WHY PROHIBITION! CHARLES STELZLE WHY PROHIBITION!- BY CHARLES STELZLE NEW ^ST YORK GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY Copyright, 1918, By George H. Doran C&mpcwy Printed in the United States of America TO WILLIAM F. COCHRAN Whose friendship and generosity have made possible the author's work of research and prohibition propaganda among workingmen. PREFACE America needs patriots not only those who will go to the battle line in France, but also men and women, too, who will strengthen the hands of the boys who have gone to the Front Our greatest peril is that of waste and the greatest waster in our country is the liquor traffic. To strengthen America by precept and practice is a distinct obligation resting upon every citizen of this Republic. This book is written to point out the perils con- nected with the liquor business in this and every other land. The facts presented are the results of a careful study covering a period of years. It is hoped that they may be of service to the valiant fighters who need ammunition to batter down the bulwarks of booze. Yii CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE vii I A CONFESSION BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION 15 II A CHALLENGE TO AMERICA .... 22 III How MUCH Do WE SPEND FOR LIQUOR? 43 IV LOST JOBS WHEN SALOONS ARE CLOSED . 56 V PERSONAL LIBERTY AND PROHIBITION . 71 VI WORKINGMEN AND THE SALOON ... 90 VII ORGANISED LABOUR AND THE SALOON . 118 VIII THE SALOON AND SOCIALJ^EFORM . . 162 IX LIQUOR AND THE LENGTH OF LIFE . . 190 X WHY THE SALOON MUST Go . . . .215 XI TAXATION AND COMPENSATION . . . 238 XII SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SALOON . . . 252 XIII How PROHIBITION WORKS IN PRACTICE 276 XIV How TO FIGHT THE SALOON .... 298 WHY PROHIBITION! WHY PROHIBITION! A Confession By Way of Introduction I AM a prohibitionist But, frankly, I hate the name. It suggests long- haired men and short-haired women. It is negative and limited, but it expresses exactly what those who are opposed to liquor are trying to do. And I am for it. I want to see the liquor busi- ness abolished. And if this is to be done, we'll have to take off our kid gloves and fight the thing with bare fists as prohibitionists. Whatever may have been the limitations of pro- hibitionists in the past and no matter how much they were ridiculed, nevertheless they put the fear of God into the hearts of the liquor men, caused our legis- lators to lay their ears to the ground, induced world- powers to place a ban on booze, prompted employ- ers of labour to promote anti-liquor campaigns and persuaded thousands upon thousands of individuals to get on the water-wagon. The victories achieved in the battle against the 15 16 ; ; Why Prohibition ! saloon would never have been possible had it not been for the foundation work of modest, home- loving, white-ribboned women, who for a generation or more have faithfully gone to Woman's Christian Temperance Union Meetings to pray and to pay for a movement which next to the Church and the home, seemed to them the greatest in the world. The men, too, have had their part in developing the present-day sentiment against the saloon. Early in the fight when it required real grit to be known as a prohibitionist for in those days men were laughed at for taking a stand against the saloon, and it requires more downright upstanding nerve to be laughed at than to be shot at the preachers were the leaders of the movement. These were the pio- neers who spent themselves talking about the "demon rum" and the "cursed saloon" until more recently the laymen got on the job. And the laymen are welcome, too for they are putting into the fight the business sense that wins the respect of our opponents, and they are putting up the cash which is making great nation-wide cam- paigns possible. But having declared myself a prohibitionist, I want to make haste to say that I have no sympathy with the statement that all saloon-keepers and bar- tenders are low-browed brutes. Most of them are workingmen with all the hopes and aspirations of other workingmen. Nor do I find myself in accord with the declara- A Confession 17 tion that because a man drinks a glass of beer or a cocktail, he is of necessity a person of low character. I know some mighty fine people who drink beer and cocktails they are not fine because they do so, but in spite of it, and yet I can't get away from the fact that most of them are just about as sincere as are those of us who are trying to take away the thing which seems to give them so much enjoyment. As a prohibitionist I want to remember that IVe got to live with these neighbours of mine after the saloon has been put out of business, and I don't want to say or do anything that will raise a barrier between us if I can possibly avoid it. Of course, if it came to the point of either -sacrificing their friend- ship or holding on to the saloon with all that this implies, I'd be tempted to say some pretty strong things which might cause my neighbours to walk on the other side of the street as we hustled for the 7:26. But this isn't likely to happen, for I have found these neighbours of mine who do indulge occasion- ally in strong drink to be pretty reasonable sort of folks after all. And so, as a prohibitionist, I'm going to try through courtesy and friendship and argument and maybe once in a while by an everlasting wallop of the liquor business as a whole to win men to my position. There's another reason why I want to hold on to those who may disagree with me especially those i8 Why Prohibition! who are in the liquor business : It would be foolish to deny that considerable business ingenuity will have to be displayed in adjusting the transfer of the capital now invested in the liquor industry to more legitimate industry, but it would be still more absurd to say that the men who have built up such large interests as the liquor business controls, will find themselves helpless when the nation finally decides that "the saloon shall go." For some of the best brains in the business world are now engaged in producing and selling intoxi- cating liquor, and while there are many too many men in this industry who are pretty nearly all that their enemies say they are, nevertheless, there are great numbers of others who are as clean in their lives and as square in their business dealings as one can find in almost any other business. It is to these that the State and the liquor industry as a whole must look to make the readjustment which is inevi- table. These men will make some quick changes when they realise that their plants can no longer be used to produce wine, beer and whiskey. They will see to it better than anybody else can, that there will be a minimum of loss in every way. It would be a gross undervaluation of their business abilities to say otherwise. When these men undertake this task, I want them to see that I am with them and if there's anything A Confession 19 I can do to boost their job of reconstruction, I want them to know that I am ready to do the boosting. As a prohibitionist I want to be perfectly fair to the men and women who are most vitally and personally concerned about this whole business, and to my fellow-prohibitionists I want to point out what is to me a very important situation: An analysis of the dry territory throughout the United States indicates that most of it is in rural areas; only about 20 percent, of the people in dry states live in cities, whereas in the wet states about 70 per cent, live in cities. From 1900 to 1910 the population of the United States as a whole increased 21 per cent., but the population in the cities of 25,000 and over increased over 55 per cent., whereas the population in rural dis- tricts increased only 11.2 per cent. One-tenth of all the people in this country live in the three cities of New York, Philadelphia and Chi- cago. One-fourth of the population lives in the 30 cities of 200,000 and over. These cities occupy only one-four-hundredth of the total land area. One-fourth of all the people in the United States living in wet territory live in six cities New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Boston and Cleve- land and one-half of all the people now living in licensed territory live in (four states New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and New Jersey. We must not be deceived by "dry territory" maps which seem to indicate that the fight is almost fin- 20 Why Prohibition! ished. It isn't a question of merely conquering land areas we're after men and most of those in un- conquered territory live in cities which do not cover much land area. I know that if thirty-six states vote for the con- stitutional amendment for prohibition, the entire country will be dry forever, for it would require thirty-six states to reverse the decision to destroy the liquor business and the liquor forces could not possibly carry thirty-six states at any time. And the prohibitionists should not be criticised for availing themselves of a method which the consti- tution itself has provided, and which is practically the only way whereby the liquor question can be de- termined. However, the saloon is a city problem. Saloons exist almost exclusively in the city they are rarely found in the open country or in the small town. Furthermore, the saloon is a workingman's problem. Therefore, so far as immediate results are con- cerned, the saloon chiefly affects city people and workingmen and these must be largely won for prohibition if the prohibition law is to prove satis- factory and permanent. And- workingmen and city people have it in their power to settle the liquor problem aright when they are convinced that the arguments of the prohibition- 1st s are sound. The people living in places where the saloons exist should see most quickly the dire effects of the A Confession 21 liquor traffic when they are intelligently pointed out to them. It must not be assumed that city people and workingmen are more immoral than country people, nor that they 'have more perverted tastes or inclinations, and that they are incapable of properly deciding the liquor question for themselves. It is, therefore, reasonable to ask that a campaign of discussion and education be conducted in which the actual facts be presented, so that when prohi- bition is enacted a very considerable majority in the city will believe in it, because they have been con- vinced of its fairness and its effectiveness. And so, standing squarely for prohibition but with malice toward none and with charity toward all here goes for the toughest fight that I can put up against booze. CHARLES STELZLE. II A Challenge to America THERE never was a time when America so needed her sober senses as to-day it is a time when selfish- ness must be subordinated to the great task of win- ning the war. We are being told by those who have come from the Front that we in this country haven't begun to feel the pinch of the war. Except for an occasional parade or brass band, a flag raising, a Red Cross or Liberty Loan appeal or something of the sort, it doesn't look much like war in the home town. There are no ruined homes nor torpedoed sky- scrapers and churches. Our streets are just as they were before, and we go out to our lunches as we always did. Most of us flatter ourselves that, if we have bought a fifty dollar Liberty Bond, we have made about all the sacrifice that the country has a right to ask of us. But once in a while, when the boys march down the street with flags flashing in the sunlight and drums throbbing, we get a tightening of the throat and there's a moment when the picture blurs. A Challenge to America 23 And once in a while as we read an account of how the "Huns" outraged unprotected women and children there wells up a feeling of anger and re- sentment which makes us feel like putting our fists through something. Meanwhile, some of the finest fellows in this coun- try are freely giving themselves for service in the trenches and on the sea and we honour them because of their readiness to serve their country. Probably millions of our boys will go to the Front before the war ends, to do their level best to stop the tide of red ruin and outrageous killing. But there's one fact that stands out clear and sharp as we take a world-wide view of the war namely, that we've got to reckon not only with "Kaiser Bill Hohenzollern" but with "Kaiser John Barleycorn." Every great general in this war every great strategist who has had the courage to face all the facts has pointed out the danger of drink. Lloyd George put it this way: "We arc fighting Germany, Austria and drink, and as far as I can see, the greatest of the three deadly foes is drink." Marshal Joffre said: "Alcohol by diminishing the moral and material strength of the Army, is a crime against national defence in the face of the enemy." 24 Why Prohibition! "Men with drink in them don't fight they brawl," said Vance Thompson. "It is not boldness men get out of drink, what they get is the fuddled logic of a maniac." The nations at war very soon discovered who their real enemy was. It was not the Teuton and the Turk it was alcohol. And so France, England and Russia have grap- pled with their arch-enemy but he is putting up the biggest fight in his history, for he knows that if he loses out in this war, he will be played out for- ever. Arthur Mee, who is the organiser of a movement in Great Britain to fight the liquor traffic, said in a little book entitled "The Fiddlers" : "The time has come when it should be said that those responsible for our country now stand on the very threshold of eternal glory, or eternal shame. They play and palter with the greatest enemy fought outside Berlin. Not for one hour has the full strength of Britain been turned against her enemy. From the first day of the war while our mighty Allies have been striking down this foe within their gates, Britain has let the liquor trade stalk through her streets, serving the Kaiser's purposes, and paying the Government one million pounds (five million dollars) a week for the right to do it." And here are some striking paragraphs in his strong indictment of the liquor traffic: A Challenge to America 25 "We must not eat more than our share on our honour but the man across the table can eat his share of bread and drink somebody else's too." "We must eat less and eat slowly so that brewers may waste more and waste quickly." "God speed the plough and the woman who drives it yes, and God help the woman who drives the plough to feed the brewer while her little ones cry for bread." So it is everywhere while all the world is making sacrifices and trying to eliminate waste, liquor wastes capital, wastes earnings, wastes man-power, wastes foodstuffs, wastes human efficiency and wastes hu- man life. Food, labor and life are the chief factors in win- ning the war but the liquor men are wasting all three. They are wasting food: Last year in the United States the waste amounted to 7,000,000,000 pounds of foodstuffs and they have no right to starve some men by making others drunk. They are wasting labour: About 300,000 men are engaged in the manufac- ture, sale and distribution of liquor in breweries, saloons and restaurants as brewers, bartenders and waiters at a time when every man is needed in some useful occupation to help win the war. The labour of these 300,000 men is worse than wasted no possible good can come of it, but much harm is done. Nor does this take into account the many 26 Why Prohibition! thousands who produce the materials that are used in making liquor. They are wasting life : Bartenders, brewery workers and waiters in sa- loons lose an average of six years of life on account of their occupations. If the 300,000 men who make and sell booze lose an average of six years of life, it makes a total of 1,800,000 years of life. The average man works about thirty years so that the liquor traffic is using up the equivalent of 60,000 men in each generation and this is too great a price for the nation to pay. For these reasons first, because of the waste of food; second, because of the waste of labour; third, because of the waste of life, we have a right to de- mand that the liquor business be abolished. "Food will win the war" is the slogan of the Food Conservation Campaign and it's probably true. If food will win the war, the liquor men who are food wasters are not only fighting against our country, but they will have to reckon with us if we should lose the war. When the United States Senate's Committee on Agriculture was investigating the subject of food- stuffs, the liquor men denied that they consumed as much as the prohibitionists said they did they de- clared that they used only one per cent, of the grain. All right let's take them at their word: One per cent, of the grain will feed one per cent, of the people. This means one million people A Challenge to America 27 because there are 100,000,000 of us in this country. We shall this year probably send 1,000,000 sol- diers to France. This means that the liquor men have been wasting enough grain to feed every last man who will go to the trenches ! If food will win the war as Hoover says then the liquor men have a fearful responsibility resting vpon them when they deliberately waste the food which would give life and strength to our soldiers. We have been told that it is altogether possible that the last million bushels of grain will be the de- termining factor in winning the war. If this is true, then how can we permit the liquor business to waste enough foodstuffs to feed our entire Army at the Front ? At a time when conservation is the key-note of victory, it seems suicidal to permit the liquor men to waste sugar, molasses, grain, coal and railway serv- ice, when the boys at the Front and those who are standing behind them need the very best that this country affords in order to win the war. We deny the right of our soldiers to drink liquor what right then has the man who stays at home not only to drink all the booze he wants, but by doing so use the grain that should go into the soldiers' bread the soldier who has gone to the Front to fight for the life of the boozer who remains at home? America will need to conserve every ounce of 28 Why Prohibition! energy, every dollar of capital and every last par- ticle of strength. Looked at in the most lenient light it can hardly be claimed that the traffic in alcohol will help strengthen America. And this is our biggest job those of us who have remained at home. Even in normal times the question of food pro- duction has become a very serious one in this coun- try. It's hard for most of us to understand that it isn't money weVe got to save, but food, and it re- quires greater moral courage to save food than it does money. We have gotten the notion that if we have good incomes, food scarcity can't hurt us. This is be- cause we have associated starvation with poverty. But maybe some day we'll wake up to the fact that we can't eat cash and that food conservation is a necessity no matter how much money we may have. For you may be sure that if we ever face an ex- treme scarcity of food, somebody will see to it that the very poor will have an equal chance at what food there may be on hand, and it is altogether possible that those who have money will fare no better than those who haven't. More wheat must be conserved. While it is true that comparatively little wheat is used in making liquor, its conservation depends largely upon the more general use by all the people of the grains now wasted by the liquor men. The latest report giving the total of last year's A Challenge to America 29 (1917) wheat crop in the United States and in a dozen or more other wheat producing countries, shows that it was smaller than the 1916 crop and i$% smaller than the average for the preceding five years. Nor does this take into account the very con- siderable quantity of wheat lost through fires, sub- marine and mine sinkings. While the estimate made by the Department of 'Agriculture last December showed that there was an increase of 4% over last year in the acreage used for wheat production, the condition of the crop was so poor as to probably result in an output of 10% below the ten years average. With the shifting of large numbers of farmers to the battlefields in France, and to the munition fac- tories in cities where they are getting big wages, there are fewer men than ever engaged in raising wheat to say nothing about other food products and the chances are that there's going to be great difficulty in harvesting even the reduced crop of wheat that we shall raise this year. The increase in the population of this country has been three times as great as the average increase in wheat production during the past ten years over the average production for the ten preceding years. We are failing to keep pace in wheat production with the normal increase of population. If this contin- ues, it doesn't require an expert statistician to tell us where we are coming out. One of the most significant memorials ever pre- 30 Why Prohibition! sented on any subject was that signed by about twenty-five hundred of Great Britain's greatest lead- ers representing the Army and Navy, the Control- lers and Directors of Munitions of War, the Privy Council and both houses of Parliament, the public service of the nation and empire, the trade, commerce and the great industries, municipalities and justice, science, education and public health, art, literature, music and the drama and all ranks of social service. Here are some of the most striking paragraphs in this remarkable memorial : "We, citizens of the United Kingdom, appeal to the Gov- ernment to put the nation on its full strength. "Now that the nation has followed the example of our Allies in enrolling its full manhood, we appeal that we may range ourselves with our greatest Allies and put on the whole armour of Britain. The power exerted by alcohol cuts through the efficiency of the nation; it weakens our fighting forces and must lengthen the war. These facts stand out concerning this powerful trade: "It hinders the Army : it is the cause of grave delay with munitions; it keeps thousands of men from war work every day, and makes good sober workmen second-rate. "It hampers the Navy; it delays transports, places them at the mercy of submarines, slows down repairs, and con- gests the docks. "It threatens our mercantile marine; it has absorbed dur- ing the war over two hundred million cubic feet of space, and it retards tbe building of ships to replace our losses. "It destroys our food supplies; since the war began it has consumed over 3,500,000 tons of food, with sugar A Challenge to America 31 enough to last the nation 100 days. It uses up more sugar than the Army. "It wastes our financial strength ; since the war began our people have spent on alcohol over four hundred million pounds. "It diverts the nation's strength; it uses 500,000 work- ers, 1,000,000 acres of land, and 1,500,000 tons of coal a year; and during the war it has involved the lifting and handling on road and rail of a weight equal to 50,000,000 tons. "It shatters our moral strength ; its temptations to women involve grave danger to children and anxiety to thousands of soldiers. "Nearly two years have passed since the King banished this source of national weakness from his household; since engineers, manufacturers of explosives, admirals, directors of naval equipment, urged the Government to banish it from the nation; since the Director of Transports appealed for the withdrawal of all drink licenses for the sake of the Army and Navy; and since the Shipbuilders' Federation declared that 'with the total abolition of drink the work would go with a swing, and you would get as fine work in our yards and shops as in the trenches/ Yet the alcohol brake is still on our workshops. "We are convinced that the dangers confronting us arise from the sudden possession of abundant wages rather than from a lack of patriotic feeling; untrained in spending or in thrift, large numbers of our workers waste their reserves in drink. The greatest good a Government can render to its people is to strengthen their right purposes and weaken the power of their temptations and there lies upon us now the double duty of protecting our people from the tempta- 32 Why Prohibition! tion to drink away their earnings, and of protecting the State from the intolerable folly of high war wages turned to the advantage of our enemies. "With the resources of the nation taxed to their utmost, the waste of five hundred thousand pounds a day on alcohol is a fact of pitiful significance. With their high wages our people dig pits of sorrow instead of building up reserves of power and independence; children die faster of neglect, and a City Missionary has received forty appeals from the trenches to look after wives 'going wrong' through drink. "If it is said we need the revenue the State derives from alcohol, the answer lies in these things. No nation can make a profit from such a trade as this. But the fear for the revenue is shattered by the noble action 'of our Allies and Dominions; of Russia, which has prohibited vodka; of France, which has prohibited absinthe and the sale of spirits to women, soldiers, and young people; and of parts of our Dominions, especially in Canada, where the sale of alcohol is rapidly disappearing, followed by the closing of prisons and the quickening-up of life. "Russia, wanting strength and money too, has found both in prohibition. The saving power of her people has risen from shillings to pounds. The banks that received one hundred and eighty thousand pounds in January before the war, received in January, 1915, five million six hun- dred thousand pounds, and in January, 1916, twelve million pounds. The industrial efficiency of Russia has increased by 30 per cent., and an increase of 10 per cent, in our effi- ciency would replace our revenue from drink. "More serious still is the peril of the child-life of the State. It is perishing faster than in times of peace. Our brave ally, France, with the enemy almost at the gates of A Challenge to America 33 Paris, won for itself the enduring distinction of the lowest infant death-rate ever recorded in its capital. What Paris can do can be done in our own towns if the same patriotic devotion be shown by our own people, and if all removable dangers to child-life be removed. Chief among these dan- gers is alcohol. "No source of weakness under our control is so wide- spread ; none is more vital to the safety of the State in war and its welfare in peace. But the dangers of alcohol are tenfold now. "We are no temperance reformers as such. We stand for the great desire of all good people to strike the mightiest blow for freedom of which Britain is capable. We support the demand for prohibition made to the Government by its own investigators, and by the Shipbuilders' deputation, with not a teetotaler among them, in March, 1915. Believing in the Prime Minister's words, that 'no sacrifice is too great when freedom and honour are at stake,' and that rich and poor alike should bear it, we ask the Government to with- draw all drink licenses throughout the Kingdom for the period of the war. "We believe a golden moment has arrived for our coun- try; that, prepared for sacrifice by the example of the King and Lord Kitchener, the nation is ready for the natural step that France and Russia have already taken. The sus- pension of the liquor traffic during the war, the conversion of the public-houses into houses of refreshment, will quicken up our civil and fighting populations, will raise a new fire of resolution in our people, and will give to millions the first opportunity they have ever had of breaking old habits of weakness and forming new habits of strength. "We