The Waterbury Democrat., 1931-01-19
BY BRUCE CAPTION NEA Service Writcr)

A feeling that the prohibition amendment is proving fuldamental- ly unavoidable and a belief that it has fostered crime and corruption to such an extent as to outweigh it's benefits are the reasons for repeal most frequently cited by editors of newspapers which oppose the dry law.
 This develops from a scrutiny of replies received in the nationwide survey of newspaper attitudes to- ward prohibition, conducted by NEA Service on the lines outlined by the Federal Prohibition Bureau, which announced such q survey last fall and then cancelled it for fear that it's purpose might be misunderstood. Drys Have Majority The NEA survey showed that 3S9 American dailies uphold the dry law, while 345 favor repeal. In addition, 3S uphold the amendment but want the Volstead act modified, while S7 have adopted a neutral position. A fair sample of the statements made by anti-prohibition editors is the following, from the editor of q all-city paper in Indiana: We believe the prohibition law can never be enforced and that since the law became operative there has been more crime than ever before in the same period. Besides, the law ere ated bootleggers and grafters of all kinds, many of them getting i'm mensely wealthy; and 1t now takes millions to keep down the traffic while the government is losing mill lions in revenue, losing on both ends"
 From Virginia comes the follow ing: s.t
 "Our newspapers advocate some such solution of the prohibition ques- ton as the dispensary system be- cause we believe that the present prohibition enactments have defin- itely been proved unavoidable and while they have resulted in some good are doing the nation prepond- erantly more harm than good"
 Points to Corruption
 An editor in big city in the state of Washington said that he opposes prohibitions:
 "Because anyone who is not blind can see the corruption, graft, crime and general disrespect for law, even among those who are supposed to enforce it, that are resulting under the present law. Liquor is now be- ing taken to the home and conSum- ed by young as well as old, and the rotten stuff that is drunk does 10 times more harm than would good liquor."
 A New Jersey editor expresses himself thus:
 Endorsement has been failure. Prohibition is mainly responsible for increase in crime and many of the new types of 'rackets' that have sprung up. With the dry laws has come the speakeasy, which is much worse than the old type of saloon"
 Another New Jersey editor re- marks heatedly:
 "Prohibition is incorporate in principle, unwarranted in policy, un- enforceable in practice and unsuccess- ful in performance"
 Some editors tell of change of attitude since 1920 A Vermont edi- tor writes as follows:
 Am a total abstainer and earnest ly supported the 18th amendment and the Volstead act, but they have proved a calamity worse than war. No liquor control law is success, but what we have now is so awful that we should try again" He Changed His Mind And Pennsylvania editor says: Always an advocate of liquor re- form and. at first, supporter of prohibition, this newspaper opposes 18th amendment, Volstead and Jones laws because of very apparent corruption of law agencies, open ness of violations and creation of a drinking smartness that is giving liquor new and undreamed-of smartness. In every test which this newspaper has applied to prohibit ton the result has always been the same. It is impossible of enforce ment and always will be-"
 From the editor af a big New York newspaper comes this: Federal prohibition is constitu- tional anomaly. It's purpose is un- desirable and it is unavoidable in practice. The evils it has produced are greater than those which it was designed 70 remedy"
 The traditional southern doctrine of states rights is cited by South Carolina editor in the following: "Prohihition should be a state affair. This is the old and correct attitude Of the south. The south went back on it's own doctrine in the vote on the 18th amendment and the 18th also. If a majority ot voters in South Carolina, my state, vote for prohibition I would cheerfuily acquiesce. In fact, ai- | ways supported prohibition in South | Carolina before 1920"
 Calls It Huge Jokc' A Texas editor expresses himself with typical Texar candor in this: l Ut is a huge joke; bootleggers are as thick as hairs on a dog s back; doctors writing prescriptions at $3; druggists selling cheap booze at $3.50 per pint: making a gallon