Evening star., 1926-04-12
Rev. Chas. Stelzle Defends
His Prohibition Figures
To the Editor of The Star:

1 Az thO EsuAlUT VI 1Ho Oth'
| Replying to J. B. Debnam's letter
in your issue of April S. which has
| just come to my notice, concerning
| the address / gave on 1.-THE Facts
| About Prohibition" in the First Con-
gregational Church during Holy
Week, l would say that the statistics
| on arrests for drunkenness were OBJ
ta1ned from the Moderation League
| a distinctly "wet" organiZatiOn--and
were for $50 cities with a population
OF 5000 and over. In the course Of
my remarks 1 quoted directly from
their own printed report, National
| Survey Of Conditions Under Prohibi-
tion," to demonstrate that, according
to the testimony of the "wets" them
selves, the number of arrests had de.
creased rather than increased.
| According to this report, arrests for
intoxication had materially decreased
In most Of the larger cities--for ex.
ample. in San Francisco the arrests
J In 1914 were 1924 and in 1924.
1883: in Boston, 59,159 in 1914 and
1886 In 1924; in st. Louis, SPIT in
| 19l4 and 1851 in 1924; in Buffalo,
! 1918 in 1914 and 1l,135 in 1924; in
! New York City, 23.O41 in 1914 and
1906 In 1924. 1t should be remem.
! Dered that these figures do not take
into account the increase in popula.
ton In these cities, which averaged
approximately Is per cent.
| Inc hgures given for Chicago in.
Guided those for disorderly conduct
and therefore are not valid for this
discussion, although they were en-
tered in the Moderation Leagues s
grand total Of arrests. In Detroit,
the number of arrests for 1914, ac-
cordlng to the report, was 9,404, and
IN 1924, 1877, showing an apparent
Increase or 46 per cent, but the popu.
Iatloh increase for 10 years according
10 the latest available census figures
was 113 per cent. In Phi|adelpbia.
the percentage Of increase of arrests
was per cent, but the population
increased approximately II per cent.
In Washington d. c., the arrests for
drunkenness as given in this report
were S.837 in 1914 and 9,149 in 1924
an increase of 3n per cent, whereas
. the increase In population was over
80 per cent. While the increase in
population here shown was from 1910
10 1920, there is no doubt that the in.
crease from 1914 to 1925 was approxi
mately in the same ratio
| Mr.. Debnam then coInpares the j,,
crease in the figures for arrests in
this country, where laws against
drunkenness and liquor violation are
the strictest of any country in the
WorId, with the number of arrests ir
Europen countries In which every
thlng Is wide open and where com
paratlVely few people are arrested for
drunkenness. Obviously. such q
CoInparison-where laws are totally
atHerent-ls unfair and unscientific
furthermore, Mr.. Debnam compares
convictions" for drunkenness abroad
. %r.ft
in the United States.
the Strictest of any collntr-,. IN tbo
world. with the number, Of arrests in
european countries in which every.
thlnS is wide open and where com.
pafatiVely few people are arrested for
drunkenness. Obiously, such a com.
pafison-where laws are totally dif.
ieFent-ls unfair and unscientific.
Furthermore. Mr.. Debnam compares
convictions" for drunkenness abroad
as against arrests" for drum Nnness
III the United States.
hlr. Debnam declares that ain
one OF the highest priced propagan.
dists OF the Anti-Saloon League"
nave never received d dollar from the
Antl-Saloon League nor from any
other prohibition organization, and I
certainly have never been zone Of the
Anti-Saloon Leagues stars'-ask the
Anti-Saloon League! Furthermore, |
made no prohibition speeches from
the time the amendment was passed
until debated the question with
Capt. William II. Stayton in an open
forum il MOntclair, n. j., q few
months ago. Nor did receive a fee
upon this occasion. | appeared merely
as a citizen who was interested in q
great public question. My approach
to the liquor problem through the
years has been that Of a sociologist
rather than that of a prohibitionist
and In my public discussions / have
tried fairly to look ut both sides-and
there are two sides to the prohibition
situationi
For two years previous to the
passing OF the eighteenth amendment
made study of the economic
aspects Of the liquor problem, secur
| ing my data in this country and from,
European sources. This study was
financed by an individual. and not by
the Anti-Saloon League, although
some of my material was distributed
by the league under its imprint
Therefore, whatever connection l haG
with the league was purely nominal
In no sense was it ever financial
Mr.. Debnan quotes ME as saying
| IIidAy YEARS ago Wnon l was IN st
Louis that ''the saloon was a. great
boon 10 the laboring man" The fact
is l said this in Washington the othe,
day in the First Congregations
Church. have not changed my min(
on this point. But, while the saloon
undoubtedly served as an important
social center in the life Of many
workingmen, it nevertheless was q
curse to the great body of workers
This Is now admitted by the vets
themselves. for they declare unani
mously that they do not want the
saloon returned. so that there is nc
need for argument on this point.
My study of the prohibition cues
ton had demonstrated clearly to me
that from an economic standpoint the
liquor men We're absolutely wrong ir
their assertions that a catastrophe
would result from the passing of a
law for prohibition, and I am per
suaded that these conclusions have
been substantially verified.
CHARLES STELZLE.
Retirement Saves Money