Evening star., 1933-10-01

Canada. Sweden and the United States
There is none of the docility so fire.
quently found in communities where
the population is almost all of recent
British descent There is little of the
sturdy respect for government to be
found among the people of Northern
Europe
No system of dealing with the liquor
traffic has ever been found to be salts
factory. Even in connection with the
legalized beer traffic. in spite of the
fact that little of the beer on the
market is 80 in strength. serious prob
lens appear. as indicated by the in
creased drunkenness in Washington
Richmond and a score of other cities
Economic problems are also arising
with millions of men passing the sorely
beset producer of milk, butter. eggs
fruit and vegetables, the tradesmen in
dry goods, in order to spend their
money in beer joints. What solution
will State control offer for the eco-
nomic problem and the mounting rate
of drunkenness.
Personally, I believe the prohibition
principle will soon be overwhelmingly
indicated and the people will return
to Federal policy of prohibition
somewhat modified in its constitutional
form, no doubt But. before this is
done, we will see an era of toleration
and attempted control of the liquor
traffic. 1 am inclined to think the
policy of Great Britain, where the gov
ernment seems to have been more sue
cessful than in Scandinavia or in Can
ada. is better adapted to American Gus
toms and traditions. The total con-
sumption of absolute alcohol in Grea,
Britain in 1918 was 84.50O. 900 gallons
while in 1881 it was only $4,000 00C
gallons. Fourteen per cent OF the con-
sumption was of spirits, 78 per cent
beer. The drink bill in 1880 was G277
100000. as compared with fl52. 1856 00(
in 1918 and f436. 100000 in 1920 Ar
rests for drunkenness were 47.71 pei
10000 of population in 1911. 25.46 in
1920 and 1850 in 1881 There has. ir
recent years, been a decrease in the
consumption of spirits. beer and wine
These accomplishments have beer
brought about by system of repres-
sion.
Almost Prohibition.
The multiplicity of restrictions has
almost amounted to prohibition, and II
is the kinship of these measures to pro-
hibition which accounts. l think, fol-
lllcll IcldbIhC Su(ScSS- 1LSIc ID Ollc CO
sential difference between all measures
of control and prohibition. All oi
these control systems, whether they be
provincial policies of Canada or the
conservative license policy of Great
Britain, are all systems for getting liq-
uor legally to the people while prohi-
bition is a system for keeping liquor
for beverage purposes legally inacces.
sible. BY the one system. the man gets
drink legally: he gets drunk on lega
liquor; he lets loose upon the commu-
nifty all of the hell which is the natu-
raj consequence of perfectly lega
purchase BY the other system. the
laws sanction for all of these progress
sIve steps is withheld.
Of one thing I am profoundly con.
vinced-no State legislation. no matter
what system it may set up. and re-
gardless of whether it relates to beer ol
spirits. will stand unless it respects the
right of the local community to pro.
hibit liquor sales. Beer legislation il
the various States having the effect o.
repeating charter provisions and deny
ing the right of local option is already
reacting strongly.
The end is not yet in this liquor con-
troversy. but the final adjustment,
think, will be by the present generation
which may soon have the benefit o
contrasting experiences.