Evening star., 1941-10-03
CoIumnist's S Critics
Defend Prohibition
Writers Challenge Opinions
Of Dorothy Thompson
On Conditions Of Dry Era

On NonoitlonS or Dfy Cro
| To the Editor Of The Star:
Dorothy Thompson, evidently in one
of her more hysterical moments, con-
tributes column to The Star for Sep
tember %, in which she says that the
last twenty years might well be called
''the epoch of prohibition" and proceeds
to inform us that prohibition was put
over by "a well-organized minority who
decided to keep Americans sober by for
bidding them to drink ANY beverage con-
tanning more than per cent alcohol"
| thus inaugurating "the most drunken
! age America has ever known"
I read The Star, but I seldom read
Miss Thompson'S comment because world
events in these troublous times keep me
excited enough without permitting her
to work on my feelings But, do think
that even Miss Thompson should hire
some one to get her the facts before she
! pronounces final judgment concerning
HldJltIS WlllCIl tNlutllllS dlC ODoIulCo 4OA
| her by an astonishing lack of information
and an amazing uper-abundance of mis-
! information.
1t simply is impossible for any one
with a knowledge of American political
| history during the first 20 years of
| the goth century to say that prohlbl-
ton was put over by a minority"
;,.t,, No4o hoI taI
bition and 62,763 652 people were living
under some form of prohibition before
the Federal act went into effect. Be-
tween 1912 and 1919 the Federal Con-
gress adopted 10 major measures of a
| prohibition character. On the amend
ment, prohibition had the solid vote of
representatives of "a States and ma
jority of u delegations. There were
only four States divided adversely to
| prohibition. 1t had the support of 124
| Democrats, 1877 Republicans, and 4 In
dependents in the House against the
opposition of "a Democrats, 81 Republi-
cans, and two Independents. 1t vas
| ratified by As of the 48 State Legisla-
| lures with an 86q6 dry vote in the
| Senates and an SOes dry vote in the lower
Houses of the States.
If all of this, accomplished over long
term of years in strict accordance with
constitutional procedure. was done by
"a well-organized minority" the Ameri-
can people must be politically hopeless.
WAY does Miss Thompson say that
prohibition covered alcoholic beverages
containing more than go Of al
cohol"? She surely must have library
and assistants. Why did she not sum-
mon an assistant and say, Mabel pull
down the book and ten me what was
the permitted percentage of alcohol in
beverages under prohibition?" In maxi
mum of As seconds Mabel should have
been able to tell her that it was one
half of 70, not 80. This shows care
lessness in regard to facts which per-
haps is responsible for the other major
misstatements in Miss Thompsons arti-
Gle.
AS to the statement that the result of
prohibition was "the most drunken age
that America has ever known" it simply
will not stand examination. Figures may
be manipulated, but when they are
treated comprehensively, they tell the
truth. An investigation of the research
department of this board covering 226
cities showed an increase of 2617eo in
the number of arrests for drunkenness in
the first year of repeal over the last
year of prohibition. According to the
records of the Federal Bureau of In
vestigation. the ratio of arrests for
drunkenness per 1000 of the population
was nearly twice as great in 1910 as in
1892. The F. B. I. reports show the in
crease in arrests for drunkenness in
the United States over 1882 to be as
follows 1888, 227ec; 1884, 1887; 1885,
944es; 1886, 1029qc; 1887, l00.5Fc; 1888,
806Gc; 1899, 821Tc; 1910, 91.7. An AS
sociated Press dispatch says that an
analysis of 28450 arrests of women in
4lo cities during the first half of 1941
showed, according to the F. B. L, in
creases of 35.4 per cent over 1910 for
drunkenness and 1873 per cent for driving
while intoxicated.
| 1t is perfectly true that racketeering
in the production and distribution of
| liquors under prohibition was shocking
in its extent and consequences. 1t was
| true that agitation against the law
! prompted many unthinking people to
deal with criminals 1t is true that
| drunkenness and other consequences of
| drinking were much more troublesome
| in general during the latter years of
| prohibition than during the first years,
when social and economic consequences
| Of the prohibition law were simply
astounding. But, while these things
properly may be said, it Is not right to
make misstatements,> nor is it right to
| attempt to bewilder the people and stop
| them from intelligent thinking in re-
gard to the present situation by pouring
upon their heads an avalanche of as
sumptions which are utterly contrary to
| fact.
Miss Thompson should take an aspirin
tablet and try again.
| DEETS PICKETT,
Board of Temperance, the Meth
odist Church.
| To the Editor of The Star: