AAIBRICA AND THE DRINK QUESTION. T HE whole principle of Prohibition
will be brought again to the test in America if certain enthusiastic senators get their way. Last week there was a stormy debate, which developed into a sort of demonstration against the Anti-Saloon League, when the Prohibitionists tried to kill the Stanley amendment to the Campbell- Willis Bill. The Stanley amendment makes it in effect legal to manufacture intoxicants in private houses, since it denies to agents of the Government the right of entry and search without a warrant. According to the Times correspondent, a warrant would be granted under the amendment only if there were reason to believe that liquor was being manufactured " for sale." In the debate the " Wets " tried to expand the amendment so as to deny the right of search also with respect to motor-cars and the persons of citizens. Senator Ashurst, who has always voted " dry," surprised the Senate by declaring that he was prepared to knock down any official who attempted to search his house or motor-car without a warrant. Senator Reed declared that in the facial expression of Mr. Volstead, one of the leaders of the " Drys," he recognized the look which he had been taught -by pictorial art to associate with the faces of the burners of witches, torturers and other fanatics. One is, of course, reminded of the famous English saying attributed to a Bishop, that he would rather see England free than England sober. • The revolt in the Senate is undoubtedly a pretty formidable move against the Anti-Saloon League, and apparently the recalcitrants are strong enough to hold up the Campbell-Willis Bill unless the " Drys " accept the Stanley amendment. This is the first set-back, as the Times correspondent says, which the " Drys " have suffered since Prohibition became law.
Meanwhile, an extraordinary conflict of evidence is going on as to the working of Prohibition. In English news- papers much cm-respondence is being published on the subject. Evidently feeling about Prohibition is again -being worked up to a white heat. It is very difficult to see one's way through all the hard swearing, but let.us take as an example of the case against Prohibition the state- ments made by Mr. James Barnes in the New York World of July 24th. Mr. Barnes says that it is beyond denial that anyone who can raise the price can buy alcoholic drink—generally of bad quality—in almost every city, large town or village. If it is impossible to buy, the consumer can, in any case, make his own if he " cares to risk it." Apparently a small still can be bought for about the same price as a " coffee percolator." He says that every public garage in effect possesses a still or two. There is not, and cannot be, any law against distilling water for electric batteries, and the same apparatus can be used for manufacturing alcohol. Illicit stills, we are told, are found in respectable families which never broke the law before Prohibition was introduced. No doubt the fact that alcohol is forbidden makes some people inordinately desire to drink it, whereas under the old conditions they would not have bothered much about it.
Even if all that Mr. Barnes says is true, however, it need not mean the breakdown of Prohibition. No doubt it is in itself a demoralizing thing that respectable people should habitually break the law. The danger is that a permanent contempt for the law may be fostered.. At the same time; we suspect that much of what is happening in America is inevitable in a period of transition. People who have come to think alcohol necessary, or have at all events cultivated a decided taste for it, naturally cannot give it up without a considerable effort. But ii must be remembered that the boys and girls who are now growing up have not yet cultivated that taste, and it it very unlikely that they will cultivate it in the face of very great expense and an enormous number of impediments. Thus America will probably become very nearly dry, ii not quite dry, in the course of time. That, at least, is what seems likely to happen unless we are to assume that the American people, after accepting Prohibition by a decided majority, are going to.repeal it. For our part., we cannot think that they will. It is not easy for people in this country to understand the reality of the American motive behind Prohibition, because we have nothing here quite like the American saloons. The worst kind of saloon in America is the home of all license, crime and riot. It is because drink seems to be inseparable from these deplorable conditions that a vast number of decent people in America, who in ordinary circumstances would never have wanted to put a ban upon drink, have become Prohibitionists. They are not so much against drink as against what may be called the saloon spirit. This fact is only the most important incident in the general dissimilarity between the drinking habits of Americans and Englishmen. In Britain there is what might be called an art of drinking. A great many educated Englishmen find great pleasure in being connoisseurs of wine ; they make their study of it a pastime and almost an intellectual pleasure. They like to think that they can detect a particular year's vintage by the taste without having been told the date, and though they are frequently (perhaps nearly always) wrong, they find it just as agree- able to deliver an opinion on wine as to pronounce a verdict upon a picture, a book or a play. In America, although there are, of course, exceptions, the drinking habit as we know it in Britain among educated people is uncommon. In hotels, before Prohibition came, you would seldom see people drinking wine at meals. The men might drink cocktails before dinner, and flee to the bar immediately after dinner for another drink, but meditative, reflective and critical drinking was not the habit. Nor would you often see in America a figure like that discreet English waiter who bears into a -public dining-room a bottle of wine still covered with its cellar dust and lying on its side in a wicker basket—a waiter who moves with measured tread lest he disturb the precious contents.
In any case the American people accepted Prohibition by a voluntary vote. Unless they change their minds it will become a reality in the course of time, for they are not cynical or inefficient. When America becomes dry in fact as well as in law, the absence of a Drink Bill will make her a far more formidable trade competitor than ever before. This is a fact which ought to be borne in mind, though we know perfectly well that Prohibition could never be introduced in this country unless it were imposed by the voters upon themselves, as has been done in America. No doubt it is true that, even though intoxicating drink should for all practical purposes dis- appear from America, a comparatively large number of people would still spend money upon some form of narcotic. The use of narcotics seems to prevail all over the world. If a man does not drink intoxicants he may chew betel nut, or drink a stupefying amount of coffee like some Turks, or chew tobacco or gum. When particular forms of narcotic are prohibited by a Government, or are made too expensive for ordinary people to buy, other forms are invented. The present relatively high cost of even beer in this country has, no doubt; already caused poor persons to revive old kinds of drink. The present writer has read and been told, though he must confess that the language of his informers has been exceedingly vague, that villagers in England have taken again to making a con- coction which they call " bee wine." The more ignorant seem to believe that the wine is made by insects which, according to the superstition, have such a high power of reproduction that they multiply indefinitely. Thus, appar- ently, if you start with one bottle of bee wine you need not stop short of a million I Perhaps some of our readers could throw some light upon this odd subject. We imagine that what is being used is some vegetable or herb which, when treated according to the directions (whatever they may be), has a certain power of fermentation. But even a general resort to narcotics of some kind is a very different thing from a modern national Drink Bill. We would advise our readers to require a good deal more evidence before they believe either that Prohibition in America is about to collapse of its own weight or that Americans will go back on their decision. Great though the effect of absolute Prohibition in America would be upon the trade relations of the world, we do not see, largely because of the differences in habit which we have already described, any prospect whatever of this country following suit. It is conceivable that Prohibition might eventually become a woman's question here, and that a majority in favour of it would carry the day. If this majority were known to be a majority entirely through the woman's vote, and the men voters felt resentful, elements of political instability might appear in the State. But we need not think of imaginary and very distant dangers. Only one thing is certain, and that is that unless Pro- hibition is accepted here by a majority of the people of their own free will it will never come.
Previous page