believe that in this, as in all other vital issues, there 34 Why Prohibition! must be sympathy of purpose and unity of action between the Allied Nations; and we appeal to the Government to be bold and trust our people, to be strong and follow our Allies, to be worthy of the mighty destinies they hold in solemn trust." These men have had the courage to face the facts and to make them public. And needless to say they have encountered ter- rific opposition. It seems that all the powers of the liquor men have been hurled at the head of the British Govern- ment to keep it from absolutely destroying their business. But what about America ? Dare we shirk a duty which is plainly ours espe- cially in view of what our Allies have done or what they are earnestly trying to do? The liquor traffic is probably not so strongly en- trenched here as it is in England and in some other countries, but it's going to be no easy fight to put "John Barleycorn" on the shelf and keep him there. This is no new quarrel with the liquor men nor is the contention for war-time prohibition a novelty. Nearly a century and a half ago in this country the Continental Congress passed a law looking to- ward the conservation of food products by stopping the use of grain in the manufacture of liquor. Here it is: A Challenge to America 35 "Resolved, That it be recommended to the several legis- latures of the United States immediately to pass laws the most effectual for putting an immediate stop to the perni- cious practice of distilling grain." And this was before the advent of the saloon with all its debasing influence. It was before drunken- ness was looked upon as a disgrace, before the Church looked upon it with disfavour and before employers of labour discriminated against the drinker. This early legislation for the conservation of foodstuffs sets a mighty good example to be followed by the successors in Congress of patriots like Benja- min Franklin, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry and those who, associated with them, stood for this "bone-dry legislation." In a speech delivered by Abraham Lincoln before the Washingtonians at Springfield, Illinois, he said: "Of our political revolution of '76 we are all justly proud. It has given us a degree of political freedom far exceeding that of any other nation of the earth. In it the world has found a solution of the long-mooted problem as to the capability of man to govern himself. In it was the germ which has vegetated, and still is to grow and expand into the universal liberty of mankind. But, with all these glorious results, past, present, and to come, it had its evils too. It breathed forth famine, swam in blood, and rode in fire ; and long, long after, the orphan's cry and the widow's wail continued to break the sad silence that ensued. These 36 Why Prohibition! were the price, the inevitable price, paid for the blessings it brought. "Turn now to the temperance revolution. In it we shall find a stronger bondage broken, a viler slavery manumitted, a greater tyrant deposed ; in it, more of want supplied, more disease healed, more sorrow assuaged. By it no orphans starving, no widows weeping. By it, none wounded in feel- ing, none injured in interest; even the dram-maker and dram-seller will have glided into other occupations so grad- ually as never to have felt the change, and will stand ready to join all others in the universal song of gladness. And what a noble ally this to the cause of political freedom; with such an aid its march cannot fail to be on and on, till every son of earth shall drink in rich fruition the sorrow- quenching draughts of perfect liberty. Happy day when all appetites controlled, all poisons subdued, all matter sub- jected mind, all conquering mind, shall live and move, the monarch of the world. Glorious consummation! "And when the victory shall be complete when there shall be neither a slave nor a drunkard on the earth how proud the title of that land which may truly claim to be the birthplace and the cradle of both those revolutions that shall have ended in the victory. How nobly distinguished that people who shall have planted and nurtured to maturity both the political and moral freedom of their species." On the eve of their departure for France. 37,000 troops were addressed in a letter by Major General John F. O'Ryan as follows: "This letter is a personal appeal to your intelligence and better self to refrain from using liquor in any form through- out the period of your service. The plea contained in this A Challenge to America 37 letter is based upon principles of scientific military manage- ment. Our job is to whip the enemy hard and with the least loss to ourselves. In training our military machine to do this we must eliminate backlash, rattles and useless loads. We must have every part healthy and strong, and depend- able, not part defective, diseased or obsolete. "This cannot be if we are to permit 'booze' in any form into our military machine. Alcohol, whether you call it beer, wine, whisky or by any other name, is a breeder of inefficiency. While it affects men differently the results are the same, in that all affected by it cease for the time to be normal. Some become forgetful, others quarrelsome. Some become noisy, some get sick, some get sleepy; others have their passions greatly stimulated. When you stop to con- sider the thousands in a division, do you not see how vital to efficiency is the elimination of liquor? How can a di- vision of troops be ever ready ever up on the bit to drive ahead or to thrust back the enemy's drive, if through the presence of this insidious evil some soldiers forget their orders, or become noisy when silence is essential, fall asleep when every faculty should be alert?" And here is what General Pershing said just be- fore leaving this country at the laying of the corner stone of the Y. M. C. A. Building at Fort McKin- ley: "There was a time when it was a natural part of a soldier's existence to drink and carouse. That day is past with the soldier sworn to defend his country's flag and representing the power and dignity of the nation. "Strong muscles, clear brains, high ideals in the soldier, increase the fighting efficiency of the Army, and these qual- 38 Why Prohibition! ities of the citizen insure the permanency of our institutions. "The Army is looked upon as representing the common people from which it springs, and the people here watch our conduct and study the character of every one of us. This thought should be an inspiration to patriotism, to manliness, and to righteousness." There is no doubt that the military men who are in charge of the boys at the Front will take good care that booze does not destroy the effectiveness of our fighting men. Wherever American Officers are in complete con- trol at the Front, practical prohibition prevails among our soldiers. We can trust our men with such leadership our real problem is with the man who stays at