The United States After Thirty Years

IV.—Prohibition (Continued) IT would be a mistake to suppose that a body of reformers all thinking alike were able to sweep public opinion off its feet in order to introduce Prohibition. That would not have been possible, dis- graceful though the records of the saloons had been. The truth is that searchers for national efficiency joined forces with the Temperance Reformers and the vihole movement was inspired by the War spirit.

If America could prove that Prohibition is workable she would unquestiOnably call a tune which every great industrial nation would have to sing—or else sing very poorly in the international competition. I cannot dispute that outside the cities, and particularly of course in the South and West, Prohibition is sufficiently well observed for the wage-earners to have increased their efficiency and either to have added to their savings or to have raised their expenditure (without loss to themselvei) upon the amenities of life. It is not possible, however, to go all the way with the Prohibitionists who attribute the increase in the savings of the people entirely to Prohi- bition. Wages in the United States have risen by about 30 per cent. since 1914. The savings would doubtless have increased without Prohibition.

There are some employers and economists in England who are discussing the advisability of trying for Prohi- bition here on economic and industrial grounds. All I can say is " Beware ! " If it were safe to assume that Prohibition had only to be placed upon the Statute Book for it to be universally respected they would have a very strong case. But the American experience suggests that a statutory embargo is not an end but a beginning ; it does not settle the whole question so that there is nothing more to be said. Later I shall give the evidence of Prohibitionists themselves on this point.

In the most " dry " States it is too much trouble to get drink, or too high a price has to be paid for it, or most people have calculated reasons for desiring that the law should be obeyed. In the Southern States, for instance, it is felt— though such an argument would rarely if ever be used in print—that Prohibition is a strong weapon of defence for the white people against the negroes. In these States even people who do not dream of doing without their drink in private are enthusiastic supporters of Prohibition. Somebody has described the white people of the Southern States as " the hard-drinking, dry- voting South." I asked an observant American friend if he thought there was any chance that a majority of the Southern voters would turn against Prohibition. " Not so long as they are sober enough to go -to the polls," he said with savage exaggeration. I think he was quoting the words of some public satirist.

So far as I could judge there is no chance whatever of a repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. Proposals for getting rid of an amendment to- the Constitution are almost bound to break down in face of the practical difficulties. It has been suggested that a national Referendum might open up a road to repeal, but the consent of Congress would be necessary for the Referendum. Even if the Referendum were sanctioned and gave a huge majority for repeal -still nothing might happen, for a two-thirds majority_ of both Houses of Congress would be - required before -the proposal for zepeal could be passed -on- to the -State Legislattkres. - Then majority a majority of the members-ofeither House in only -thir:- teen of the State Legislatures could prevent repeal ! Another proposal by those who are dissatisfied with the results of Prohibition is that the Act should be nullified by the refusal of Congress to appropriate money for its enforcement. This method of formally making the law of no effect is' no more likely to be adopted than any of the other proposals of a like sort. It is incon- ceivable that Congress would humiliate itself in this way. True, the amendment to the Constitution which' gave votes to the negroes is completely stUltifiedin the Southern States, but there is no- fair comparison between that established manoeuvre and financial connivance by Congress in defeating one of its own measures. -If it can reasonably be said that any scheme for changing the law is more promising than the others' I think it might be said of the scheme for altering the definition of intoxi cants in the Volstead Act. This could be done without touching the Eighteenth Amendment, though even then' there would be a certain dose of humiliation. The idea is to substitute for the definition of- intoxicating -drink in the Volstead Act a definition which would in effect declare light wines and beer to be non-alcoholic. Mere make- believe ! No statesman in the United States is at present willing to turn repeal into a cause. One has only to read- the manifestoes of the Presidential candidates to see that' they are all afraid of the question.

It seems to me to be clear, then, (1) that the Prohibition law will stand, and (2) that it has appreciably reduced the total consumption of drink. Before I come to an estimate of the price—a terrible price, I think—which has been paid for such a " success," I should like to quote on the Prohibition side the words of that well-known social worker, Commander Evangeline Booth, of the Salvation Army :—

" Applications for relief in our shim settlements are reduced 50 per cent. There has been a significant decrease of mortality among young children. It used to be a common thing for reports to reach us of babies killed through the unconscious actions of drunken parents, but not one such report has reached us during the past year: Our women officers, responsible for rescue work, bear testimony that their problems are simplified greatly now that -the drink factor is largely eliminated. Wine-room or saloon-parlour seductions are rarely found. Our industrial-home managers bear witness that the old type of spineless, alcohol-soaked man' is now phenomenal. Our relief department and labour bureaus contribute the same kind of evidence, and every phase of Salvation Army activity unites in extolling the prohibition law as beneficent in its results beyond all measure."

I will now come to the price which • is being paid in such social and political currency as .1 was able-to examine with my own eyes. I do not pretend- to have seen many persons drunk in 'America, 'but I saw more than I am accustomed- to see - here. Among .well-tOzdo people- the whole' drink question seems to have become an obsession. Prohibition has called -attention to' drink, has advertised it, in strange and unexpected ways. • Young people Of the " conifortably. off " class deSire: to expldre the mysterious and forbidden ground. _ "-Why is it for- bidden ? Is there something attractive or . dangerously: delicious in a habit which cannot exactly - be called wicked ? We had better find Out". The :thYsterY is accordingly probed: Tales carried eastwards across the Atlantic about the heavy drinking-of boys and girla searcely_out -of. their teens are generally- gross libels, but did notice that boyS and girls, who if they drink anythini ought to. be drinking 'beer or simple wines, were. drinking spirits: The reason -for this is that. the. bootlegger- does not trouble about beer and not much about _wine, except ehampagne::- They are-tOb balky to 'smuggle; Accordingly; . - he deals almost entirely in-spirits: - I talked to a very intelligent woman who was an excep- tionally anxious mother, and she told me that she had almost made up her mind to send her boy to Oxford or Cambridge instead of to an American University. She was evidently approaching this decision with extreme reluctance, but she said : " I don't want to stop the boy drinking something. In fact, I think moderation is one of the things he ought to learn. But I cannot bear to think of him drinking the only things he can get to drink here."

Meanwhile the bootleggers are establishing a tremen- dous vested interest. Millions of money are tied up in their illicit trade, and one and all they naturally vote for Prohibition.

Another part of the price paid is widespread dis- respect for the law. Part of the Civil Service and a larger part of the police forces are corrupted. And Prohibition introduces a class distinction ; the comparatively rich drink easily and safely, while the poorer people cannot afford to get any drink except something of doubtful purity. This distinction does not seem to weigh heavily upon anybody at present; but if the United States should pass into a period of industrial depression the grievance might become very real.

Prohibition, according to the usual case for it, ought to be reducing crime. I should think that in many parts it must have done so, but the sum of American crime has been greater since the introduction of. Prohibition than ever before. There cannot be any single cause. The War is said .to have had certain evil psychological results which are not apparent here, perhaps because our country passed far beyond the point of satiety in violence. How- ever that may be, the multitude and the cheapness of motor cars in America have presented the bandit with an instrument of his craft of which the full use was not dis- Covered till recently.

Prohibition means (as I believe the Bishop of Durham said) that positive law has invaded a region where positive law ought not to be. The function of private judgment has been usurped. No doubt if something like 90 per cent. of the people in a country were not only in favour of Prohibition but were willing to respect it in their own persons it would be possible to disregard the 10 per cent. or so of dissidents. But that condition was obviously not fulfilled in America. It would be still less likely to be fulfilled here.

I was careful to read speeches made by well-known Prohibitionists while I was in America. What struck me with particular force was that the Prohibitionists, in spite of all that has happened, regarded the real fight. as in front of them. Yet they spoke not merely with enthu- siasm but with confidence. This was a revelation to me. Outwardly at least they appeared to be quite unaware that they were making a gloomy admission. Their argu- ment was that the statutory basis for Prohibition gave them a splendid starting-point, and that it was now the duty of all Prohibitionists to convert the nation : the law, you see, was by no means a goal attained, as we should think of it here, but a starting-point.

For instance, Miss Anna Gordon, the President of the World Woman's Christian Temperance Union, said :- " It is foolish to talk about the results of the trial ' of Prohibition which we have had in the past eight years. Prohibition will not have had a fair trial in less than two full generations. The shouts of victory which we raised over the Volstead Act were a psycho. logical error. The Act only gave us a chance to begin. All we have to do is to keep on educating the public on the evils of alcoholism."

Similarly Dr. Cherrington, Chairman of the Education Department of the Anti-Saloon League, said :- " The past is safe. The real problem has to do with the present and future. Enforcement, efficiency, the strictest of laws, even the Eighteenth Amendment, carry in themselves no guarantee of the permanency of Prohibition. For twenty-five years the main emphasis was on education. In the last ten yearS the great emphasis was on legislative action. We are now at the stage where the main emphasis must be laid on the dissemination of truth. We can no

longer take the defensive but must assume the offensive." . .

Prohibition can be accepted' only as a self-denying ordinance. It cannot be enforced on a considerable pro- portion of people who are unwilling. It is therefore mad to attempt Prohibition unless the will to make the sacrifice is practically universal.

J. B. ATKINS: