PROHIBITION AND CRIME

Hokitika Guardian, 10 September 1923, Page 4

PROHIBITION AND CRIME

(Lyttelton 'Limes). Sir Auckland Cieddos, the British Ambassador at Washington, lias sent to the Foreign Oflioe a memorandum concerning the effects of the prohibitory law in the United Stales. The ‘•Manchester Guardian.” commenting upon this report, says:—“lt comes like an oasis in a desert. A\ e have had so many conlliating reports from parties moved by interest or prejudice or malice that it is refreshing to come at last on a comparison which sets check bv jowl, the estimates ’of the Anti.Si,loon League, the Association against the Prohibition Amendment, anil the Federal Prohibition unit of the Treasury. Pretty clearly, where the Treason tribunal is found to he in agreement with either of the propagandist bodies its word goes. Li almost every case it agrees with the Anti-Saloon League. Both of them estimate the quantity of liquor consumed at ‘iff per (cut,, of the amount before prohibition: tlie arrests for drunkenness at 50 per cent, the deaths from alcoholism at 2D ir cunt. The. only serious divergence is in regard to crime, whiih the AntiSaloon League estimate* at 45 per cent, of the earlier figures and the Treasury at 1141 per cent." We must assume, (continues the ‘Guardian*) that here the Treasury is likely to lie nearer tho truth. The sum of the report is pretty much what one would have calculated by taking a line midway between the claims of the extreme men on either side. Prohibition is elleotive in the country districts and the small towns. It is much less so in the big cities, where evasion is easier, drinking more inveterate. and ln\v-hreaking more fashionable. Its social efforts are indicated by the statements that the increase in savings banks deposits is 40 per cent, and that tho manufacture of homemade alcohol, which was popular at first, is now diminishing. The leal cause for astonishment is. not that prnliildtion is so much evaded, hut that it is so widely effective, as, on this evidence, it is shown to be.”

But fur once in a while we are afraid that our esteemed contemporary lias not correctly surveyed the situation. In the matter of savings hank deposits, Sir Auckland Gcihles himself says: “So many other factors have contributed to restore economic conditions in the United States since the war that it is almost impossible to form any estimate of the extent to which prohibition has lias contributed to this recovery or otherwise.” As to the rest of the alleged good effects of prohibition. Hie estimate of which rests, the “Guardian” suggests, on a two to one verdict —the Anti-Saloon I/vague and the Treasury against the organised opponents of prohibition—it must lie remembered that the Anti-Saloon League made the law and that the United States Treasury has been made responsible lor its enforcement. It is therefore not reasonable to expect either authority to speak with absolute impartiality.

However, it is of interest to learn that a British diplomat, imbued with the teuderest respect for American .susceptibilities, finds, after examining the evidence set before him, that prohibition has not. reduced crime in Hie United States.