The Guardian (And Evening Star, with which is in corporated the West Coast Times.) FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 29th, 1921. PROHIBITION PROBLEMS.

Hokitika Guardian, 29 February 1924, Page 2

The Guardian (And Evening Star, with which is in corporated the West Coast Times.) FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 29th, 1921. PROHIBITION PROBLEMS.

The I'nited States con tin ucs to be faced with many problems under its effort in enforce prohibition. Tile Senator • ho succeeded Representative Volstead, i he originator of the prohibition machinery, lately made a sweeping charge against the priniciple of prohibition as practiced in the States, lie said : ‘T protest that it is a mighty low standard of ethics that makes it perfectly legitimate and lawful for the millionaires to guzzle down all the liquor demanded by the animal in them, and at the same time to make it a crime for the man in overalls to make light grape wine. Any ]aw that makes a coveted privilege of the rich man a crime fertile poor man is a travesty on justice, and a farce.” The representative, Mr Ivvnll, tried to remedy the matter in the House with some special legislation. While speaking in defence of his Bill taxing private liquor stocks held for personal use, that prohibition should he made effective for the rich as well as for the poor. In the course of his remarks, Representative Kvalc said: “According to the national prohibition act, a person may have all the liquor he wants and may invite all his friends and give them all they want, all they can hold, and all the perfectly respectable, law-abiding citizens, provided only that he had money enough to fill his cellar with high-priced liquor prior to the enactment of this law. So we are witnessing a spectacle of many of our so-called ‘better class’ of people wallowing in liquor because they had money enough to provide the wherewithal for the wallowing, and the poorer class denied what many of them consider a highly prized privilege of the rich alone. Money provides the whisky bath, the law provides the immunity bath. Oh, the damnable hypocrisy of it all” It was in this frame of mind that he made the statement first quoted above. But- lie proceeded: “And this is one of the main reasons •or the utter disregard for the Eighteenth Amendment, and the National Prohibition Act. The poor man who wants his liquor, knows that lie enn- • ot have it, because lie does not or did not have the money. And it engenders resentment on his part. He also believes that in a great many cnsfcs the rich man. who enjoys all the liquor privileges, because of his money, stole that money from him. And it makes tit in doubly resentful. And then some people think they can compel a man hr brute force to obey a law which he considers a flagrant and glaring injustice. I pity the man who has no better knowledge of human nature.” That the prohibition law is openly flouted seems to be the general impression to be derived from the cabled news from America on the subject. The au-

tl'oiities, 110 matter how well the officials are selected, tail to have tie la" enforced. There is a further evidence of this in the following paragraph culled from a Sun Francisco letter dated barely a month ago. The extract states that flourishingun empty flask and assailing the activities of the AntiSrloon League, Representative .Sherwood, a Democrat of Ohio, the BS-year-ohi veteran >1! the House of Representatives told his colleague on January 19th. that “up to 1921, it is generally conceded that prohibition officers have 1; ileil to enforce the law. and also . Surged that the use of nan olios had increased enormously since- the enactment of the dry laws. He declared that prohibition has failed to prohibit, although it had cost the taxpayers “over a thousand million dollars in revenue in the last two years. I lie Volstead Act lie summed up very severelv stating “there lias been a large increase in booze drinking among young men and young girls. It bas become a menace to orderly society. 3 onng nun who never indulged in liquor before are now carrying flasks in Hi]' pockets loaded with moonshine or bootlog whisky, anil young gum aie induced to drink the vile .null in dance halls and automobiles parked along lonesome roads. It is a moral menace now and it is growing worse.’ "When tin Eighteenth Amendment was pioposed be asserted, the Anti-Saloon League promised that “it ' "ould reduce crime to the minimum. would largely reduce the divorce evil, would abolish drunkenness, would, make for business prosperity by inducing the earnings of the industrial classes to go uite homes instead ol into intoxicants, and would empty our jails and penitentiaries. After four years of experi- , nee.’’ lie said, ‘we find not one single promise made by the proponents of prohihliion has been kept. C rime, divorces and murders have increased.. \nd worse than all the calamities that nave happened since the \ olsiead Act i.; the fearful record of the dope fiends, now numbering marly a million victims. as lepoitcd by the highest medical experts.” New Zealand should he comforted in the thought that the coimtiv has not ventured into the troubled waters of this so-called prohibition movement. The American experience has at least served the purpose of providing a shocking example.