 Section 14 of The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. The Rise and Fall of Prohibition by Charles Hansen Town. Bootlegging and graft. Prohibition, being a phenomenon, has inevitably bred other phenomena. The most ardent fighters for a dry United States are the prohibitionists themselves and the bootleggers. A new industry, which flourishes every day despite the honest attempts of the government to suppress it, has arisen. It brings in a fat profit to those who enter it. An incredible army of active workers is marching, or rather driving in motorcars, through the land, doing a prosperous business. They do not deposit their earnings in our banks. For if they did so, the federal authorities could force them to pay an income tax. Instead, they put them in the proverbial stocking, and after a sufficient number of banknotes, for it is usually a cash business that is carried on, are available, many of the bootleggers who are mostly foreigners, sale for parts unknown. There they intend to spend the rest of their days in peace and comfort and opulence, why not? I'm writing of the evils of bootlegging not only as they apply to a great city like New York. In a certain western city of some 250,000 inhabitants, a city in a state which went dry long before the constitutional amendment, a woman told me that all she had to do was to ring up her favorite bootlegger when she was giving a dinner party, and practically anything she desired would be delivered at her door within 15 minutes. It is very difficult to get evidence against these diligent businessmen, and I have encountered only a few people who have conscientious scruples about dealing with them. It is hard to be consistent concerning volsteadism. If the act itself plays merry pranks on sea and shore, why should not human beings likewise forget their dignity once in a while? The bootlegging evil has begotten another evil. Grafft is stalking through the land, hand in hand with it. They are boon companions, they are inseparable, where one is, there you will always find the other. Brothers in sin, Siamese twins, Damon and Pythias, Ruth and Naomi were not more devoted, but their unholy alliance has none of the virtues of those ardent and ancient friendships. There is always in any illicit transaction a man hire up who must reap his share of the illegal profits. Usually the American public rebels at the middleman, resents his grasping proclivities, but nowadays being humanly thirsty, it has no time to quibble, and so long as it gets its modicum of spirits, it has little fault to find with the humanly fallible protector of the bootleger who must receive some attention. It is willing to pay almost anything for whiskey or gin, used to being done, it good-naturedly recognizes the authorities along the way who are in a position to open stores of the desired stuff and see that it is delivered to the crowding bootleggers. It is an endless chain, and to become wealthy overnight has always been the dream of the average American. With prohibition he sees an opportunity such as never existed before and thousands are taking advantage of the situation. When one considers the amount of revenue which formerly poured into the coffers of the United States Treasury because of the tax on alcohol and what the loss of that money must mean to date to the government, one realizes that in some manner the deficit must be made up. The good old genial public is again the goat to fall into the vernacular. Prices have risen since the passing of the Eighteenth Amendment. Hotel proprietors who formerly counted upon a considerable income through their bars now find themselves forced to charge higher prices for food. Time was when, if one failed to order wine with one's meals, an extra twenty-five cents was asked. It was taken for granted that red or white wine was a part of one's ration as it were. And those who failed to indulge in the luxury were looked upon as rather curious specimens of humanity. A table d'eau with vin rouge was the regular thing, and the wine was included in the price of the dinner. With the going out of all forms of drinks, naturally there had to be a readjustment of menu cards. There is a tax now almost everywhere for bread and butter, and a cover charge is made in practically all the metropolitan restaurants. Gradually one notes these extras are creeping in. One cannot blame the hotel keepers. Rents and wages have increased since the war. Therefore they must ask more for their rooms as well as for their dining room service. And where one formerly tipped in moderation, the average waiter scorns anything less than fifteen or twenty percent of the amount of one's check. The good-natured and long-suffering American people are imposed upon at every turn, and, denied the privilege of consuming liquor openly, they give dinners in their homes, where at least there can be a semblance of harmless gaiety. This causes fewer people to go to the smart restaurants in a city like New York, and generally there is no supper crowd at all. Lights are dimmed early, and while I am holding no brief for late hours, I do think that human beings should be permitted to organize their own lives and decide for themselves whether a supper dance after the theater or the opera is harmful. At lunch and time the hotels present another aspect. They still do a thriving business, but as I have said in a previous chapter, for many and many a year there had been little drinking in the middle of the day. With fewer people to serve and fewer meals to serve, hotel men have been driven to ask more for that service which they continue to render. The one bright thought in this painful readjustment is the fact that the prohibitionists must help the rest of us to make up the loss of revenue. Their checks, hitherto much less than ours, are now quite the same. But then I imagine few of them have ever cared for brilliant lights and smart napery, preferring to dine in the dim sanctity of basements and back rooms at an hour so early that daylight has hardly gone when the supper bell rings. The color and joy of the ritz or the plaza would scarcely appeal to a fanatic. But to get back to the bootleggers, there are many degrees of them. Some are honest, others are not. Once in a while a gin bottle will contain nothing but water and sometimes whiskey will have been diluted and near beer sold as the regular thing. Yet with an established trade and recognized business, conditions are improving. Even as there is honour among thieves, the latest model of bootlegger must play the game squarely and those of the better class frown upon chicanery and are disgusted when spurious material is sold. They realize that if inferior liquor is delivered, sales may soon cease altogether. Therefore those who have their best interests at heart and their name is Legion are cautious and painstaking and will honestly tell a customer whether he is buying synthetic gin or pre-Volstead stuff. I do not pretend to know the workings of this nefarious trade but I do know this, that many Italians and Germans and Frenchmen, among others, are doing a thriving business and are only too glad to donate part of their enormous commissions to the local ring who, in return, offer them complete protection. And from talks which I have had with various restaurant proprietors who likewise pay graft regularly I know that our government has lost the respect of practically every foreigner for he sees not only his own people defying the law but the Americans disobeying it under his nose. He says that so long as there are grapes on vines and apples on trees so long as fermentation is a natural process there will be drinking in the world and he cannot understand why it is against the law to take a sip of red wine with one's spaghetti or a nip of brandy with one's coffee. It is all incomprehensible to him. His children grow up seeing him have no reverence for the laws of the country he has adopted. Of course, the prohibitionist will say that there is a very simple solution of this. These foreigners within our gates should succumb to the inevitable and obey the law. True, I wish that everyone would obey the law. The way for children not to be punished at school is for them to behave themselves. But it is difficult to force people to do something which it is inherently distasteful for them to do. We invite immigration. We welcome hordes of people to our shores. People