home. Will he take his part by living the sacrificial life although it seems like a mighty small sacrifice to give up a cocktail or a glass of beer for the sake of helping to win the greatest war in the history of the world. Those of us who remain behind may dig the big- gest trench in the world a trench that will stop the liquor traffic forever. This is a war within a war a battlefield right here at home, and it calls for fighters and martyrs it's a question of whether we're big enough to stand the test. If England and France have not accomplished all that they hoped in their prohibition program, this A Challenge to America 39 is no good reason why America should halt in put- ting through a policy which we know is imperative if the war is to be won soon. Nor does it matter whether Englishmen and Frenchmen have a rum ration in their armies we have a prohibition Army and a prohibition Navy and we're proud of both. It's going to be demonstrated that our boys will put up as fine a fight against the enemy as any Army which depends upon liquor to give it spirit and strength there's no doubt that our boys will give a good account of themselves in this particular. It would be easy enough to become maudlin or sentimental in a discussion of the effect of liquor but it isn't necessary as reasonable men and women all we need is the facts as to the extent and general influence of the liquor business and the general social and economic conditions which are produced through indulgence in strong drink. Professor Irving Fisher, of Yale University, said in a brief argument for war-time prohibition: "Every reason for prohibition in times of peace is multi- plied during war, and war removes or weakens almost every argument against it. These facts explain why so many thoughtful and conservative men who have hitherto been against prohibition advocate it now as a war measure. "In times of peace the liquor interests argue that they greatly extend the farmers' market for grain, but the war has brought a world food crisis, short crops, devastation of wheat fields, destruction of grain by the submarines and 4O Why Prohibition! withdrawal of men from agriculture to battlefields and munition works. "America must feed Europe, yet we have been compla- cently eating up our own food stocks and therefore have not yet realised that for the first time in our history, we, too, are about to face food shortage. Only those closest to the facts like Mr. Hoover realise this fully. Hunger and food riots are possible unless heroic measures are applied. Consequently childhood is asked to forego its pleasures by planting a plot for the honour of the flag. "Prohibition, by keeping sober one or two hundred thou- sand men now incapacitated each day by drunkenness and by increasing the productive power of those who while not drunk, are slowed down by alcohol, would speed up pro- duction probably at least 10 per cent. It follows that the more than two billions now spent on alcohol and the more than two billions of national income which prohibition would bring, could all be paid in taxes without making the people one cent poorer. "For the life, health and efficiency of the men in the military, industrial and agricultural arms of the national service, for the conservation of foodstuffs and for the sound- ness of our fiscal policy, we need war prohibition." The National Service and War-time Commis- sions of the American Churches, in May, 1918, sent the following message to the President and to the Congress of the United States: "Our Nation has, we profoundly believe, with clean hands and pure heart engaged in conflict for lofty and un- selfish ends. A Challenge to America 41 "The attainment of those ends demands all the moral powers of our people, the conservation of our economic resources, and the highest efficiency in service. "These powers are impaired, this efficiency is greatly decreased, and our national vitality diminished by the liquor traffic and all its attendant evils resulting in the waste of food, and the waste of life itself. "Having duly recognised this in our army and navy by having taken measures to prevent the use of liquor by our troops, we believe that those who remain and serve at home should willingly apply to themselves the same principles which they apply to our soldiers and sailors and should submit to the same limitations for the welfare of the nation. "Therefore, in the interest of those who defend our na- tion, for the saving of our own supplies of food, for the highest efficiency of the industries which provide our means of warfare, and for the strengthening of the moral health of the people, we earnestly urge the President and the Con- gress of the United States to take steps to prevent, during the entire period of the war, by whatever means are feasible, the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor of all kinds for use as a beverage, including the importation of liquor." America practically holds in her hands the future of the liquor traffic throughout the world. What she does with her foodstuffs may determine the des- tiny of the liquor business in the countries of our Allies. They are watching our action with intense interest. Have we the courage to destroy the enemy within our gates, who is stealing away our brains, weaken- 42 Why Prohibition! ing our brawn, and making flabby the morale of our nation at a time when all forward-looking men should be fighting to "make the world safe for democracy" ? Ill How Much do We Spend for Liquor? You have heard it said that we spend every year in this country two billion dollars for liquor. Two billion dollars! You can't even guess how much money this is mostly because mighty few of us have ever handled more than two hundred dollars at any one time. Just for the fun of it, let's write it this way: $2,000,000, ooo.oo. All you can say is that it is a lot of money. But perhaps you will get a better idea of how much it is by comparing our drink bill with some other bills in the United States. So here goes It's three times as much as we spend to maintain all of our public schools. It's one-fourth more than the total assets of the over 7,000 building and loan associations in this country. It's twice the capital in all the national banks. It's one-tenth the value of all farm property, in- cluding land, buildings, machinery and animals. It's as much as it costs to operate all our railroads. 