The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. SATURDAY, AUGUST 1, 1908. AMERICA'S LIQUOR BILL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2258, 1 August 1908, Page 2

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. SATURDAY, AUGUST 1, 1908. AMERICA'S LIQUOR BILL.

New Zealand is evidently nob tilio only country where a spread of pro.hiibition sont'iinenl has failed to reduce the national consumption of alcoholic iliqiu.ir. As our no-Lcouse friends do not if nil to reni'iml us, .])tolirliituon is making rapid 'progress In the United States and, particularly in tho south, county after county lias in the crisp .language of the Americans "gone dry.’’ Considering these facts, therefore, _ it is somewhat of a. surprise to loam from the “American Grocer”, which has kept a yearly record, that the American drink bill for last year was .much tho hugest on record. The total amount was 1,466,584,000d015., an increase of 15,729,60(M015. over 1906, and divided as.folloyvs: SOOdols. spent for beer;.’ 504,794,400 dols. for distillled spirits and 118,456,OOOdols. for wines. In all tlieso alcoholic beverages there was not only an incroaso iiii the total amount consumed, but a comparative and relative increase. The American people drank over a gallon per head (1.04 gallon per capita) more than during the .previous year; their -whisky rose from 1.52 gallon to 1.63 per capita, or about a pint more for each person. They average also a pint more of wine, as compared with tho previous year (0.12 of a gallon). This makes tho highest drinking point on record. .Discussing tho .position the Now Orleans “Times-Domocrat” says: The figures create, as wo said, much surprise. It was generally supposed that beer was driving out whisky ns a drfnlc, but the contrary proves to be .the case. We are drinking more beer, but we are drinking more whisky too. The result is difficult to understand at first b'ludli, because there has been a strong prohibition movement 'in this country for some time past, which was thought to Ibe reducing the amount of liquor consumed, and which the brewers and distillers reported as injuring their business. Strange (to say, <in England, where there is no prohibition and where 'the brewers have exerted great influence in political affairs, there lias been a steady decline in the amount of alcoholic beverages consumed for the past five years. There are several explanations of itho increase. The figures aro tlioso of 1907; and during the greater part of that year wo were in the midst of an unexampled prosperity; which brought about a lavish expenditure. There was more money to spend Ilian ever before and more was spent; and .it now appears tlut wo increased not only our purchase of food and clothing, but of beer and whisky also. 'Moreover, the prohibition movement in the South, although well under way in 1907, had not yet won any very great victories or placed entire States under prohibition, and we shall not be able to toll how far prohibition in the South has affected us until'l9o9. It will probably bo claimed by the antiprohibitionists that these figures prove what they havo always claimed, that prohibition does not actually prohibit and that the consumption of liquor continues to grow larger, both in the aggregate and per capita, in tho face of the steady and rapid extension of prohibition territory. As a matter of fact, tho figures furnish no direct evidence on the subject one way or the other, but they certainly sbovy that, despite the earnest efforts of the Prohibitionists, little has been done up to the 'beginning of 1908 in reducing liquor consumption in the United States.