who we know are accustomed to taking wine and beer with their meals. And then we impose strict measures upon them, suddenly, and expect them to fall into line. We should educate them first. We should let them know what the Constitution means, what it stands for. We should insist that they learn our language, study the history of the United States, absorb the meaning of America before they attain citizenship. We are loose with them. Why should they not be loose with us? They see that we are none too careful when we allow them to cross our threshold. Why should they help us tidy up the house after they are safely within it? The truth is, if we would but face it, that we are thorough in few things. We make a great pretense at civic virtue and national righteousness, and we neglect the fundamentals. To the core of things we seldom wish to go. The bootlegger, laughing in his sleeve at the boasted and vain glorious spiritual integrity of America, is but the natural result of our own folly. He is as inevitable a part of so-called prohibition as feathers are a part of birds. As time goes on, his business now conducted in secret may be conducted openly. He may become a recognized figure in society since we can never suppress him utterly. He is like the bounder in every club, the nouveau riche in every drawing room. He has come to stay more as the pity. For an enormous percentage of Americans approve of him, the while they disapprove of him. They know his faults, but they say to themselves that even congressmen have faults. And they know down deep in their hearts that many a congressman and many an exalted judge patronize the bootlegger, receive social calls from him and even speak to him on the telephone when they are out to others. The bootleggers know all this. Why should they therefore venerate a system which is not treated seriously by those in the highest places? We are asking of them something superhuman. And the latest development is that the bootleggers are now paying income taxes, openly stating the source of their earnings with no fear of getting into trouble. Meanwhile, the propaganda of the Anti-Saloon League goes on in the newspapers with this and that report of how a ring of bootleggers has been wiped out. We read of sensational raids in the big cities and there is a cry that federal officers have broken the whole system to pieces. Thousands of quarts of scotch have been confiscated where it is placed no one seems to know. Dry agents in their zeal even search herces and make the undertakers to say nothing of the bereaved relatives of the deceased quite angry. The time may come when X-rays may be taken of innocent citizens to discover whether they have been drinking liquor. Do not smile. Anything is possible when a great country allows itself to be governed by an organization of fanatics who have intimidated Congress and seem bent upon ruining our shipping industry. But it would appear almost impossible to get honest men to act in the capacity of spies. There is an everlasting shake-up of federal officials who are supposed to see that the Volstead Act is enforced. Here again the human element enters that element which the fanatics never recognize. The temptations are too great for the average man. He knows that bootleggers are getting rich and soon he sees that if he closes his eyes and opens his hand he too can become a crisis. At first it may be that he hesitates. There is danger of being caught. Well, why not take a chance, he says to himself. Others are doing it. After all, one has to live and a six-cylinder car would be nice. Thus is the voice of conscience quieted and soon it ceases to whisper at all. That little Italian restaurant in his district ah yes! They dispense drinks to the favored few who know the ring the bell must be given. It would be so easy to pretend that he does not know of its existence and Tony after all is not such a bad sort. He'll hand over the kale without a question without a murmur. And so one more federal official goes to the dogs. A man who until yesterday was honest knowing that his lucrative career may be brief he has determined to make hay while the sun shines and prohibition has created another crook in the wicked city though of course it has cured a drunkard in the virtuous country and the anti-saloon people are perfectly satisfied. Are you? End of section 14 Recording by Linda Johnson Section 15 of The Rise and Fall of Prohibition This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org The Rise and Fall of Prohibition by Charles Hansen Town Don't joke about prohibition. Not content with forcing us to close our lips to liquor the prohibitionists recently sent out a request which amounted to an order that no one should open his lips to speak disparagingly or ingest of the sacred 18th Amendment. We were to be denied the blessed privilege of laughing at ourselves even. I suppose that a few fanatics oh merely to study life, bless their hearts had gone into a vaudeville theatre and had been incensed at the ribaldry of the actors and the shrieks of mirth of the audience over prohibition wheezes. I have seen an assemblage in convulsions when some like mention was made of Mr. Volstead and whenever a flask is displayed on the screen of some movie house there never fails to follow a round of loud applause. Our comic weeklies and newspaper supplements continue to print prohibition jokes much to the delight of their readers. One fearless periodical, judge has come out openly for light wines and beer and lost a valued contributor thereby. Another paper on the contrary solemnly prints this editorial headed there are jokes and jokes. A great concern operating vaudeville theatres in most of the large cities has issued an order that all performers must cut out their jokes about prohibition. This is progress. It should be followed by orders to eliminate prohibition jokes from our legislatures, courts, police stations, city halls and all other places where men supposed to be serious and doing serious work are to be found. The outstanding fact about prohibition seems to be that people forget that it came about through an amendment to the United States Constitution. End quote. Meanwhile, the mother-in-law joke is tolerated and roared at. They all write for a man to make fun of his wife's mother since there is no formal statute against such jests but it is unthinkable that he should laugh at himself because he can't get a simple glass of beer. The country he fought for and was willing to die for denies him an ancient form of enjoyment. He could make fun openly of Negroes though the 15th amendment tells him that they are his peers. The reformer you see never counted upon the chaffing which the Volstead Act would have to stand. Ridicule can kill anything and they know it now. Therefore, they must stop ridicule by mandate. Heaven knows there is little to smile at these days except prohibition. Are we to have that luxury taken from us too? It looks that way. Yet no law can control people's innermost feelings. No request amounting to an order can coerce a nation to do something it is not impelled to do of itself. One remembers a sad time not so long ago when we were begged to remain neutral in thought, word and deed, and notices were printed in theatre programs urging us to make no demonstration when the troops of the Allies crossed the screen to give no sign when the German army did likewise. Yet there was a burst of applause or a burst of hisses just the same. The minds of a people cannot be controlled. It is nonsense to try to control them. Now the fanatics would seek to rob us of the joy of laughter. For, of course, they despise and detest laughter. Laughter, ridicule, is a sword that can be used against them. We can make this whole business of prohibition so ludicrous that we can laugh it out of the statutes. Guffaws have disturbed many a solemn meeting and a single cartoon has broken many a promising politician. One may be able to stand up against a serious argument, but Lampooning has destroyed even men of genius. All was to be well the moment the 18th Amendment became a fact. Everyone was going to sit still and take it very seriously just as the Prohibitionists had planned. The lid was on and on it would remain forever and ever. Puritans have no sense of humour or they would not be Puritans. They had not dreamed that someone would overturn the can on which the lid was placed