AMERICAN YOUTH AND PROHIBITION.

[COMMUNICATED.]

TN developing a favourite theme of his, namely, "The Sympathy of Comprehension," in an admirable leading article in last week's Spectator, the Editor bids us to remember that "a man's duty is to sweep his own doorstep before he remarks on the neglect of his neigh- bour." In the face of so just a warning, I should not venture to seek the hospitality of these columns for a discussion of the much-vexed question of Prohibition were it not for two facts. First, I am an American, and therefore it is on my own littered doorstep that I would make passes with my small brush. Secondly, I consider Prohibition to be no longer a local problem for the United States, but one which concerns the English-speaking democracies, if not the whole world.

If I may elucidate the first point a little more I would say that in considering Prohibition from the point of view of the younger generation, I do so by right of membership in that generation. Moreover, as I have very recently spent four years as an undergraduate in an American University and two years as an under- graduate in a great English University, I claim to have had some experience of my own generation, and that upon a comparative basis of cultures, prejudices and social habits. As to my second point, when I say that Prohibition concerns more than the United States herself, I am thinking of the sociological, racial, and biological aspects of the question. At the risk of making too long a preface, I feel I ought at the beginning to make clear my own attitude towards Prohibition. First of all, I am entirely in favour of temperance ; in fact, of people not drinking liquor at all. This I believe in for two reasons : first, because I am convinced that we do not need physiologically the stimulation of alcohol save under extraordinary con- ditions; and, secondly, because it makes for efficiency. Personally, save in exceptional circumstances, I do not drink unless, living as I do in a country where customs differ, I find it socially embarrassing not to conform. I make no claims to total abstinence. This may seem an inconsistency in my attitude. Actually it is not. One cannot attain Nirvana at once : one must first become an Arhat by the proper stages of meditation and rein- carnation. If in what follows I appear to contradict what I have said, I hope my readers will not believe that I have in any way relaxed my attitude. I am searching for the most efficacious means to an end, and often what seems at first sight the simplest and most direct route turns out to be the most difficult and cir- cuitous. Since Prohibition came into effect I have lived both in England and in America. During that time I have been constantly in touch with the activities and opinions of my generation on both sides of the water. I have listened to ardent propaganda from both sides of the question, and I have read the statistics advanced by both parties. I confess these leave me cold, for I have yet to see any set of attested facts on either side which could be shown to be convincingly attributable to Prohibition. I judge by the results as I have seen them, and if I seem displeased with the methods of Prohibition, it is not because I have any quarrel with the ultimate aims of Prohibition.

So far there are certain observable benefits which Prohibition has conferred upon us. First, it has destroyed the saloon. The poor man, the working man, in America has undoubtedly benefited by Prohibition, and his family have benefited even more. Though this by no means indicates that the poor man no longer drinks.

He makes his own drink, but on the whole it is more bother, less pleasing, and too expensive. Moreover, it has to be done at home, where his wife has a better opportunity of controlling both expenditure and output. I. pass over the point that Prohibition as it exists is a piece of class legislation, a thing scarcely consistent with democratic principles.

It is true, however, that the community of Prohibition lawbreakers, the extensive bootlegging fraternity, and the avowed anti-Prohibitionists constitute a minority, perhaps a diminishing minority, but, at any rate, a very noisy minority. But although these people con- stitute a minority in the country, it is not sufficient on the strength of that to say that they must be forced to accept the will of the majority, though in the end they will undoubtedly be brought around to the point of view of the majority. It is necessary now to consider the character of this minority. The most notable thing about it is that for the most part it consists of city dwellers. Without wishing to belittle the farmer— I have been a farmer myself—I think I am justified in saying that the small class of city dwellers is relatively as important to the country as the larger mass of country dwellers. This is because the smaller group contains within its limits a greater variety of contributors to our civilization. It includes our most intelligent citizens, our artists of all kinds, the men who are responsible for the development of our resources, without whom the farmer, for instance, could not market or distribute his goods, the managers of our country's affairs in the world, and, lastly, and to my mind most important, the intelli- -gent body of our nation's youth, both farmer and city dweller alike, on whom the future of our land, and, indeed, of our race, depends.

That there has been more drinking in our colleges and universities and, indeed, in our High Schools since Prohibition than ever before is an unquestioned fact.

In this respect, Prohibition worked better in its first year than it has since. In fact, I believe it will be agreed by all honest observers that during the War and also between the Armistice and the time that Prohibition went into effect, drinking generally, but especially in the colleges, was perceptibly less than before the War.

Prohibition propaganda was working well and rapidly. One sees how efficacious it has been in England. The results are not wholly due to the strict control exercised here in the way of hours. There is here a growing sentiment against drinking. In the universities before the War there were any number of drinking societies. Now it is impossible to keep one going even for a short time. And the number of undergraduates who drink nothing, or almost nothing, is increasing steadily.

' On the other hand, in America, among the youth of the country, not only drinking, but drunkenness, which is a very different thing, has become extremely widespread, and sexual immorality has been 'on the increase. Ask shy undergraduate what has been happening at college "Proms "—affairs corresponding more or less. to May Week at Cambridge. The accounts are startling. More- over, I was told by a physician that in the Middle-Western town in which he lives, in one of the High Schools, con- taining about 1,500 students of both sexes, fifty girls aged from fifteen to eighteen had been delivered of children during the past year. This is significant, although it may not be wholly due to Prohibition. The negligence of parents and the superfluity of motors play their parts.

The cause of all this drinking among young people is, of course, fashion, and a fashion unfortunately set by their elders. Besides parents, I have had several American professors of high standing tell me with great glee that in a cocktail their synthetic gin cannot be told from the real stuff, and that they have absolutely per- fected their recipe for claret. They can discourse learnedly about bootlegging, though this is a luxury usually denied them by the limitation of their salaries.

In discussing the dangers of such a situation, it will not do to dwell long upon its biological significance. At the present time, biological theories applicable to this matter are in much too controversial a state to admit of dogmatic statements. But whether one believes in the inheritance of acquired characters or not, the effect of alcoholism upon living people is apparent. The psychological effects, too, are obvious. Now this may or may not be a "passing phase," as is so often stated. And it may or may not affect by inheritance the coming generations, for whose benefit we are told it is all being done, and who, it is predicted, will know nothing about drinking. They will undoubtedly know a lot about bootlegging: But be that as it may, we have a generation or two of young people about to take up the leadership of affairs in America being mentally debauched and physically weakened here and now under our very eyes if we are not too blind or fanatical to see it. The damage is, if not already done, already being done. This state of affairs, it seems to me, cannot be dismissed by calling the young people little fools. Moreover, these are the citizens who are to create the environment in which the unspotted future generations are to be reared.

But what can be done about it ? One school of thought holds that the thing to do is to enforce Prohibition. Even if this were possible, which I am personally inclined to doubt, this method seems to me but to increase rather than to remove the difficulty. Is it not better to go to the root of the matter—to destroy the cause ?

The sentiment for temperance in America was wide- spread, but not sufficiently widespread. Consequently, for the time being, a palliative seems indicated. We need time to collect ourselves and see where we are. Consequently, I advocate the amendment of the Volstead Act to admit temporarily, to States so desiring, light wines and beers. This will relieve the tension and destroy the element of fashion in drinking. What is easily obtainable, nobody wants. The younger genera- tion will be spared thereby. But, lest the objection be raised that it is only a short step from light wines and beers to the saloon again, let them be put under - Government control or monopoly, as is done so success. fully in several provinces in Canada.

Once the tension is removed and we have a chance to get our balance, temperance sentiment, I have no doubt, will grow apace and it will be but a few years until we have a real and lasting Prohibition. Surely that would be better than the hypocritical thing we now have. The Anti-Saloon League declares, I believe, that it took them one hundred and fifty years to make America dry, or shall , we say as dry as it was before Fcrohibition ? Why did they suddenly become so im- patient? It is a pity. Let them take warning for their activities in other countries.

AMERICANUS.