Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-12-29
DRY LAW EXPERTS
DEBATE ITS MERITS
Sociological and Statistical
Organizations Hear Talks
| by Fisher and Gebhart.

the marked sociological and economic
results that have been claimed for il"
Prohibition has been a partial fail
ure since the constitutional amendment
became effective. but the improvement
has been so marked that we ought to
keep at the experiment We are trying
until We are satisfied as to the actual
result"
These two divergent views were laid
before a joint meeting of the American
Sociological Society and the American
Statistical Association in a debate on
prohibition. yesterday at the City Club.
The author of the first observation
was John c. Gebhart. director of re-
seach of the Association Against the
Prohibition Amendment. The author
of the second was Prof Irving Fisher of
Yale University, economist and writer
and author of two books on prohibition
In the United States.
Prof. Fisher was joined in his argyll
ment for continuance of liquor prohi-
bition by Prof. Herman Feldman of
Dartmouth, who claimed. in a paper
read by Prof. Stewart A. Rice, that the
Association Against the Prohibition
Amendment cannot prove that prohi-
bition has failed to accomplish the So
cial and economic results claimed for it.
Dealing almost wholly with the en-
forcement side and the social effects of
prohibition. Mr.. Gebhart disagreed
with the contention that prohibition
has contributed to the welfare of the
country and quoted figures to show
that, while consumption of beer is lower
than the pre-prohibition rate. wine
making is more than twice the pre-
war output and consumption of alco-
holic spirits is about equal to the pre-
war rate. These figures were chal-
lenged by both Prof. Fisher and Prof.
Feldman.
Nations Drink Bill.
Mr.. Gebhart declared that the drink
bill Of the Nation is $2,50o, 000, 900 a
year, which lis approximately what we
should have been spending If there
were no prohibition"
About million persons are arrested
each year for drunkenness" Mr.. Geb-
hart said. Does any one believe that
all Of those arrested were millionaire
club men or captains of industry"
Variations in police policy in different
cities for arrests for drunkenness, Mr..
Gebhart added. make diflcult any con-
elusive tabulation of the effect of pro-
hibition as reflected by police records
Prof. Fisher, however, quoted two sets
Of figures along this line. one showing
that arrests for actual drunkenness in
the pre-prohibition period totaled about
20 per cent of the actually intoxicated,
while, after prohibition, police depart
mentS became more strict and increased
arrests for drunkenness to double that
percentage Of persons actually intoxi-
Gated. The other figures showed ratios,
he said, Of IS and 20 per cent.
mo one knows" Mr.. Gebhart said,
"how much liquor is consumed in the
United States. The per capita produc-
ton Of beer is about 5 gallons, one
fourth Of the pre-prohibition rate The
amount OF corn sugar used for dis
titled spirits would account for S.
0oo, 1000 to 100000 gallons of proof
spirits.
ut is fair to assume that, for every
gallon Of mash seized, at least one gal
lon OF spirits was made and consumed
Illegally, from grains and fruits. The
total spirits consumption now LIS about
equal to the pre-war rate"
Figures Are AssaIIed.
Mr. Gebhart's figures on the national
alcoholic drink bill Of about $780,
100000 were attacked by Prof Field
man, who said he had failed to take
into account improvement in living
conditions and the availability of al
cohol.
1T is not unlikely" Mr.. Gebhart said,
that there has been some net gain in |
temperance among wage earners
through the abolition of the saloon. It
No4A4O1 bS ooSQu1Cu, Ot1 Lie OLI16E q,
that the disappearance of the saloon
has entirely eliminated excessive drink
ing among workers. It is extraordi-
nary that the tvo-volume report of the
Committee on Recent Economic
Changes. under the Craftsmanship of
Mr.. Hoover, which covers practically all
of the prohibition period, makes no
mention of prohibition as a factor in
increased productivity"
Prof, Fisher opened his rebuttal with
the statement that he agreed with
Mr.. Gabhart that scientific approach
TO the problem Is necessary, but added
that, although he could not believe in
prohibition in principle. he has come to
believe in 1t on the grounds of expedi-
ency, or at least to give it fair trial.
Now that we have constitutional
prohibition, II We will follow the lead
Of Mr.. Hoover. we may make the expert
ment more Of a success than it has
been" he said.
Il have been disappointed" Prof.
Fisher said, but I think that even
though prohibition is only a partial
cannot by law suddenly change the
habits which have been handed down
through generations. but as deaths from
alcoholism rid the world of those who
will not obey the law We shall be more
inclined TO find out Just what success
prohibition can have.
Sets Up Test of Law.
Prohibition Prof. Fisher said. lis
more likely to succeed in the United
States by the constitutional method
than by any other scheme. The real
test Is whether the consumption Of alco-
hol has been reduced and how much.
doubt II we can have 100 per cent sue
cess OF any law, and certainly of one
which reverses the habits of so large a
part Of our people"
Prof. Fisher said he has little faith in
the indtces Of arrests for drunkenness
or deaths from alcoholism. pointing to
varying police policies in different cities
on arrests for drunkenness and ina
bil1ty TO get at the true cause of deaths
which might be caused by alcoholism,
but Tor family or business reasons, are
laid to some other cause
We now are with prohibition at its
worst" he said, but even though it is
only q partial success, the experiment
should be continued"