years by
Alabama, North Carolina,
Mississippi and Tennessee. Maine,
Kansas and North Dakota already had
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 of the territory of the United
States is now nominally dry"
Specifically it is claimed that forty |
million people now live in nomnially |
dry" 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, a source Of |
eoi elusive evidence that lies entirely |
the bounds of personal preiu-
dice. This is found in the bald sta |
tiSrics of the liquor production and |
con sumption in the Uo led States |
Thanks to our revenue laws these sta
.istics are unequivocaI. So far as they |
err at all they underestimate the |
of liquor through not being |