The Daily Alaska empire., 1930-04-22
A DRY ON PROHIBITION.

his most recent cOntrlDuIlOn to the uelellsS of the Dry cause, Prof Irving Fisher, Professor O. Economies at Yale University risks mourning tht ire of his fellow drys despite the fact that he agrees with them in many of their claims of benefits ac- cruing to the United States from the Eighteenth Amendment Prohibition, he characterized as 8 measure of expediency" and that it is still an ex- pertinent which he never has believed in as a matter of religion or moral principle"
 After reviewing current debates and articles pro and con on the subject he summarizes his review under six conclusions:
 First, "The testimony adduced on the wet side
 shows clearly that Private Prohibition has progressively restricted the personal liberty of count less thousands"
 Second, "The overwhelming weight of scientific administrative and popular opinion is on the side of Public as against Private Prohibition of the liquor traffic Not even the most ardent wet op- posed the abolition of the saloon which is directly due to Prohibition"
 Third, Results of the dispensary system in Can ada show that political ownership and op- eraton of the liquor traffic to increase the consumption of alcohol and fails to check boot leggery"
 Fourth While liquor consumption in Canada has increased under the dispensary system, it has diminished in the United States under Prohibition
 Fifth 50 far as I can ascertain after diligent
 
 United States who opposes the view that the nation has gained enormously in economic sense from National Prohibition"
 Sixth "In recent years efficient substitutes for the saloon have been provided in the motor the radio, the motion picture, and in the applied principle of specialization in industry and modern life
 Seventh Despite the fact that Prohibition has recorded great gains in the respects enumerated above, present conditions of law enforcement under National Prohibition intoerabe and must be corrected. I say this notwithstanding my opinion, after careful assessment of available data, that Prohibition is less of a failure than any other measure for the control of the liquor traffic that has ever been applied in this or in foreign lands. I have never known of any human law or admin istration of law that 100-per-cent success. I have believed in Prohibition a matter of religion or moral principle and only gradually came to believe in it as measure of expediency Even so, I regard it as an experiment. It has not yet made good since the period when Prohibition swept clean so to speak, a broom. Great urban centers still dripping wet This is largely because of lax enforcement among populations with alien traditions of an immigrant past, coupled with the cult of personal liberty and manifest lack of education concerning the physiological effects of called moderate drinking@
 With all due regard for Prof. Fishers reputation analyst, there is main consideration that he has overlooked possibly thought needed no exposition. Prohibition does not prohibit. If the best that be said for it. after 10 years of trial is that it lis of expediency" it is high time that it was scrapped and other method of experimentation undertaken Certainly by the trial and error test, it has been huge failure.
 Public opinion is preponderantly favorable to Public Prohibition against Private Prohibition is conclusion based in something other than fact Private Prohibition is that made effective by in- dustrial edict. It does not infringe on personal liberty necessarily, since il is optional with ndi- viduals to engage in that particular employment which issues the edict or some other Private Prohibition usually promotes the cause of temper ance, Public Prohibition has done the exact op- poste.
 Results of the Governmental dispensary system he concludes have been seen in Canada as increased consumption of liquor and bootlegging on larger scale Canada may be consuming more liquor under Government control than it did under the old saloon but it is doubtful. It must be remembered that millions of Americans spend great deal of time in Canadian visits where in former years there were only thousands doing It is Likewise true that there is some bootlegging in Canada. But no responsible authority is going to contend that Canadian bootlegging compare at all with it's American counterpart
 Whether the vaunted prosperity of the United States was due in any great measure to Prohibition is a highly controversial question which is not likely to be satisfactorily settled for many years. Canada too has been prosperous in recent years without National Prohibition.
 In his sixth conclusion, enumerating the mod ern saloon substitute, Prof. Fisher neglected to