43 44 Why Prohibition! It's as much as we raised for the first Liberty Loan. It's almost twice the value of all church property in the United States. We Americans spend $3,800 every minute of the day for liquor. That's the price of a fairly com- fortable home for the average workingman. What does it mean to throw away a working- man's home every minute of the day for twenty-four hours? It means 1,440 homes every day. It means 535,600 every year. Counting five persons to a home, it means that nearly 3,000,000 persons could be comfortably housed on the amount we waste on drink every year. It was said just before the present war that ours is a "billion dollar government" that is, we spent one billion dollars a year to run the various depart- ments of the Federal Government in peace times. But we spent for liquor just twice the amount of our bill for the support of the Government. Before we entered the war we were spending $250,000,000 a year for national defense. But our drink bill was just eight times as much. Before the war we were spending a little over $66,000,000 a year on the administrative work of our government. But our annual bill for drink was practically thirty times as much. Before the war we were spending $200,000,000 a year for the conservation of our natural resources, the maintenance of rivers and harbors, public health How Much Spent for Liquor? 45 and education, and things of a similar nature. At the same time we were spending every year ten times as much on liquor. The liquor bill of this country just about equals the wages earned by all the trade unionists in the United States. According to a study made before the War by the Bureau of Statistics of the New York State Depart- ment of Labor, the average yearly earnings of trade unionists in that state, including men and women, amount to $750. This would be a fair average for the entire country, counting only days actually worked. We spend annually $2,000,000,000 for liquor. Divide 750 into 2,000,000,000 and you get 2,666,- 666, which almost equals the number of trade union- ists of various kinds in this country. The enormous waste of the money spent for liquor becomes impressive when one considers that it equals the total sum of money paid to this highly intelligent army of workers the finest body of workers in the world. We spend just about as much for intoxicating liquor each year as we do for bread and clothing. We can get along without the liquor, but we all need bread and clothing. Just for the fun of it, ask the next man you talk to on the saloon question, how much money one would be compelled to place upon each word in the English Bible in order to cover the total amount of money spent for booze in this country each year. 46 Why Prohibition! The average person will timidly venture the sum of ten cents, while the reckless will boldly declare that $1.00 will surely do it. Actually, it would be necessary to place upon each word of the English Bible $2,582 in order to reach the sum of $2,000,000,000 the amount which we spend for liquor. There are said to be 774,692 words in the Bible. 1 'In the beginning, God" the first four words in the Bible, would be worth, upon this basis, over $10,000 in booze. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life" would require about $70,000. Liquor men are most interesting when they dis- cuss economic questions. Here's an example of what one of their leading lights is putting out for public consumption: "As a sample of the worthless character of Prohibition statistics, consider the claim of dry editors and orators in regard to the drink bill of the United States. They sol- emnly tell us that we spend $2,000,000,000 for alcoholic beverages every year. Having made this assertion, they start in to tell us what this money would buy if we spent it for other things. . . . They overlook the fact that all the money spent for liquor remains in circulation and is spent for other things. It finds its way into the tills of the merchants and vaults of the bankers through the hands of the bartenders, the saloonkeepers, the brewers, the dis- How Much Spent for Liquor? 47 tillers. . . . The talk about this money being wasted is nothing but dry rot, and the statistics which support such nonsense, pure moonshine." So "all the money spent for liquor remains in cir- culation?" Sure it does! So does all the money spent for hiring gunmen, cutting throats, carrying on the white slave business, gambling, and about everything else that is corrupting men and women. The fact is, that's what most of these things are done for to put more of the other fellow's money into circulation, just so that it may finally reach the pockets of liquor men and the crooks and murder- ers guilty of the crimes just mentioned. The two billion dollars may be spent for "other things" but they're spent for booze first. And that particular two billion dollars will never be spent again! Everybody knows that you can't spend your money and have it, too. When you happen to get for your week's wages the same coin that you got last week, you aren't foolish enough to believe that you're getting "the same money" just because your last week's wages came back to you." A dollar may be spent again and again by differ- ent individuals, but it can only buy one thing at a time. If it buys booze, it doesn't matter what the saloonkeeper who gets it, spent it for a dollar has been wasted because if it had been spent for those "other things" in the first place, the extra demand 48 Why Prohibition! for those things would have increased production by just that amount. If you are being fooled by the idea that the "wet" and "dry" fight in this country means nothing to you that it doesn't affect your interests one way or the other If you are being lulled to sleep by the dope of the liquor men that the town is prosperous and therefore you can afford to "let well enough alone" If you are being deceived by the thought that be- cause you don't patronise the saloon it can't hurt you If you are foolishly generous in the conviction that because you don't drink booze is no good reason why you should do anything to keep the other fellow from enjoying it if he wants to // you are being fooled by any of these things: Suppose you stop for just a minute and read the following statements: First: You know that the standard of wages paid in the shop is determined not by that high-grade worker who has made good because he sacrificed to win out but very largely by the low-grade man who boozes and who can just get into the shop-door be- cause workers are scarce. Somewhere between the two the boss strikes an average wage for everybody else. The more boozers there are, the lower the rate of wages paid the average man, even if he's sober and this means lower wages for you I Doesn't this affect your pocket-book? Second: Life insurance men know that making How Much Spent for Liquor? 