Spirited Student Contest

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 384, 19 June 1928, Page 14

Spirited Student Contest

INTERNATIONAL DEBATE

Americans Support Prohibition

‘WE are not representatives of a population decimated by ft lawlessness; we do not participate in alcoholic orgies, and in spite of the fact that our country is said to be on the verge of civil war on account of the prohibition question, my colleagues and I are able to appear before you with at least a minimum degree of amity.” In these words, Mr. Charles H. Guptill, of Bates College, Maine, U.S.A., refuted some of the suggestions made against the enactment of prohibition in the United States at a public debate held in the Town Hall last evening.

The debate was the first that the team from Bates College has held in New Zealand, the visit to the Dominion being part of a world debating tour. The Town Hall was filled in every corner last evening when the American visitors met a team representing Auckland University College to debate on the subject of Prohibition. Before the debate opened, revelling students sang songs, did hakas, and “gave the bird” to various people; but when the debate opened all speakers were heard out patiently, although, at times, there were bursts of ironical and good-hum-oured .applause. The teams, headed by the chairman, Sir Walter Stringer, filed on to the platform to the engaging melody of “The Frothblowers’ Anthem.” The Bates College team was: Messrs. Charles H. Guptill, John F. Davis and Mervin L. Ames. The Auckland team was: Messrs. E. E. Bailey,. F. Simpson and S. Black. The motion was: “That the American Policy of Prohibition is Desirable,” Bates College taking the affirmative and Auckland the negative. Sir Walter Stringer, in welcoming the visitors, said he hoped they would have a pleasant and profitable stay in New Zealand. The debate was not by way of propaganda: it was merely a friendly academic discussion. AMERICA OPENS Mr. Guptill, in opening the debate, said he was glad to see the audience in such good spirits. Unsteadiness in him was due entirely to the good ship Niagara, and not to lack of sympathy with his subject. tie said the Bates team did not propose to spread the gospel of prohibition; bu:; proposed only to state accurately a case for prohibition. Prohibition had done great things in America. Not only had it stopped a few people from drinking, but it had given romance and adventure to those it had not stopped. “It has done more than trade reciprocity ever did,” he said, “to stimulate friendliness between Canada and the United States. It also added to the joy of foreign travel.” In stating his case, he went on to say that he would not attempt to prove that drinking was physically detrimental or morally reprehensible. Neither of these premises was the basis of the American policy. The opinion, he said, had long been growing that the liquor traffic in America should be controlled or extirpated. The liquor traffic had exercised an evil influence on the American social structure, and also on American politics. The saloon and brewery interests had corrupted the Government, and caused political machinery to be used for evil purposes. The coming of prohibition had reduced crime and increased industry, and the prohibition policy now commanded the support of 70 per cent, of the legislators.

“The prohibition movement is vicious in principle, and physically wrong," declared Mr. Bailey, ‘and 1 can only say that it is unsound, unscientific, ridiculous and ludicrous." (Loud and prolonged applause from the students’ gallery.) Mr. Bailey said that history was stored with exemplary warnings against the introduction of legislative morality. The Puritans were a set of short-sighted bigots who put nothing of value on the statute books. Even in New Zealand attempts had been made with anti-shouting and suppression of bookmakers. The prohibitionists assumed that the function of legislation was to control the personal conduct of the community. Prohibition was inexpedient because alcoholic indulgence was far too deeply rooted in human nature ever to be dug out; besides, there was danger of a recoil “Prohibition,” he said, “is an appeal to mechanical force in response to a cry for force where force would not succeed.” POINTS IGNORED Mr. Davis submitted that the opposition had not struck at the basis of the affirmative case. “Drinking may or may not be moral,” he said, “but the affirmative held that drinking leads to political corruption, destruction of family life,, and industrial waste.” He went on to say that conditions in America before prohibition were neither better nor worse than in other countries. “In the old days,” he said, “the lamppost was the ideal resting place for those who swayed from saloons; but when electricity was introduced drunkards were seen in the gutter—then people saw the evil of liquor.” “Eight years," he added, “has been enough to convince 75 per cent, of the legislators that prohibition is a success.” He denied the truth of the suggestion that prohibition led to disrespect for the law. Every law was broken, and, if anything, it demonstrated only the need for stricter enforcement. There was now a growing temperance among the American people, and drinking was but 10 or 15 per cent, what it was before prohibition. “There has disappeared that open sore, the liquor interest,” he said, “with its 200,000 saloons, with everbeckoning doors. The rising generation is growing up without interest m saloons, and as time goes on, prohibition will be firmly entrenched m America. “VOLSTEAD ACT A FAILURE” “I'll show you that the Volstead Act is the greatest failure of modern social legislation,” said Mr. Simpson, amid uproarious cheers. Prohibition was supported by a minority in America, he said. The Volstead Act had been so violated that it was now a myth. The failure of prohibition took two forms —one, direct breach of the law; the other, disastrous social and moral consequences. Bootlegging and illicit drinking now took a big part in American life, and a crme wave, sweeping the country, had overbalanced social life. In reply to the statement that prohibition affected personal liberty, Mr. Ames said there had never been a piece of constructive social legislation that did not affect personal liberty. When social welfare was menaced by an evil, that evil should be legislated against. “Prohibition is no longer a moral issue," he said. “It has become one of economics. The people who back it are the sociologists, economists and business experts." “Money has been sayed through it, and that money has gone into homes and life insurance, become productive capital doubling itself every 14 years.” He concluded by saying that neither of the two political parties in America dared to oppose it. Prohibition, at its worst, was better than any other method of dealing with the liquor traffic. “Prohibition is fundamentally wrong,” declared Mr. Black, final speaker for the negative, “and it will inevitably lead to ruin.” Continuing, he said there were four million unemployed in America, yet they were told that the country had reached an economic millennium. America's post-war prosperity had been fallaciously attributed to prohibition. America made economic advance because she was able to take full advantage of 1920, the first real year after the war. Considering the liquor problem from an economic angle, it was obvious that prohibition did not prohibit the consumption of liquor. The bootleggers were drawing revenue, and the liquor was worse than it had ever been in the history of man. “Prohibition leads to over-govern-ment by a minority,” he said. “It puts men in the position of enforcing or not a law as it pays them best; it enables a minority to coerce a majority.” “There is no valid reason wny you should not have a glass of wine after meals.” The student portion of the audience were with him to a man, and the rest of the speech was lost in uproar. No judgment was given, nor was the motion put to the audience. There -will be a private debate this evening, the subject being: “That Efficiency Hal Become a Deplorable Fetish in Modern Life.” Auckland will affirm the motion, and the Americans will oppose it. _ - - ■