LIQUOR FICTIONS

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 30, 30 October 1918, Page 6

LIQUOR FICTIONS

VERSUS DKY PACTS. ' "TIIADE" ADyiiIITISEMHNTS ANa'WJiKED. In an article published by "The Trade," entitled "Canada aid America," there arc more than the ordinary number of fictions—and that is saying a good deal. Take them as they come:— Piction No. I.—"The, imported gentlemen from Canada have been told by tha Prohibition Party to keep in the 'nackground the fact that Prohibition in Canada is only for the period of tho war and some months after." Pacts—(a) The Canadian gentlemen have not been told by the Prohibition Party any such tiling, (b) In eight cf the nino provinces of Canada Prohibition is a permanent measure, and is not contingent on any war circumstances. In one province (Ontario) Prohibition has been enacted with a provision for a vote after the soldiers return in preference to a vote in war time. The Mayor of Ottawa says: ''After having Prohibition for nearly two years, I do not believe that one man in fifty would vote for the repeal of the Prohibition law." There is no question that Prohibition is permanent in Canada.

Fiction No, 2.—"Prohibition is only a war measure in U.S.A., and that it does not come into effect till July 1. 1919." Facts—(a) Twenty-eight States of the forty-eight au'e now under permanent Prohibition. (1)) Vast parts of the remaining States ate "dry" by local option, (c) Permanent Constitutional Prohibition has been passed by the Congress of the United States, and is now being ratified by the individual States. As no State has yet refused to ratify of the 22 which have considered, it is recognised that National Prohibition as a part of the Constitution is inevitable, (d) But Constitutional Prohibition cannot come into ell'ect without several years' notice, and consequently in the meantime special war-time Prohibition has been enacted which forbids the use of grains for liquior purposes After December 1 of this year, and forbids sale of liquor anywhere alter July 1, 1919. Fiction No. 3—"Prohibition does not prohibit in the United States and does not abate consumption." In bolstering up this, "The Trade" compares the figures of 19M with 1914. But 19 of the States now "dry" were "wet" in 1914. The Liquor advertisement rays that during the ten years from 1901 to 1914 consumption had gone tip 600 million "-gallons, while twenty-four States had allegedly "Eone dry." Facts—(a) During these ten years, not 24, but 6 States "went dry." (b) During those ten years the population of the United Slates increased, and therefore the total amount of liquor consumed is no guide to truthful conclusions. The consumption per cn.pita 'should bo considered, ilere is the fact:—l'rom 10/U to 1890, with practically no Prohibition, the per capita consumption m the United States increased over 100 per cent. l' r °nj 1890 to 1910 the increase was only 41 ner cent., showing that the first few attempts at Prohibition had slowed down the increase in drinking, (c) It was in 1915 that Prohibition came into effect in a much larger number of .States and in 191G a considerable decrease in the average consumption is noted, the fip 1 "® 3 dropping from 22.5 D in 1914 to 19.W Dallons in 1916. This is mother sample of either dense ignorancfe.cr wilf u l presentation on the part of > Ike litule. It is an old trick of theirs quote figures concerning a dry State for years previous to Prohibition, (dj The decreased per capita consumption in the "dry, States has been so marked that the above figures indicate that the licensed States are still increasing their per capita consumption of alcohol, (e) The Governors of the "dry" States are unanimous m their commendation of Prohibition. lh<i IGovernor of Washington says: Washington is far better off in every respect without saloons, and this fact is especially tine during war time." . So say.alj the Go\ernors of "dry" States. , Fiction. No. 4.— Prohibition is not conducive tojjjorahty. Ihe trade tries to bolstJrup this by comparing the divorce cases in the United lh those of Great Britain and New Zealand, Facts-'a) Divorces are more numerous in the United States because divftrce laws are not as stringent i.nd divorces aire not so expensive to get. ALo, the figures quoted are for years vh License more largely pie*ailed, (b) Under Prohibition domestic■ unhappiness is greatly reduced. Thousands ot citienfin "dry" territory" testify to the redemption of home life by the closing of the kloon. (c) Gaols are being closed all over Canada, end police forces greatlj ieNo. s.—"Prohibition . State show more illiteracy, tuberculosis, it eL'itimncv, and kindred evils than any other section of the Stales." his is a repetition of the old dodge used America. For instance, in tepid toil ie"itini«icy,"'The Trade" selects the tot three License States and compares the school records with those oft hreo*>"*• ern States which have Prohibition. Bui these Southern States have a large negro ex-slave population that brings down mont, and Vermont had no teens I saloons for fifty years previous to Mo 1 1903, and since then has onlj ha license in a very few towns. liibition promotes rlliteracj, then most illiterate Stales in ihe to be Maine, Kansas, and ynmonl C n the conlvary,.there ars onlj toui .. . • Inthe Union'where (ho porjentese o: 1literacy is lower than >n Kansas, while Maine' and Vermont favourable showing in the New L „lanrt Slate* (M The testiniony <f of Canada's leading citizens pnnes that the advent of Prohibition murks an immediate lessening of ignorance, disease, ft Whv'alTthis fiction.? A dying Trado sees its ill-gotten gains about to vanish, and resorts to distortion _of fact, and manipulation of figures in order nerchance to put off he day if doom. -But the came "is up. "The Trade has been so oft"!! caught that the public are nowalive lo its 1 ricks. A mountain of re'lrble authoritative and official evidenco from Canada and America oru'lios- to nowder the futik- criticisms of Prohibition lvnaros-!. .Tf von see More fictions appcaviu'-'. watch for ihe diry facts later !,ii—(Published by arrangement.)