New-York tribune., 1918-04-21

has to be paid for by some incon-
venlence and dsarrangement. No in
novatlon of which | know will cause
less trouble and procure greater bene-
TITS than that of state and nation wide
Giving a semi-ofiicial statement of
the case against alcohol, Andrew &.
Wood, assistant state superintend-
ent of the New York State Anti
Saloon League, repeats his faith IN
the simple fundamental reasons
and lays his emphasis on the "bread
and jam argument" Briefly, this
argument urges that in bread and
Jam you get pleasure with benefit,
whereas in alcohol you get pleasure
with harm. He writes:
|. Having given considerable special
,I!hought to the subject of alcoholic
liquors nave become convinced that
the simple fundamental reasons for
abstinence from liquors and for pro-
hlDltlon Of the traffic in them are after
all the best reasons. Passing over
numerous phases of the problem. with
1he intention of presenting onlv two
main propositions, | will state them in
the simplest terms:
Bread and jam are infinitely hetter
tor human kind than beer and wine
the former being essential. while the
iatter is non-essential and dangerous.
A little girl in home of my acquaint-
ance comprehended the underlying
p.oolen' III TINS respect when she said.
mother, we have had a good time since
father quit drinking haven't we ," The
present world war has greatly illum-
mated the bread and Jam argument.
The Common Mind at Work
Inc mind of the common people.
without entering into all of the tech
meal and metaphysical phases of the
alcoholic question, stands ready to ac-
knowledge these plain distinctions be-
tween the objects to which our food
products are devoted, and sooner or
later Will prevent their being diverted
INTO the useless and dangerous articles
OF consumption.
Inc second proposition which / ad-
vance is that no other plan of dealing
with the traffic in intoXicants has sue.
ceeded like prohibition. There is plenty
OF evil in the liquor traffic as at pres
ent conducted. and the evil is acknowl
eaeed by both advocates and opponents
OF prohlblton. After trying various
pians' winch has been proposed for
curing the evils emanating from the
tratilc, the states to the humber of
twenty-eight adopted prohibition as
the remedy, even though considered
radical by some of it's advocates. In
addition to that, three other states.
which had not adopted it as state
programme, have ratified the national
prohibition amendment. The expert
ence of the states has led them to one
conclusion, namely-absolute prohibi-
ton.
AS the best evidence that prohibition
mas worked better than any other rem
edy which has been attempted, we OBJ
serve that when the brewing interests
en1eavored to reenter prohibition states
last year. the beer policy was over
whelmingly rejected. In other words,
states which had tried out various re-
form measures with the hope of inn
proving the liquor traffic while still re-
tanning it. finally ousted the whole
business, and then, when asked to open
their doors again to beer, reaffirmed
their belief in prohibition. the kind
that prohibits beer as we'll as other
drinks. by larger majorities than when
City Needs New Viewpoint
When the people of a nation have
adopted prohibition covering 80 per
cent of the territory and a majority
of the population of the land the bur
den of proof is transferred to the other
side. The liquor traffic must show why
it should exist. The advantages to be
derived from the conversion of food
supplies into intoxicants and the bene-
fits Of these intoxicants to the race at
large must be clearly established. Our
New York City, being more or less pro-
viewpoint. Why should this city foist
the liquor traffic upon this state and
nation? Didn't we learn that there are
other people in this country when we
received the final returns in the last
national election? Aren't we ready to
concede that the will of the majority
should be applied respecting the liquor
question when we note, that the popu-
lar branch of Congress, in response to
popular sentiment in the United States,
passed the resolution upon national
prohibition by more than a two-thirds
majority? :.
Ite.is clearly the obligation of the
advof9tes of liquor to show why the
Will the majority should not be car
rieUU 4; to come forward with rea-
sons-sWhy the liquor traffic should ex-
list against the wishes of the major
ity; to indicate the advantages to be
gained by the use of alcoholic liquor
instead of the food which is destroyed
to produce it, and what methods of dis
pensing liquor should be employed, if
after a fair trial OF prohibition-it
should seem advisable to inquire after
another remedy.
Indulgence and
the Mentally Deficient
DR.. A. A. Brill is one Of the fore
most exponents of the Freudian sys-
tenn of "psycho-analysis" in the coun-
try. and he carefully noted the COM
plicating effects Of alcoholic indul-
gence in his patients. Excessive in
diligence, he believes, is largely con-
fined to the mentally deficient, and
is result, not a cause. The rea.
disease, he insists, cannot be cured
by prohibition.
Absolute suppression of the use of /
all fermented liquors in my opinion |
would not necessarily increase the gen.
eral health and happiness of the ma
ton.
From long and extensive expert /
IL