New Britain herald., 1926-01-14

' former counsel for the Anu.saloon League of America and the latter chairman ot the association against tho prohibition amendment,
 MT Whecler's remarks run some thing liko thls, National prohibi- ton has six years Of notable achievements back Of it. in spite Of the "organi2ci resistance Of minority opinion" Among other things he claims that it has dc- creased death rates, alcoholic in- sanity and industrial accidents, lowered arrests and commitments 1 for drunkenness and cut paupcr- i ism to tho loWcat ratio In our his- i tory, According 10 his figures, fines and penalties imposed in federal courts amounted 10 s7.9S4bih" nearly equivalent 10 $9,20Lj34 spent for federal enforcement by tho prohibition uni'," He pins his statistics on drunkenness onto Judge Gcmmiu of Chicago, stating that it Eas decrrasrd about 35o,- ooo per year The fall Of the aver. ago death rate from 13.Oo In the license era to 11.9 is hailed as partly due 10 prohibition,
 On tho other hand wc have Cap. tain Stayton's statement. Ho claims that prohibition is dying. During 1894 as hc H"rs fl, arrests for drunkenness have increased 100 per cent over 1919 inc last wet year, "rhe dry forces have strug- glcd to keep Inc failure Of the cause from the public,' he claims and there is increased crime drunkenness, insanity and corrup- ton, and millions of dollars Of the taxpayers money expended in | futile attempt 10 enforce inc law"
 Neither of which statements Will 1 aid the cause represented, in our opinion. They are both too broad in their claims and certainly deny each other.
 Mir. Whcelcrs figures on fines and costs of enforcement do not help his arguments to any great extent. however. The net loss is about s1,- 1 300, GOO. That is, il cost over a mil
 lion more 10 enforce the law than
 was collected in fines. He might
 have omitted this reference, Thcra
 must have bcen many liquor trans
 actions 10 have had the fines rug
 as high. and he states that tht
 public is not "Wct" and IS losing it's
 inclination 10 be "Wet." In addition, | as long as he prefers 10 quote fig
 ures 10 prove that prohibition ig
 very nearly a going concern" why
 not tak" into account the money
 lest 10 the United States through
 loss of taxation on liquor on the
 man who sells it and the brewer
 who makes 1t. Revenue from these
 sources must have run high dur
 ing pre- prohibition days. There i' . no income tax collected from boot : Ircgors these days, which is surelS
 considerable legs to the govern
 mcrt.
 Finally. it is of interest to glance
 at figures on prohibition furnished
 from another source, George Britt an N. F.. A. service writer, has com piled these statistics: The cost oi the six years war has been $S9,' T52,721, minus taxes and f1ne' amounting to S@7477,41l, plus tho 3 cost of a greatly enlarged coas - guard and the cost of prosecutions r The budget Of the dry army fo
 1926 will run 10 $l0,000, ,000, h. $ states. There are 3,2H people, no y including coast guardsmen, carryin = on the warfare for the govern s mnnt.
 e Daring the six ycars of prohibi | ton $50. .o0o,ooo worth of propert e was seized and destroyed, includin a 100000 gallons of spirits, 26,"0o, z GOO gallons of malt liquor, 1S,0o # automobiles and 600 boats, 5 T. is useless 10 attempt to arGu q prohibition, from either side, wit r an indi,idual converted to on @ policy CT the other, Statistics ma d be made to prove most anythin 't and the fanatic will discount an IS figures quoted If by no other mcar n than a blank denial. Meanwhil g there is liquor about much of
 is yery poor stuff and the cause " six years old,