and, through sheer joy of living, shout and sing as of old. The habits of generations cannot be changed in a moment. We, who had been accustomed to decent drinking, did not intend to stop at once. We would taper off, as the Topers put it. We had laid aside a little supply of jollity and the word would go about that so-and-so had a large enough and deep enough cellar to permit him to entertain for at least three or four years. One of the strange things about Prohibition was the fact that with its coming everyone imagined that everyone else would turn miser concerning treating. But here again the human element was forgotten. Everyone seems more anxious than ever to prove that his bootlegger has an exhaustless supply and a certain pride is taken in handing out innumerable drinks. And aristocracy has arisen that even serves liqueurs after coffee as though a plethora of creme de menthe and yellow and green chartreuse were in the land. The proverbial generosity of the American was never in evidence. Where one was niggardly, perhaps in the old days, one can scarcely afford to be so now. And those who accept drinks without returning them are frowned upon as unworthy. They are the outcasts of a new society, the lowest form of hangar on. Of course they are not nearly so numerous as of old, therefore they are more conspicuous. And so the laughter goes on, but even when the reformers do not hear it, they writhe knowing of its existence. Once in a great while some echo reaches them, no doubt, things have not straightened out as they had anticipated. And so they squirm and rage and puff up and devise ways and means to call a complete halt on all merriment, whether it is directed at them or not. In all seriousness a woman's temperance society sent a mandate to every editor in the United States not long ago, bidding them cease satirizing prohibition. It would not do, they contended, to continue to smile at the sacred Eighteenth Amendment. Mr. Volstead also was sacrosanct and it was outrageous the way piety was poo-pooed and what did the editors mean by such conduct and why didn't they stop it and obey teacher and be good. And every government official, when he gets up at a banquet to make a speech, begs his hearers to heed the law. Though he knows full well that down the street another banquet may be going on, attended by officials equally high where the law is never thought of. It is a sad commentary on our government when it is necessary thus to address the people. Quote, we must be one people, one union, and that the American Union shouted one representative of the government speaking in Chicago before a business men's convention. And he went on to say, whenever a newspaper ridicules a law, plays up a policy of contempt for law and its enforcement and in its news and editorial columns fosters law-breaking, that newspaper is doing more to destroy American institutions than a federal judge can do to maintain them. No man in public life who is possessed of vision and realizes his responsibility to government would favor regulation of the public press by law, but it is obvious that the power of the press must not be used to foster disrespect for our government and disobedience to its laws. End quote. Free speech will not be tolerated if the fanatics have their way, yet the first article in the amendments to the Constitution says, quote, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. End quote. In order that the 18th Amendment may be upheld, the first may be forgotten. But to get back for a moment to the ladies of the something or other temperance society. A brilliant writer, Mr. Edward S. Martin, answered them delightfully in Harbour's magazine and with the kind permission of the editors of that periodical, I am privileged to make extracts from his article. Mr. Martin never loses his temper as the ladies certainly did. He remains, as ever, the tactful, urbane, pitying occupant of the editor's easy chair. He does not even frown. He speaks from a long experience, gently, but to the point. Quote. The enforcement of prohibition meets with some obstacles and furnishes food for thought to two large groups in the community. The people who want it enforced and the people who occasionally want something to drink. Just at the moment, it seems as if the people who want a drink are somewhat ahead of the other group in the competition. At any rate, the group that wants enforcement seems to think it necessary to make extra effort. To Harbour's magazine, as doubtless to hundreds of other periodicals, has come a communication from the Committee for Prohibition to the enforcement of a much respected and powerful organization of women, which announces that the Committee has adopted a program, the items of which it communicates. The fifth item is to the effect that all the ministers be urged to preach and teach the necessity for respect for and observance of the law. The sixth item runs that every theatrical manager, movie manager and director, whether of a daily, weekly or monthly publication, be requested to see that all jokes, ridiculing prohibition and its enforcement, are eliminated from any production, film or article coming under his jurisdiction, and that the matter be treated with that seriousness that the subject merits, and that this resolution be thrown on the screen and printed in the different magazines throughout the country. The demand for protection from jokes is often made, and always implies that there is something that needs to be joked about. There is a sin called sacrilege. If we joke about things that are sacred to enough people, it gives a kind of offence which, even if the law does not punish it, it is not safe to excite. There is a sin of blasphemy which we suppose the law will still punish if it is gross enough. It will be agreed that the considerate people do not just about sacred things nor even about things which, though not sacred to themselves, are sacred to the people they are talking to. Well then, is prohibition one of these sacred things we must not talk about? Are amendments of the Constitution and the Volstead Law to rank with the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount as not being safely subject to derisive comment? Something like that seems to be in the minds of the women whose communication we have received, who include items six in their program, but if so, their attitude is wrong. A constitutional amendment is not sacred, much less a Volstead Act. It is the Volstead Law that the jokes of prohibition are aimed at more than the amendment. If we cannot joke about an act of Congress, then indeed things have come to a restricted pass. If a law is bad, one of the ways to beat it is to laugh it out of court. If that is being done about the Volstead Law, the ladies who want that law enforced would do well to examine it and see why it is not enforced rather than try to stop jokers from laughing at it. A letter writer to a newspaper says if it is true that a community gets the kind of government it deserves, it is equally true that a law gets the kind of obedience it deserves. His assertion may be disputed, but still, if the Volstead Law is not being respected, is it certain that it deserves respect? It is a law in the process of being tried out. If it is good, we want it enforced. If it is bad, we want it amended, but we do not want to be choked off from discussing it or testing it. There is no power in Congress to say what is right or wrong. The most that Congress can do is to say what is lawful or unlawful. The distinction is important. The practical judge of whether a law is right or wrong is the general community to which the law applies. If that community will not back up the enforcement of the law, it will not be enforced. It is yet to be demonstrated how far the Volstead Law as it stands is enforceable. If its fruits do not please a majority of the people who live under it, it may have to be modified so that it will stand for something that is near enough to be the popular judgment of what is right to win popular support. There is a great deal of good in the present prohibition movement. It put the saloons out of business. It checked the brewers and distillers in their over-strenuous efforts to sell their products. It accomplished benefits which probably could not have been accomplished except by the kind of clean sweep that the amendment was. But it was necessarily a rough job, an experiment to be tried out in practice. If its rules need modification they may get it or they may not, but if not they may be practically modified in enforcement. Who is boss in this country? Is it the President, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, the state authorities, the newspapers, the lawyers, the ministers, the doctors, or possibly the women? None of them. Public opinion is the boss. In the long run what public opinion demands it gets. Laws, to be of any worth, have to have sanction. That is, there must be something to make people who violate them feel that they are doing wrong. Laws of nature have abundant sanction. If you fool with the law of gravitation you get bumped. There is no trouble about the enforcement of the law of gravitation. Nobody goes around begging you not to ridicule it. It takes care of itself and if you flout it you pay the consequences. The ten commandments have a sanction of long experience. Some of them are obsolete, some are respected, and though they are not directly enforced by the courts, laws based on them are so enforced. Public opinion hear about rests very considerably on the ten commandments. They have shaped the habits of thought and deportment of many millions of people including most of those now living in this country. The trouble with the present law has got moral sanction enough to make it effective. Public opinion will back up the law in closing the saloons and restricting and regulating the sale of intoxicants but it does not follow it for one thing in defining a beverage with an alcoholic content of one half of one percent as intoxicating. When it comes to that public opinion laughs because that is contrary to its experience. Furthermore, public opinion shows as yet no particular fervor about achieving a total stoppage of alcoholic supplies from those who want them. No serious stigma attaches to violations of the Volstead law by private buyers. Fines and like embarrassments may result but not disrepute. A good many fairly decent people seem to buy what they want and do not conceal it. The people who thought before the law was adopted that it was wicked or inexpedient to drink intoxicants still think so. The people who thought otherwise continue to think otherwise. Many people drink less than before the law began to operate but a good many other people drink more and buy beverages at much higher prices. To some extent prohibition seems to have made drinking popular by diminishing the individual discouragement of it and putting the responsibility for the maintenance of temperance on a law and the officers who enforce it. That may be only a temporary effect but if it turns out that the Volstead law as it is cannot be enforced at the present time there may possibly be an effort to tinker it to put it into such shape that public opinion will stand back of it and give it a sanction. The alternative would be to wait and see what effect time will have on men and habits. There is no one to tell us that we shall be damned if we disobey the Volstead law and so long as juries refuse to violate it it stands modified in practice. The organizations political, commercial religious that seek to shape public opinion all use propaganda. We all know what that means because we have all had such a surfeit of it. During the war we were flooded with it and everyone learned what it was and how to use it. It is put out by speakers and in print wherever possible. Organization secured prohibition but organization is not public opinion and may for a time override it. Organization works on the run with noise and big headlines and meetings and even with threats. Public opinion slowly takes form in the minds of individuals. There comes in Lincoln saying the impossibility of fooling all the people all the time. Propaganda may overwhelm private judgment for a time but private judgment keeps on working after propaganda ceases. It digests what has been offered to it. The common facts of life continue to appeal to it and impress it. It views what propaganda has accomplished and slowly and deliberately considers whether it is good and if it concludes that it is not good it ceases to back it and then there has to be something different something that looks like improvement. End of section 15 Recording by Linda Johnson. The rise and fall of prohibition by Charles Hansen Town how Canada solved the liquor problem. Sing a song of Montréal a barrel full of rye foreign 20 Yankees feeling red or dry when the barrel was opened they all began to sing oh to hell with Mr. Volstad and God saved the king. The dominion of Canada has solved its liquor problem for the most part. It seems to know that in those provinces which are technically dry a wretched state of things exists as in the United States and those provinces which have government control are well ordered. For instance, Nova Scotia has absolute prohibition. I went there in May and June 1922 and as in the states I never liked for a drink when I desired one. Practically every chemist is a bootlegger. To show you how badly the system works let me tell you of a personal experience. I found myself one weekend in a little village which shall be nameless. I inquired of the innkeeper if it would be possible to obtain a bottle of whiskey. Certainly he said simply go to the drugstore tell him you are a guest of mine and I think you will have no difficulty in getting a good brand. I was surprised to say the least a chance to be a Sunday morning the church bells were ringing as I got to the door of the shop the druggist was just leaving it he lived above it I believe for a morning service. I told him my errand and immediately without a slightest hesitation he opened the door, took me in and sold me what I wished he hadn't the slightest idea who I was yet perhaps it was evident that I was an American traveler no questions were asked and openly I carried my bottle through the streets back to the inn. In New Brunswick I obtained ale openly in a hotel and the waitress told me that almost on every other corner of the city in which I was stopping a bootlegger could be found and if I made my wishes known there would be no difficulty in purchasing anything I wanted as it happened I wished nothing there but it was good to know that it could have been bought any time of the day or evening but the province of Quebec and in British Columbia all affairs will be found the government controls the liquor trade and guarantees the quality of the alcohol sold neat little government liquor stores as they are called are in every city and town and a vendor has charge of each one a regular government employee who is responsible for the carrying out of the government liquor act and the regulations so far as they relate to the conduct of the store and the sale of liquor they're at everything is done in a most orderly and systematic way if one wishes to purchase whiskey he merely applies to the vendor in his neighborhood a small fee is charged and it is a gratification to know that this fee goes directly to one's government and not into the pockets of bootleggers supplies are delivered in sealed packages duly inscribed and again it is a gratification to know that one is in no danger of drinking poison with the added fear of death or blindness there are restrictions a great many indeed but they are wise and for the best interests of the province for instance it is against the law to drink in the government stores but one may of course in an inn have a supply of liquor in one's room or drink light wines and beer in the public dining room Drunkenness is taboo and one sees very little of it the people are prosperous and everyone is as happy as one can be in this troubled world Canada has enormous war debts I was told that British Columbia has paid their quota and in addition had made many improvements of public highways all through the revenue derived from the government's sale of liquor in British Columbia great care is exercised that no spurious permits are received at the stores the law provides that no permit shall be delivered to the applicant until he has in the presence of the vendor or official to whom the application is made written his signature thereon in the manner prescribed for purposes of his identification as the holder thereof and the signature has been attested by the vendor or official under his hand permits are not issued to corporations associations societies