New Britain herald., 1929-01-23
pRoHblIl0V .. k, ! RULE ON DEBATE
'AnrnliiW 4s vkh Dbcxr
 doa Dlers kiEl6 Cub

Inc pro0t or pt0nlOitlOu vetoo to the country was demonstrated to the Kiwanis club today when the affirmative side. in . debate on the subject not only won by the super- iority of its arguments, but accord- ing to the judges, also because the fact was conceded by their op- ponents.
 The question was: Resolved. that the volstead act is beneft to the country and should be retained" Judges were Judge B. F. Gaffney, George A. Quigley and Harry 0. Hancock. The affirmative side was represented by J. M. Ward and Dwight Skinner. while the negative side was represented by Attorney Edward A. Mag and Dr. J. F. Keav- eney.
 In opening for the affirmative side Mir Ward argued that deaths in Connecticut for alcoholism in 1920 were only s4 per cent of the num- her in the years from 1910 to 1916. He said that of 1Ss arrests for drunkenness per 10000 population in 349 cities in 1914 there were only i'll in 1924. He quoted Professor Farnum of Yale who said after . survey. he claimed, that drunkards in Connecticut cities and towns had decreased from 6,75l in 1916 to D. 909 in 1925.
 He said cases of alcohol insanity in Middletown state hospital for the insane were 72 in 1915 and 23 in 1927.
 He cited the Literary Digest in a questionnaire which he said revealed that drinking had decreased in ~ states.
 Mir. Mag conceded that the abol- ishment of the saloon was . good thing for the country and admitted that the successful enforcement of Both statements were construed by the judges as conceding the argu- ment of the affirmative side. MT. Mag also said certain states were helped by state prohibition.
 He continued by saying that pro-
 
 This statement was criticized by Judge Gaffney. speaking as chair man of the judges, who said MT. Mag failed to explain or substanti- ate his statement. The attorney of- tered as remedy for the evils of drinking under the present system the legalizing of wine and beer up to a 1e per cent alcohol content.
 Mr. Skinner said the records of the finger print bureau of New York showed that there were si first of- lenders due to liquor per 10000 population in 1s1l and only 6 per 10000 in 1925.
 He quoted Professor c. c. Clark of Yale. who he said is not a pro- hibitionist but who has been on the university discipline committee for years. Professor Clark said tho de- crease in drunkenness among col- lege students has been revolutionary, according to the debater. He said prohibition has replaced para ,itic industry by substituting for oreweries and saloons constructive industries"
 Dr. Keaveney claimed that liquor is more extensively used in more levels of society since prohibition than ever before. He said profes- sional men today use liquor as | business asset and workingmen as an exhilarator at the close of . days work. He charged that statis- tics favoring prohibition were dis trtbuted by the manufacturers of csrbonated beverages. He claimed the quality of liquor sold today. which he said was of the poorest type, is one of the evils of prohibi- ton.
 Mir. Mag and MT. Ward spoke in rebuttal. In announcing tho unan- ilnous verdict of the judges in favor of the anirmitive side, Judge Gaff- ney said:
 Unfortunately for the defense they conceded the benefits of pro- hibition in their arguments. They also failed to show how the Vol rfoad not uas nenace"