Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1917-07-04
Burning a House to Roast a Pig


| ceived revenue from revenue taxes on
| alcoholic beverages of $4,000, 900 from
distilled spirits and $89,000,000 from
fermented liquors, making less tnan
one-Quarter of d billion altogether.
This is less than 10 per cent. of the
subscriptions to the liberty loan, and
less than per cent. Of the per annum
wartime Federal expenditure-possibly
/. less than per cent; while the part de-
rived from fermented liquors is less
than 2 per cent of the annual cost OF
the federal government and perhaps
less than l per cent. These taxes are
of course paid not by the industry, but
by the consumer as part of the two
and ne-quarter billions (s2,225,0O0. OOW.
he pays in the retail price of liquors
leaving two billions $4,000, O0O,OQO
additional cost WHICH the government
does not get and which is worse than
wasted for the nation. 1t is what we
pay to liquor dealers and producers for
rarcotizing us.
Now that the Psychologists, and also
the American Medical Association Con
June 18th inst.) condemn alcoholic
bevera ges we are justified in saying
that the ildtlOll lOSCS I"O oAAAAOAAS
| worth of energy in their production.
Under prohibition the same two and
one quarter billions would be spent on
non alcoholic drinks and other things.
That is, the nations labor and capital
now so wasted would be transferred
into channels truly productive. Inc
government could then get the same
quarter of billion from the same peo-
Die and still leave a. it were two bill
lions in their pockets. There would be
that value produced in additional FOOD
munitions, clothing. etc. Besides this
transfer Of productive energy there
would also be an increase OF productive
! energy. Experiments show that two 10
four glasses of beer day will impair
the work done in typesetting by per
cent. increase the time required for
heavy mountain marches % per CENT
! and accuracy in shooting unoer severe
army tests 80 per cent.
Assuming the total alcohol used In
the United States to be consumed uni
! formly among its families and assum-
ing as in the typesetting experiment
! that each daily glass of beer REDUCES
productivity per cent. to per CENT
/ it follows that the productivity OF ldoor
in the United States would be In
creased from 10 per cent to ~ per
| cent. by prohibition. But if as is the
fact the consumption is unequally ols-
! tributed the impairment Will OF course
| be greater, that is, ten glasses or beer
will produce more than twice the I'M
pairment of five glasses. Therefore III
per cent. increase is a safe minimum
| More direct evidence is available. In
Russia textile mills have Increased
productivity Q per cent. since vodka
prohibition and in textile mills the
pace is almost rigidly fixed by machin-
! cry. The Russian minister of finance
reports that in mining districts the in
creased productivity has been so per
cent. Observers in Finland find in
mining districts an increase of so per
cent. A Connecticut manufacturer who
/ made careful reckoning as to what
drunkenness among his employees cost
/ him found that its elimination alone,
without eliminating moderate drinking,
would increase his factory out put over
% per cent. Consequently in View of
all these and other facts we are safe in
! concluding that labor productivity
would be increased at least 10 per cent.
through prohibition so that the wages
and profits in territory now wet would
expand over 10 per cent.
Basing estimates for 1917 on fig
ures of Professor King Of Wisconsin
for 1909 and 1910 the present total
income of the people of the United
/ States representing the entire national
productive energy is about forty five
billion dollars ($450G0, DOC. 000) s,of which
, three fourths consists of wages and
profits. Assume that the remainder,
consisting of interests, rents, etc, is
not increased through prohibition and
count only the tkirty-three billion ($S3.-
| 900, 900, 600 Of wages and profits. Most
Of this is produced in the wet territory
where our large cities and industries
are. A rough study shows that two
thirds Of our national wealth is in the
wet area, also three fourths Of our cor
porate incomes and four iirths OF our
personal incomes subject to income ,ax,
/ therefore, at least two-rnlrds of the
nations wages and profits are produced
| in wet area or over twenty-five bill
lions. Applying the estimated possible
increase of 10 per cent we discover
that we would at least gain in added
production through the release Of hu-
man energy two and twotenths e.
| zoe, coo ,000) billions. This is in addition
to the two billions saved merely by
transferring our energies from alco-
hol production to something possessing
true value. The gain through the In
crease of energy are together therefore
over four billions, without counting
the indirect saving usually emphasized
in connection with the moral side by
saving the cost Of jails, almshouses.
asylums. etc. nor counting the econ
omic saving from reducing the death
rate. It is therefore pennywise and
pound foolish to argue that prohibition
destroys revenue-it simply requires .
transfer Of taxes from alcoholic bev.
eraees to non. alcoholic beverages
and the other productions to which
our energies would be transferred.
My colleague, Professor Adams, has
suggested a definite scheme for new
tax levies. Other schemes are easy ia
construct. Congress can do this. The
net result will obviously not be addi-
tional economic or tax burdens, but
quite to contrary. One might as well
argue against a public health measure
to reduce the death rate on the ground
that it would reduce inheritance taxes