or partnerships therefore the opportunities for fraud are diminished and on polling days all the stores are closed and pre-volstered times in the United States the law distinctly said that our saloons should remain closed on election day in many of the big cities yet was this regulation a very wise one ever enforced that is one reason why we have prohibition today we simply would not obey even those moderate and solitary laws enacted for the welfare of the community the saloon keeper paid not as light as he to them in fact he scoffed at them and that is why he has no sympathy from the rest of us now that his foul places are gone forever one would not be so foolish as to assert that a state of perfection has been reached in the government controlled provinces both legging goes on but principally because this country is dry if the states were also under government control in the matter of the liquor traffic there would be no temptation to transport stuff illicitly over the border I imagine that the Canadians are quite as guilty as the Americans when it comes to these secret transactions for if it takes two to make a quarrel it is equally true that it takes two to consummate a sale of any kind there would be a cleaner slate if we had the common sense to do as say Quebec has done there are no swinging door saloons but they are tidy shops where one is not ashamed to go no one is drinking on a slide pretending to be consuming coffee out of a cup which really contains a high ball in Vino de Mitas is not the motto of Canada as it is that of the United States it is significant to know that in British Columbia when that province was completely dry even without beer 141,057% for liquor were issued yet in the fiscal year which ended March 31, 1922 only 6,568% were issued and while our own government continues to ask for mighty appropriations for the enforcement of prohibition the reports from the province of Quebec state that for the fiscal year ending in June 1922 a profit of 4 million was realized and that the regulations have proved quite as successful morally as financially can we say that in a matter of morals the Volstad Act has worked advantageously it has undermined the whole country and under fanaticism we have shown ourselves to be a total failure the New York world says the Quebec law is a good law because it has city and country solidly behind it and it can be enforced it provides for local option it restricts the purchase of spirits it allows the sale of wine and beer in cafes and it creates no enforcement problem it affects every legitimate reform advocated by the professional prohibitionists of the United States but quietly, sensibly, profitably and without friction if we could put come to the sanity of Canada and her government controlled provinces end of section 16 section 17 of the rise and fall of prohibition this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org recording by Tom Mack Tucson, Arizona the rise and fall of prohibition by Charles Hansen Town section 17 crime and drunkenness promises were made by the reformers that with the advent of prohibition the country would witness a great lessening of crime and drunkenness our prisons were to be almost emptied unemployment would be practically unheard of and the health of the people would be infinitely better never has the country suffered more from strikes during that period between 1920 and the present time labor is still restless for all the sanctimonious predictions of the anti-saloon league we see then that law and order do not come when we harness a people's will would that they did life would be simple then people are bound to burst their bonds and fetters now and then the spurt of the geyser goes on no matter how we seek to suppress it old faithful performs every hour in Yellowstone park and I suppose that until time is no more men will go on shouting about their rights despite such empty reforms as prohibition will go on holding grievances demanding a remedy of wrongs and generally raising cane obstemperous behavior is not the result of drunkenness always people are humanly fond of cavorting even without the aid of a stimulant and so the strikes go merrily on and the working men who were placid under beer are found to be thinkers under Volsteadism the headlines in our papers continue to be sensational in these times that were to be so quiet strangely enough and holdups of the most brazen kind take place everywhere diamond earrings are snatched from ladies driving in the park of an evening houses are entered by roughins who tie up the servants and the master and mistress and calmly go through the premises taking what they wish it is all very shocking very terrible but human nature has a way of remaining what it is it was thought that only drunkards committed such heinous crimes we find that men of sobriety are equally culpable the millennium has not arrived and our prisons are still densely populated much as the reformers may deny the disconcerting fact one is shocked at the continuance of outrageous crimes and if after three years of experiment with the abolishment of booze we still face a wave of disorder and confusion there seems little hope that the future of roses and sweetness and light so glibly prophesied hard times continue to confront us though the fat pay envelope to the wife and children of the working man was to be a weekly event and analysis of official figures shows an increase of 44% in the arrests for drunkenness in 1921 over 1920 and Stuyvesant Fish has shown that the largest industrial life insurance company reports an increase of 50% in deaths due to alcoholism in 1921 the second dry year the statistical bulletin of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company April 1922 contained these words quote there have been marked increases in the death rates for heart disease Breitz disease and apoplexy in recent months among the industrial policy holders of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company small increases in the mortality from these diseases had been noticed early in November of last year but the change attracted little attention and caused little comment the possibility that marked a definite check in the favorable tendency shown for several years for each of these diseases was not seriously considered by December however the death rate had taken a more decided upward turn for each disease organic heart disease registered a rate of 124.9 as compared with 118.4 in November the apoplexy rate rose from 62.9 to 70.6 and that for Breitz disease from 69.1 to 71.9 by January it had become apparent that for two of these diseases at least a definite upward the apoplexy rate was in progress the heart disease rate increased sharply from the December figure of 124.9 to 137.2 and that for chronic nephritis went up nearly three points over the December figure the apoplexy rate for this one month fell somewhat in February the heart disease figure rose even more sharply than for January to 153.4 the nephritis rate again increased slightly to 75.8 and that for apoplexy returned to approximately the December level by March the rate for organic heart disease had reached 168.2 per 100,000 one of the highest figures ever recorded in any one month among metropolitan industrial policy holders the March rates for chronic nephritis 87.5 and for apoplexy 75.8 are both the highest registered for these diseases since March 1920 the association against the Prohibition Amendment Inc collected statistics to prove that crime has by no means diminished since the passage of the Volstead Act and with their kind permission I give a tabulated list of 20 cities in the United States which under prohibition have revealed an increase in arrests for all sorts of crimes these are the official figures in each city at random I have taken some statistics from various parts of the country to show how drunkenness has not disappeared since the passage of the 18th amendment rather it has increased in both more Maryland for instance the arrests for drunkenness during the period between January and April 1922 were over two thirds as many as for the entire year 1921 April 1922 354 April 1921 238 April 1920 69 January to December 1921 3258 January to December 1920 1785 in the State of Wyoming the total number of prisoners in jail on July 1 was 1785 in the State of Wyoming prisoners in jail on July 1 1922 was 561 on July 1 1917 there