New Britain herald., 1930-02-17
"ESCT-JINDIN6' tBOtI I
 ALCOHOLIC DEATHS

Ralph H. White, research sccre- . tary for the tact-findins committee . for law enforcement in Conncct- cut, has put forward some interest ! ing points, There is the question O. death ] rates from alcoholism in Connect- . cut before and after prohibition. which he has mentioned.
 Mr. White appears to be correct in contending that in Connecticut the deaths ascrlbed 10 alcoholism are fewer since prohibition than previously. If the mayor. who re- cently also argued on this point, prefers to rely upon the facts pre-, sented in the pamphlet issued by Inc Moderation League, Inc, ho will have to admit AIr, White is right regarding Connecticut
 But conditions in Connecticut happen 10 be the reverse Of those in most other states But before We 20 10 the other states, we shall con cern ourselves with Connecticut according .o the diagnosis of the Moderation League, moist or gani2atlon.
 In 1910 deaths from alcoholism In Connecticut were. according to the leagues facts. slightly above the average for the ten saloon years but in 1911 the total was appro>l- mately the average for the ten years There was an increase in 1912, an- other increase in 1913, a substantial decrease in 1914. t slight increase m 1915. an even moro substantial increase in 191G, the highest total of all the years was reached in 19l5' then a tremendous drop in 1918, and an equally tremendous drop IT 1ofo, Alcoholic deaths in 1919 were roughly only ono-ai>th what they were in 12I7-no doubt due 10 the war.
 In 1920 they were lower than m 1ala, they showed an increase 'n 1921 and m 1922. much more suo- stantial increase in 1923. again ar increase in i92t q slight decrease II 1925, an increase in 1926. and asai' an increase in l997, The tendency it will be noted, has been upward until the average for the ton soIoo' years is nearly reached
 All Of which is according to tn Moderation League Graph. m fl namphIct. l. must be rcmember"' that the graph rcfcrs to Connecticut not to Nov Britain exclusively.
 Tut Connecticut is only one Of 'h 4s states; there are records in al e. them. and tho sum total shouI ~r ov how prohil3tion iS working,
 Tn the c.-e Of the -S dry state including the District of roIumht' ., curatc rccords. UT what pnrpoa | he accurate records do not hc@t until after ,hr state prohibition ia'| ..snt into cucct Those showing :" ,rercasc vttn prohibition appear h. Arizona. Colorado Florida 'a ...oulsbm2 iacr~a@o- Idauo. II diana. Iowa. Kansas Non'ock 2Jcrigan. }j=-lsaipp, Nontar la1so an astonishing tucras' <ebrasha. Ncv Iampahjro, Nori Carolina. Nortr Dahot4, ohio, Or -on, South Carolina. Tcnn"ss' utah. Virginia Washtngton We Virginia Wyoming C-IoHms .or siderable annual uucluotIons' a' the District of Columbia,
 stat undoubtedly showing decrease ls Maine.
 Tn the wet Mates-statcs Wh" did not become dry" until after n tonal prohibition earoe~~tho which show - marked decrease
 ,,eatns due to alcoholism are Ca .ornla Ca most substantial decrease ronncc,tcut G fair decrease Minnesota. Nils ourj Ncw Jcr@ Rhode Irlaud. Vermont and W'sco aIo.
 The uet states showing an crease Of alcoholic deaths 4 Delaware Avery subatmtial). lt}'n' tslso very substantiaD. Loujsiai Maryland (eNcecIingy FubalantIa New York Cat least in stead ascending scaIc) and PrnnayINa except that the high to;nls ot | nre-prohibition years arc not rcached). Massachusetts, 10 the b