CAPT. W. J. DENNY, M.C., M.P.

Taihape Daily Times, 1 September 1919, Page 5

CAPT. W. J. DENNY, M.C., M.P.

EX-ATTORNEY-GENERAL, SOUTH » AUSTRALIA. GIVES HIS li\ll’RESSlOl\‘=S OF PROHIBITION IN AMERICA. Next t 0 the War, the most discussed oi’ all Droblems in America to-day is Prohibition. I have read Very many “Ports upon The Subject in Australia, most of them of a partisan character. The “pros” urged that it was a complete success; the “antis” that it had defeated itself, and led to evasions and secret vice; while both quoted figures extensively in support of their views_ I had the advantage of personal contact with the problem, and also many opportunities of ascertaining ,the‘vieWS of citizens of all shades of opinion_ iFrankly, I was disillusioned_ I found that prohibition was not a mere “goody-goody” movement. It was the result of a solid body -of public opinion backed up by the heads of the great industrial concerns. The Americans are very keen on eificiency. Their Workers must be “live Wires”; their representatives must have “go”. The great manufacturers and -business men found that the misuse of alcohol resulted in a loss of power and efficiency in the workshop and factory. The workers became slack, the output Was diminished .or‘n6t up to requirements, so t-hey idiscouintenaanced «d.r‘ink.ing, and assisted the campaigns -against ”saloons.” In addition, they gave the movement the impetus of person example. An overwhelming number of big business: -men in America are nondrinkers. II was present during my visit to America at ‘an important. meeting at Worcester, a big manufacturing centre in Massachusetts, where nearly a hundred employers -o‘f'eighty thousand rnensat down to dinner. Not. one took anything more exhilarating than iced-water! Would such an event be possible: in England or Australia‘? I think not. The American business man has, of.-fcourse, his ditrerision or sedative, and sofifhe smokes cigars i;ncess"antly——— mostly ‘jjquite soft and green, in" fact, I had the utmost diificulty ingprocupring _s_easone_'d cigars in any partlof Amer’-.i_ca. The fie-fiiciency argument naturally gained padded‘:-,iln.petus after the claration of war. ;Being a clear-hea‘de‘d and practical people, the Americans argued ‘that if prohibition resulted in increased business and‘ manufacture it was even more essential in War time. And if in War time, why not at all times‘? This I found to be a compelling influence in afiecting the national decision for prohibition. Nor is America prepared to adopt the principle of compensation to those aflected by anti-liquir legislation. In most other countries this course is followed. Either the State or the industry itself (sorheiimes both) establishes a fund to compensate those financially 'afl"ee.ted. It is sopin partsi of Australia, and it is recognised in the recent English proposal to acquire all liquor interests by buying out the present proprietors. In America I -‘heard many people say that those in the fiquor trade. “had brought. it on themserves”; others thatiit was no_ duty of the State to compensate" a business which the passage of such legislatioll implied to be detrimental Vto the nation. The seriousness ofhthe new policy to those interested is §,.hOWII ‘by the fact that ill_NeW York alone over. ten thousand saloon keepers will be put out of business-—in many cases ruined_

The one point upon which all Anlex'icans agreed to be satisfactory was the fact that nearly 0.11 the big brewery interests were confrolled by German millionaires who have huge businesses at St. Louis, Milwaukee, and other centres. Their losses Wflfll be enormous.

Quite 9. number of people I huxe met favoured the manufacture of light wines and beer similar to those so extensively used in Europe. A large, and’ until recently, an increasing trade was being done in the manufacture, of light wines in California, and other districts. This View did not, however, find general acceptance, and is not likely to be adopted. America has no popular alcoholic drink similar to those which on the Continent are ‘almost regarded as an article of food. And from What I could gétther, I was satisfied that the national ‘demand for prohibition is too insistent. t 5 be delayed hr tnrned aside by any change of policy.

The various churches—and there is no country in the World which has such a diversity of religious beliefs as Amer—‘ ica, some of them of the most weird character-—are, of course, firm advocates for prohibition. But, as I Was. often told, they could never have influenced the country without the support of public opinion. Citizens who are not associafcd with the Churches identify themselves with -“the antisaloon leagues, and exercise a very powerful influence, especially at local option polls, which are frequently heldThcse appeals to public opinion sometimes show see-saw results, but on the whole the movement has shown VGIZV steefidy and recently very rapid PTO‘ grass. The tendency now, however, is not to rely upon loc-al option, but 'SO support national prohibition. This attitude is due to the zinomilies crcafvd by confiicting laws, not only in HlO

various E»La.tes, but. in the various coun« tries. Thus the Federal State oi Columbia" in which Washington is situated, is “dry," but Baltiinorea which is within easy distance of the capital city, is “Wei,” and Washing-. ton residents are able to have their alcoholic tastes gratificfi in the former town. “-

This conflieting syst.em—-or want of system———-and the «anomalies arising from it, were largely responsible for the prohibition effort being directed to-‘ wards Congress.’ Many of the elections for Governors of the States and other public ofiices are now ‘decided on that issue, but there are very few candidates who show any disposition to favour the “wcts.” Whilst I was in Philadelphia a primary election for the Governor of the State of Pennsylvania took: place. Both the Republican and the Democratic candidate favoured the “dry’ ’issue_ One Republic supporter whom I asked about the respective candidates remarked. to me regrettfully, “I’ve always voted Republican, and our party here is mostly against prohibition; but the ‘drys’ are so strong that even our cafididate had to pledge himself to vote for it.” The divergence of State la_ws—necessarily incident to a Federal Con-sti'tu't‘ion——-leads to curious results‘ Thus in some States or even districts you may purchase liquor freely and openly; but you may not even pass through a “dry” State on »a. railway journey with a flask of whisky in your valise. In the “dry” States periorical raids are made immediately the railway train enters their territories, and heavyfines summarily inflicted upon those who carry liquor with them. Many commercial travellers (who, by the Way, I found‘ as a class to be chiefly teetotallers) found themselves in‘ an unhappy plight When, -‘during the night, perhaps, they were summoned" from their sleepers and required to unlock their baggage and satisfy or otherwise the myrmidon of the law that it contained no liquor.- As a‘ result, all’ the big railway corporations have dis-J cc~n__tinued the barsvhieh was formerly attaelredtto the dining -cars‘ of the. railrvays, and liquor cannot now be "obi tained; ‘even withfmeals’,"]_j ‘

'MThen, iagainysome States are"‘dry” and others “bone? dry”; in some you. may get alcohol in Ifixed quantities only, i.e., a gallon a fortnight, and so on. In the south the .pr»ohi-bition movement is largelyythe result of the coloured race problem. According to the American Constitution, you cannot discriminate against any American citizen, white or black. Amongst the coloured race liquor had produced especially deleterious results, and was responisible for very serious crimes, so the legislatures of most of the South voted “dry.” Amongst American soldiers, drinking. is strictly prohibited all over -the United States, even in “Wet” ‘States, like New York and Pennsylvania, and heavy penalties are inflicted upon any person supplying a soldier with liquor. National prohibition is now assured for America, not merely as a war measure, but permanently. Congress adopted prohibition a War measure as from June, 1919, but I did not meet a. single man who doubted it would becomethe law of the land within two years at least. Under the American, Cionstitution no amendment» may "be made to that statute unless ithas the assent of two—thirds of the several States. "Thus it “became necessary to secure a majority of thirty-six of the forty-eight States of the Union. This majority is now quite assured, and everyone in America looks forwardsome with pleasure, some with regret-4 to the, time when no American, for good or ill, will be ablr to obtain any alcoholic liquor in anj: part ofthe United States.——Advt.