were about 452 crime under prohibition in 30 American cities Philadelphia population 1920 1823,779 arrests for all causes 1920 73,015 1921 83,136 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 20,443 1921 27,115 Detroit population 1920 995,678 arrests for all causes 1920 43,309 1921 50,676 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 in the State of Wyoming 1922 5,989 1921 6,349 Boston population 1920 748,060 arrests for all causes 1920 58,817 1921 72,100 72,161 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 22,341 1921 31,794 Baltimore population 1920 733,826 arrests all causes 1920 41,988 1921 54,602 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 13,443 1921 20,496 Pittsburgh population 1920 588,343 arrests all causes 1920 36,572 1921 41,820 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1996 Pittsburgh population conduct 1920 14,373 1921 16,990 Buffalo population 1920 506,775 arrests all causes 1920 24,436 1921 32,377 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 8,491 1921 9,650 San Francisco population 1920 506,676 arrests all causes 1920 26,672 1921 30,106 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 2794 1921 6,005 Milwaukee population 1920,457 174 arrests all causes 1920 10,545 1921 15,520 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 2400 1921 3481 Cincinnati 1922 401,247 arrests all causes 1920 14,175 1921 21,973 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 2062 1921 3,106 Minneapolis population 1920 380,582 arrests all causes 1920 10,608 1921 17,874 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 2982 1921 6,051 Portland, Oregon population 1920 258,288 arrests all causes 1920 18,445 1921 30,856 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 3,654 1921 4,379 Denver population 1920 2056 491 arrests all causes 1920 12,947 1921 19,649 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 1847 1921 3,163 Louisville population 1920 234,891 arrests all causes 1920 7,857 1921 9,601 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 1092 1921 2,361 St. Paul population 1920 234,698 arrests all causes 1920 5,638 1921 10,077 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 1902 1921 4,319 Oakland, California population 1920 216,281 arrests all causes 1920 3,706 1921 4,497 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 1261 1921 2191 Akron, Ohio population 1920 208,435 arrests all causes 1920 12,558 1921 10,104 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 5,228 1921 3,939 Birmingham population 1920 178,806 arrests all causes 1920 16,786 1921 21,488 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 886 1921 4,612 Richmond population 1920 171,667 arrests all causes 1920 12,706 1921 15,532 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 1563 1921 1953 New Haven population 1920 162,537 arrests all causes 1920 7,934 1921 8,465 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 3,186 1921 3,184 Dallas population 1920 158,976 arrests all causes 20,6058 1921 35,848 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 1219 1921 1338 Hartford population 1920 138,036 arrests all causes 1920 8,072 1921 7,395 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 4,057 1921 3,207 Patterson population 1920 8,875 arrests all causes 1920 4,058 1921 3,809 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 1637 1921 1509 Springfield, Massachusetts population 1920 129,614 arrests all causes 1920 3,757 1921 4,574 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 625 1921 920 population 1920 126,468 arrests all causes 1920 4,465 1921 4,982 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 1530 1921 1598 Trenton population 1920 119,289 arrests all causes 1920 5,693 1921 5,577 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 1550 1921 1426 Salt Lake City population 1920 118,110 arrests all causes 1920 7,728 1921 7,505 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 883 1921 909 Albany population 1920 113,344 arrests all causes 1920 3,216 1921 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 578 1921 900 Cambridge, Massachusetts population 1920 109,694 arrests all causes 1920 3,822 1921 4,664 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 871 1921 1423 Spokane population 1920 104,437 arrests all causes 1920 8,1921 7,237 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 933 1921 1311 Kansas City, Kansas population 1920 101,177 arrests all causes 1920 4,774 1921 4,129 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 45 1921 113 totals population 10,417,227 arrests all causes 1920 516,835 1921 640,402 drunkenness and disorderly conduct 1920 131,855 1921 185,808 total in 30 cities violations violations in the early of the 40s violation of prohibition laws 1920 9,375 1921 18,976 increased 102%, drunken autoil expressed 1920 1513 1921 1, 2743, increase 81%, thefts and burglary, 1920, 24,770, 1921, 26,888, increase 9%, homicide, 20,1086, 1921, 2124, increase 12.7%, assaults and battery, 1920, 21147, 1921, 23,977, increase 13.4%, drug addictions, etc., 1920, 1897, 1921, 2745, increase 44.6%, police department costs, 1920, 31,193,639, 1921, 34,762,196, increase 11.4%. Judge Kavanaugh of Chicago estimated there were from 7,500 to 8,000 cases of murder and manslaughter in the United States in 1921. But the Special Commission on Law Enforcement of the American Bar Association in its official report May on August 10, 1922 stated that there were no less than 9,500 unlawful homicides in this country in 1921. The average per day was 26. In the previous year, there were at least 9,000 such homicides. In the first nine months and a half of 1922, there were 101 unlawful homicides in Philadelphia alone, as compared with the same number during all of 1921. In the same city, the arrests for violation of the dry law numbered 32,281 for the period between January and September 1922. Of these, 25,925 were drunk and disorderly. In Providence, Rhode Island, drunkenness has increased 85% since 1919. In Rochester, New York, crimes of violence in 1921 numbered 607, as against 488 in 1917. In the latter year, there were 323 arrests for burglary. While in 1921, there were no less than 502. It has been reported that the western part of the state has become the victim of a new crop of young, educated, and what are called polished crooks. Sing Sing Prison deported no less than 60 prisoners to Auburn in May 1922 because of overcrowding. The warden of Sing Sing to whom I wrote asking for figures as to the inmates received at his prison very graciously and with unprecedented promptness sent me the following report and told me I could make my own deductions. Fiscal year ending June 30, 1917, 1071. Fiscal year ending June 30, 1918, 1197. Fiscal year ending June 30, 1919, 1073. Fiscal year ending June 30, 1920, 1490. Fiscal year ending June 30, 1921, 1414. Fiscal year ending June 30, 1922, 1613. Figures do not lie, yet the prohibitionists insist that conditions are better than ever before, and I have seen otherwise intelligent citizens take it for granted that the figures given by a speaker at some uplift meeting were correct. Few of us go to the trouble of verifying statistics, but the fact remains that passionate crimes continue. Murders of unprecedented cruelty are committed all the time, and a heaven on earth is, I fear, remote from us. End of Section 17, Recording by Tom Mack. Section 18 of The Rise and Fall of Prohibition This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Phyllis Vincelli. The Rise and Fall of Prohibition by Charles Hanson Town. Section 18. Chapter 15. The Literary Digests Canvas The cry has gone up from time to time since the passage of the Volstead Act that the country at large wanted, nay, had demanded prohibition. The literary digest, hearing and noting these reiterations, decided to investigate the feeling of the land. They would have a referendum of the people through a straw vote, and they would get, in that way, at the truth. Many of us were not at all sure of the sentiment in communities like the far and middle west. We knew that the south, for reasons best known to itself, had favored large arid territories, but the east had remained insistently wet. Therefore, it was a big surprise when the literary digest's returns began to come in to discover that in many sections a reverse feeling flourished from that which had been anticipated. It must have proved a shock to the Anti-Saloon