LORD NORTHCLIFFE’S VIEWS.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 September 1921, Page 2

LORD NORTHCLIFFE’S VIEWS.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Lord Northcliffe’s opinions are worthy of consideration and, to adapt Shakespeare, Northeliffe “is an honorable man,” yet when lie dealt with the drink he shows a distinct partiality, and so, of course, does the Daily Mail. It is, however, surely a coincidence ‘ that this morning, as soon as I had read his opinions on Prohibition in America, the mail brings me a copy of the American Issue of August 20, exactly a month ago. Lord Northeliffe tells all sorts of bad things about the American attempt, at reform, while the Issue shows that other side, which I will ask you to allow me to quote, but briefly. One hardly knows how much of the Daily Mail article is really from the visitor who has just left us and how much is the make up, or selection, of the newspaper correspondent. One thing is plain, the article does not give facts or figures, but just draws pictures in which the artist’s taste is displayed and so drawn as to influence, if possible, the readers. Now let us turn to a few facts. Quite recently an official report was laid before the British Parliament showing the statistics of arrests for drunkenness in England and Wales for the year 1920. The figures are a complete vindication of prohibition, even as in America, and ample evidence that regulation is a failure. Here is an extract: The total number of convictions for drunkenness in England and Wales in 1920 as compared with 1919 shows an increase of 65.26 per cent. The total for 1920 is more than three times as great as the lowest total reached during the war. English visitors who are ridiculing American prohibition would be more interesting and not so ridiculous if they would explain why arrests for drunkenness are increasing in England and Wales at about the same rate as they are decreasing in the' United States. In spite of the difficulties of law enforcement and the organised efforts to defy the law, there has been a decrease in the arrests for drunkenness under national prohibition in former wet 'States of -about 60 per cent. Here are some of the facts that the Daily Mail may think over when they attempt to explain the working of prohibition in America. In 59 cities of the United States having a population of 30,000, or over, and a combined population of over 20,000,000 (including New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia), the official figures show a decrease in arrests for drunkenness from 316,842 in 1917 to 109,768 in 1920, a falling off at the rate of 65.3 per cent. Other parts of the country show similar results of prohibition. Richmond, Vir'gina, where the population has increased 27 per cent, in the four years since the State has been dry, the ' arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct have decreased 75 per cent.* Boston, Detroit, St Louis, and even Cincinnati show much the same reductions. So in spite of Lord Northcliffe New Zealand prohibitionsts need not be alarmed. Anyway, what is right is right and must win. If the opponents of reform would enlarge upon the benefits the country or the world gets from intoxicating drinks they might do something, but they have no benefits to produce. Another item of news is from the Chicago Tribune, not a “dry" paper either. It gives an editorial on “Is Mr. Bull going dry?” It deals with the position in England and in America. The former in relaxing wartime restrictions in drink and the latter in dealing with prohibition, and then says: “It is apparent that there is something uneasy in English and Scotch sentiment. Observers of Scotch conditions believe that the clans are heading towards Sahara surer than fate. They may be wrong, but they base their opinions upon evident misuse of highpower liquor.” Again: “The English might stand indefinitely for saloons full of men, but when women of all ages, black-haired and grey, race the men for the bar at opening hours, a breed which furnished us (U.S.A.) with prohibition is-bound to take the matter up.” Finally: “Our (Tribune) advice to Mr. J. Bull is to stop grinning at the Statue of Liberty and to l look over his shoulder to see what is coming up behind him. He may sidestep it but he may have to be nimble.”—l am, etc., G.H.M. (Published by arrangement.)