Evening star., 1926-11-16
Vets and Drys Both See
Hope in Norway Rum Vote

Norways return to hard liquor
through a referendum vote proved
mildly interesting to America Vets
point to another prohibition failure
while the drys see a striking example
OF the fallacy of the argument that
legalized light wines and beers would
solve this country's problem.
Norway has repealed it's law for
two chief reasOns-difficulty of en-
forcement and trade opposition" it Is
explained by the Milwaukee journal
which observes that ''of the two the
second seemed the more telling"
Portugal, France and SPAIN" adds
the journal, had threatened to ter
inmate their trade agreements with
Norway II the Norwegian markets
were not opened to their heavier
liquors. Norway had always done q
tremendous export business with those
countries in fish and timber and did
not propose to lose it. So drys Joined
with the vets for the protection Of
Norway's trade. Our vets, of course,
Will make all the noise they can over
the victory in Norway. The drys
may retort by saying. Look at Rus
sia,' where the lid has again been
put on the sale Of vodka. But neither
has anything to do with the price of
cider"
"Norway's experience with prohibi-
ton is far different from that of the
United States" according to the James
Vile Gazette. 1T began in 1917 with
the prohibition of the importation of
l1quors containing more than 12 per
cent OF alcohol. In 1919 that was
changed to the permanent prohibition
hnII h NGyiv, r,SS
content OF II per cent We're allowed e"
referring to the threats of termina.
ton OF trade treaties, the Gazette
records the Norwegian Parliament's s
action raising the maximum to 21 per
cent and approving an agreement witt
France Ito take 100, 600, 900 gallons of
cognac in exchange for Norway's fish.
1t was heavy drain on the Nor
Weg1an treasury and the situation be-
came intolerable," continues the Ga
zette. THE government found it was
paying by taxation for its4own fish
AS we'll as France for LIQUOR. The
people have now abandoned the pro.
hibition Of liquor so that the fish mar
ket may be saved"
\
There appears to have been more
smuggling and rumrunning even than
we have had here" says the Newark
Evening News, "and the evils pro-
duced by prohibition here have all
been magnified there. The defeat of
prohibition does not mean anv less
ened zeal for sobriety. 1t only mean
that Norway has faced her problem,
different though it may be from ours.
equarely and has decided that prohibi
tlon Is not the road that leads to tenn
perance for her"
The RnonnEo Wovl.l Nrox.-x,
significant that Norway has a long
coast line with many small harbors"
and quotes Premier Lykkes repea ted
statement that enforcement of the
prohibition law was impossible, that
it had led to contempt and disregard
of all law and to extensive smuggling
operations" The Roanoke paper also
gives weight to the complaint Of the
Norwegian farmers that the prohibi.
ton law encouraged the importation
Of Germa n -brewed beer and French
wines. but prevented the native farm
err from selling his home grown
grain
THE news from Norway rather
bears out the contention Of our pro-
hibitionists," in the opinion of the
Great Falls Daily Tribune, that
light wines and beer would not sat
tsfy the appetites of those who are
accustomed to more potent booze. and
that it would be harder to enforce
such a modified law than to enforce
a bOne-dry law. On the other hand,
it shows that prohibition provokes
the same revolt among the people
that it does here, and does not make
for sobriety and temperance in the
opinion OF the majority of the Nor
wegians."
The Rochester Times-TnioD In i'm
pressed by the thought that ''evi
IDENTIFY they like their liquor strong. :.
that Night wines and beer even
strong beer, failed to satisfy Nor