League in its smug complacency to learn that many citizens, like a man I met in Omaha, declared that he was greatly in favor of prohibition until we got it. Indeed, many feel just like that. Conditions are certainly intolerable wherever I have been. Drunkenness may have disappeared from the sidewalks, but it has taken to the taxicab, and though the corner saloon has gone, I hope forever, the hip flask has taken its place on the southeast corner of many an individual. So much has been said and written of the feeling of the country that the digest, the editor-in-chief, as a prohibitionist, if I'm not mistaken, went right to the heart of the thing in no uncertain manner. Much discussion had taken place as to the temper of the people, and there seemed no way of arriving at the truth. Ten million blanks were sent out to every kind of voter. The bonus for soldiers and sailors was more or less tied up with prohibition. Therefore, it was deemed wise to try to get the popular sentiment on both questions at the same time. The questionnaire, in the form of a ballot, was as follows. Secret ballot on prohibition and soldiers' bonus, no signature, no condition, no obligation, mark and mail at once. Prohibition. Put a cross in the square only opposite the policy you favor. A. Do you favor the continuance and strict enforcement of the 18th Amendment and Volstead Law? B. Do you favor a modification of the Volstead Law to permit light wines and beers? C. Do you favor a repeal of the Prohibition Amendment? Soldiers' bonus. Put a cross, X in the square. Do you favor a federal bonus for all American soldiers and sailors who wore the uniform during the World War? Yes? No. It is important to mark and return this ballot immediately. Every precaution was taken to obviate dishonesty. But I suppose, as there never was an election without trouble at the polls, it would be expecting too much of human beings to believe otherwise. So, in this solicitation, there may have been a few duplicate votes to swell the general average one way or the other. Yet, the digest had confidence in the returns. And through their canvas of the various states, we have come to see that there are not only wets and dries, but a third enormous party of what we might call moists. By this term, is meant the people who wish a modification of the Volstead Act permitting the sale of light wines and beer. Indeed, this party predominated in the final returns. The Anti-Saloon League has scorned the digest's figures. Yet, what has a feeling that if the showing had been in favor of a strict observance and upholding of the present prohibition law, a different attitude might have been observed on its part. It is but human, after all, to wish the tide to turn in the direction one has spiritedly advocated. Even the moists must have been surprised at their own brilliant showing. It was in July 1922 that the first reports were made, and the digest was amazed when the ballots of the first hundred thousand poured in. Those in favor of a strict enforcement numbered 32,445. Those in favor of a modification numbered 39,665. Those in favor of a repeal of the prohibition amendment numbered 22,547. As to the soldier's bonus, the vote was almost even. Yes, 46,609. No, 47,469. Dampness seems to predominate, the digest said. The most startling fact revealed by this first tally is that the early voters are against the continuance and enforcement of the present prohibition law by the proportion of nearly two to one. On the other hand, the voters show themselves in favor of the prohibition amendment, or in other words, in favor of some sort of a prohibition law by the even larger ratio of 72,000 to 22,500. The editors were exceedingly fair in their appraisement of conditions. They stated that in Kansas, the votes run 111 for strict enforcement, 34 for modification, and 14 for repeal of the amendment. Thus the prohibitionists, it is seen, outnumber the combined moists and wets by almost three to one, a situation that is duplicated in no other state. Since this early vote was tabulated, a large number of returns have come in for Kansas, and even though we may be anticipating next week's report of votes, it may be mentioned that this large vote is a striking verification of the conditions indicated by the small vote shown here. Kansas is for prohibition by approximately three to one. It is a significant fact also that this state has tried a dry regime for a number of years and knows better than most others how it works. But here again no thinking man, it seems to me, has a right to find fault with a state which wishes earnestly to go dry. Local option is sensible and reasonable. A certain territory could fence itself in, as it were, guarding itself from a menace, making all the strict laws it desired to protect its people from what it considered a tremendous evil. But it has no right to inflict its statutes upon its friendly neighbors. Any more than the United States has a right to restrict drinking on the ocean, forbidding foreign vessels to enter our ports with cargos of sealed spirits. It is interesting to note how the various states voted in this preliminary canvas. Detailed tabulation of the first returns on prohibition. New England states, 1. Maine, 4. Enforcement, 24. Formatification, 17. For repeal, 17. 2. New Hampshire, for enforcement, 16. For modification, 13. For repeal, 3. 3. Vermont, for enforcement, 16. For modification, 6. For repeal, 6. 4. Massachusetts, for enforcement, 4242. For modification, 4862. For repeal, 2805. 5. Rhode Island, for enforcement, 7. For modification, 14. For repeal, 17. 6. Connecticut, for enforcement, 34. For modification, 39. For repeal, 20. Total votes, for enforcement, 4339. For modification, 4951. For repeal, 2868. Middle Atlantic states, 1. New York, for enforcement, 6169. For modification, 9,315. For repeal, 4966. 2. New Jersey, for enforcement, 29. For modification, 45. For repeal, 27. 3. Pennsylvania, for enforcement, 8307. For modification, 9139. For repeal, 6573. Total votes, for enforcement, 14,505. For modification, 18,499. For repeal, 11,566. East-North-Central states, 1. Ohio, for enforcement, 829. For modification, 716. For repeal, 250. 2. Indiana, for enforcement, 152. For modification, 73. For repeal, 33. 3. Illinois, for enforcement, 9,312. For modification, 12,012. For repeal, 6,621. 4. Michigan, for enforcement, 125. For modification, 84. For repeal, 36. 5. Wisconsin, for enforcement, 75. For modification, 69. For repeal, 22. Total votes, for enforcement, 10,493. For modification, 12,954. For repeal, 6,962. West-North-Central states, 1. Minnesota, for enforcement, 89. For modification, 82. For repeal, 17. 2. Iowa, for enforcement, 113. For modification, 88. For repeal, 23. 3. Montana, for enforcement, 100. For modification, 67. For repeal, 33. 4. North Dakota, for enforcement, 16. For modification, 17. For repeal, 1. 5. South Dakota, for enforcement, 21. For modification, 9. For repeal, 2. 6. Nebraska, for enforcement, 72. For modification, 44. For repeal, 19. 7. Kansas, for enforcement, 111. For modification, 34. For repeal, 14. Total votes, for enforcement, 522. For modification, 341. For repeal, 109. South Atlantic states, 1. Delaware, for enforcement, 6. For modification, 4. For repeal, 3. 2. Maryland, for enforcement, 15. For modification, 27. For repeal, 36. 3. District of Columbia, for enforcement, 14. For modification, 27. For repeal, 8. 4. Virginia, for enforcement, 28. For modification, 27. For repeal, 9. 5. West Virginia, for enforcement, 18. For modification, 20. For repeal, 4. 6. North Carolina, for enforcement, 32. For modification, 14. For repeal, 7. 7. South Carolina, for enforcement, 10. For modification, 11. For repeal, 4. 8. Georgia, for enforcement, 24. For modification, 27. For repeal, 12. 9. Florida, for enforcement, 11. For modification, 4. For repeal, 8. Total votes, for enforcement, 158. For modification, 161. For repeal, 91. 7. East-South Central States, 1. Kentucky. For enforcement, 27. For modification, 25. For repeal, 28. 2. Tennessee. For enforcement, 42. For modification, 17. For repeal, 10. 3. Alabama. For enforcement, 23. For modification, 19. For repeal, 5. 4. Mississippi. For enforcement, 13. For modification, 11. For repeal, 5. Total votes, For enforcement, 105. For modification, 72. For repeal, 48. West-South Central States, 1. Arkansas. For enforcement, 15. For modification, 12. For repeal, 1. 2. Louisiana. For enforcement, 12. For modification, 13. For repeal, 3. 3. Oklahoma. For enforcement, 43. For modification, 29. For repeal, 7. 4. Texas. For enforcement, 116. For modification, 62. For repeal, 21. Total votes, for enforcement, 186. For modifications, 116. For repeal, 32. Mountain States, 1. Montana. For enforcement, 11. For modification, 16. For repeal, 8. 2. Idaho. For enforcement, 9. For modification, 13. For repeal, 5. 3. Wyoming. For enforcement, 2. For modification, 5. For repeal, 0. 4. Colorado. For enforcement, 31. For modification, 30. For repeal, 11. 5. New Mexico. For enforcement, 5. For modification, 5. For repeal, 1. 6. Arizona. For enforcement, 8. For modification, 3. For repeal, 0. 7. Utah. For enforcement, 8. For modification, 16. For repeal, 6. 8. Nevada. For enforcement, 1. For modification, 1. For repeal, 1. Total votes, for enforcement, 75. For modification, 89. For repeal, 32. Pacific States, 1. Washington. For enforcement, 830. For modification, 951. For repeal, 247. 2. Oregon. For enforcement, 28. For modification, 22. For repeal, 6. 3. California. For enforcement, 1204. For modification, 1,509. For repeal, 585. Total votes, for enforcement, 2062. For modification, 2482. For repeal, 839. Grand total, for enforcement, 32,445. For modification, 39,665. For repeal, 22,547. After the first and second polls had been taken by the digest, that is, after 200,000 votes had been classified, the editors asked for an expression of opinion from William H. Anderson, State Superintendent of the Anti-Saloon League of New York and President of the Allied Citizens of America. He admitted the honesty, good faith, and fairness of the canvas, but deemed it unwise. Anyone on to say? There is a clear and fundamental distinction between taking a poll on a question which is yet to be decided and taking a poll on a question which has been decided. In the latter case, the issue inevitably presented to many minds is whether the law which represents the decision shall be enforced. There are millions of citizens who look upon the 18th Amendment as cause for a grievance, and the First Amendment states very clearly the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Surely it is no breach of the peace to ask for an expression from voters concerning a matter so serious as prohibition, on which they never voted. How else could a clear comprehension be gained of the wishes of the people saved through the press in a country so vast as ours? Naturally there would be resentment in the dry camp at any attempt to repeal the 18th Amendment, but I hope there are no Americans who would honestly favor a supine obedience to a law which is abhorrent to such a number of us. Intolerance is not a worthy sentiment. It is a healthy sign when people disagree. The clash of minds leads to larger prospects of final understanding. And if it is found in the end that prohibition is ardently wanted by the majority, we shall continue to have prohibition with, I trust, a perfect carrying out of the law. The digest's desire to learn the truth is an admirable one. The advocates of Mr. Volstead have nothing to fear from it. If they are right, and people like myself are wrong, then right will prevail. Meanwhile nothing is gained by cantankerously bidding us behave ourselves, and bow to the inevitable. This is but an added form of prohibition which only serves to stir up emnities, to create further discords and muddle matters even more. Your honest opinion and mine are quite as valuable to the country as that of Mr. Volstead and Mr. Anderson. And so, the literary digest evidently thought. For it continued to publish returns as they came flooding into the editorial office. Enumerable letters accompanied the votes. People from all sections of the country spoke out in meeting, advocating government control of the liquor traffic. From Omaha and New Jersey this advice came, and from practically every state in the union. The people were being heard from. The second hundred thousand voted as follows. For strict enforcement, seventy-six thousand five hundred ninety-seven. For modification, eighty-five thousand one hundred fifty-one. For repeal, forty-five thousand six hundred and forty-six. A poll was taken in many factories where both men and women are employed. In the Edison works in New Jersey, the poll was taken under the supervision of Charles A. Edison, who saw to it that the ballots were distributed one to each worker. They were marked secretly and deposited by the individual workers in sealed ballot boxes, later opened by representatives of the digest. The result shows a proportion of slightly more than twenty to one against the continuation and enforcement of the present liquor laws. This is the vote. For enforcement, ninety-three. For modification, nine hundred and seventy-six. For repeal, nine hundred and sixty-six. A careful poll of the establishment of Park Davis and Company, manufacturing chemists of Detroit, revealed the following results. For enforcement, two hundred and eighteen. For modification, one thousand and eighty-one. For repeal, two hundred and eleven. Combining these two polls, the attitude of the workers in two representative factories would be summarized as follows. For enforcement, three hundred and eleven. For modification, two thousand and fifty-nine. For repeal, one thousand, one hundred and seventy-seven. In connection with factories and labor, one inevitably thinks of Samuel Gompers. The digest asked him for an expression of opinion, wishing to get all sides of all subjects, and he sent this strong statement. In addition to the vile and poisonous substitution for whiskey so largely consumed, and in addition to the increased drug habit since prohibition, prohibition has made a nation of grouches. It has taken the joy out of the American people as can be attested by almost every social gathering. The whole scheme is unwarrantable interference with the personal freedom of the people, and increases discontent and resentment in the knowledge that those who have it have it. I firmly believe that a modification of the Volstead Act so that beer and light wines may be manufactured and sold under proper regulations would solve the whole question rationally and helpfully. The discontent of the worker is something to be considered, even by fanatics who would rule us by force, and seek to restrain too thoroughly man's natural appetites. One must take into account the wishes of that vast army who do the drudgery of the world, and it does not require an immense amount of imagination to understand what the years may bring. If there is an apparent stolid indifference now in the realms of labor, the digest's pole would seem to contradict any such belief. That the working man is beginning to realize that a distinct form of class legislation has taken place there can be no doubt. I think the authorities would never dare to encroach upon a laborer's rights in the matter of homebrew. Yet they must be aware that, deprived of his only club, the corner saloon, the working man who still desires a glass of beer occasionally is methodically producing it, against the law? To the devil with the law, says the hard working day laborer, when the rich disobey it every hour of their lives. Another factory, which employs women, was also canvassed. This was the establishment of the Campbell's Soup Company in New Jersey. Approximately 30% of the workers polled were women, yet the vote is against the present laws by a proportion of 9 to 1. This is how the voting ran. For enforcement, 162. For modification, 720. For repeal, 750. But the final figures are the most interesting of all. A summary of 922,383 ballots revealed this result, which must have proved disheartening to the anti-saloon league. Summary of 922,383 ballots on prohibition. Main poll. For enforcement, 306,255. 38.5%. For modification, 325,549. 41.1%. For repeal, 164,453. 20.4%. Woman's poll. For enforcement, 48,485. 44.5%. For modification, 39,914. 36.7%. For repeal, 20,448. 18.8%. Factory polls. For enforcement, 1,453. 8.4%. For modification, 10,871. 62.1%. For repeal, 4,955. 29.5%. Totals. For enforcement, 356,193. 38.6%. For modification, 376,334. 40.8%. For repeal, 189,856. 20.6%. Is it necessary for anyone to say anything further about the temper of the country? Facts are facts. To repeat what my friend in Omaha said, Prohibition was all right until we got it. End of section 18