49 or selling or drinking booze shortens life. There's scarcely a life insurance company that will insure a, bartender or a brewery worker because of his occupation and life insurance companies are not in the anti-saloon business. But they have only one insurance rate for ordinary men drinkers and non- drinkers, and they compel the man who doesn't booze to make up for the extra amount that the boozer should pay. Doesn't this affect your pocket-book? Third: Store-keepers know that men who spend too much of their money for booze don't pay their bills but somebody has got to pay them, so they simply boost the original price of the goods to allow for such losses. And so the man who doesn't booze helps pay the bill of the boozer. Doesn't this affect your pocket-book? Fourth: Police courts, jails, hospitals, alms- houses, insane asylums and similar institutions are supported by your taxes. Fully half the "business" of these institutions comes as a direct result of the liquor traffic. Doesn't this affect your pocket-book? Isn't it your business if men booze? You can't afford to be too generous with what be- longs to your family. Your first obligation is to them not to the man who thoughtlessly lowers the rate of wages, increases life insurance premiums, boosts the costs of the necessities of life, and runs up your taxes all because he insists that saloons 50 Why Prohibition! shall be maintained for his convenience no matter where you get off. But liquor men indignantly deny that the annual drink bill of this country amounts to two billion dol- lars. They point to the figures given in the Statis- tical Abstract of the United States, which, they say, show the value of the products in the liquor business. But this is merely the selling value of the product at the brewery and distillery not the retail price paid by the ultimate consumer. And it's what the consumer pays that determines the amount that is spent for liquor, not what the saloonkeeper pays. For the most part, the average man drinks beer and whiskey in the saloon not in the brewery or distillery. And if the saloon is to be maintained, somebody must pay for its support. Who pays this bill? The man in front of the bar. He pays for the rent, the fixtures, the licenses, the wages of bartenders, and all other expenses of maintaining the saloon, besides paying for the cost of the liquor itself. He must also pay for the support of all the so- called "allied" industries the industries manufac- turing glassware, barrels, bar fixtures, etc., in so far as their products are used in the manufacture and sale of liquor. For if he doesn't, who does? There are no benevolent organisations in the liquor business which support saloonkeepers and others en- gaged directly or indirectly in the liquor trade who are failures. How Much Spent for Liquor? 51 But let's see what the Yearbook of the United States Brewers' Association says about the "financial loss" if the saloon is destroyed. In the Yearbook for 1914, page 257, we are in- formed that among u the sums of money values which would disappear under the proposed scheme of national Prohibition" would be the following: Annual disbursements for wages $453*872,553 Annual disbursements other than for wages 1,121,696,097 $1,575,568,650 If over $1,500,000,000 is spent annually for wages, materials, etc., one can imagine that a very considerable sum above this amount must be added to make up for profits and other "incidentals." For example, it does not include the "local license fees paid by the distillers and wine-makers, nor the amount of local taxes paid upon the property they occupy." The amount shown as disbursements by the allied manufactures and trades "can only be re- garded as representing a part of the sums involved." The amount actually given is nearly forty million dollars. There are many other items, which, it is claimed, have not been included in this estimate, the sum of which must amount to many millions of dollars. Neither does the amount of wages paid actually include the total expenditures for wages, the Year- book says. Allowance is made for only 498,906 52 Why Prohibition! employes. To this number should be added "thou- sands of employes selling liquors in grocery stores, hotels, clubs, etc." It is estimated that 500,000 additional employes of various kinds should be in- cluded, because they are "indirectly obtaining their sustenance from the liquor industry." The grand total for all these employees number 1,000,000, according to the oft-repeated statement of the liquor men. If these average an income of $900 a year, this item alone would amount to $900,- 000,000. Only about one-half of this sum has been accounted for in the Yearbook, in wages paid. Let's keep in mind all the while that the only way whereby this sum of money can be raised is through the actual cash expended by the consumers for intoxi- cating liquor. There is no other source from which this money may come. Remember, also, that the $1,575,568,650 mem- tioned in the Brewer's Yearbook, and those other extra expenditures which have not been included, bring us merely to the point where intoxicating liquor is ready to be sold. Now the saloonkeeper must get out of the man across the bar not only what was actually spent by the brewers and distillers ; not only what he, himself, has expended in rent, wages and other incidentals; not only what the men in the allied trades have spent in wages and for raw materials and other items, but the man across the bar must spend enough money to pay interest, dividends and profits on all How Much Spent for Liquor? 53 the money invested in the liquor business. Without going into details, it may be said that in order to come out in a manner satisfactory to the liquor men, upon the basis of these figures, it would be necessary for the man before the bar to spend about $4,000,- 000,000 annually. Can it be that the liquor men have very greatly overestimated the importance and extent of their business, thus inflating the figures which must be arrived at in determining the sum which the people spend for liquor? The liquor men can't "get us both coming and going." They'll be compelled either to admit that they tried to fool us when it was to their advantage to boost costs and expenditures, or else they'll have to confess that our drink bill is greater than the wildest figures of the prohibitionists would indicate. They pretend to be greatly elated because the per capita consumption of intoxicating liquor has "stead- ily increased" in spite of the activities of the various temperance agencies at work in this country. They declare that the anti-saloon movement is a failure, and that "dry states" and "local option" are not at all affecting the liquor business. But in spite of their claim that their business hasn't been hard hit on account of anti-saloon agitation and legislation all of which is said for the benefit of the public the liquor men know that they have reached the beginning of the end. Even the statistics they like to quote prove it. 54 Why Prohibition! In 1850 the per capita consumption of intoxicating liquor was about 4 gallons. In 1913 it was nearly 23 gallons an increase of about 600 per cent. But from 1870 to 1890 the increase in the per capita consumption of liquor was only about 100 per cent., and during the 20 years following, that is, from 1890 to 1910, the increase was only 41 per cent. From 1910 to 1914 the increase was less than one- third of one per cent. Following this there was a decided slump in the use of liquor. Here are the figures for the entire period since 1850: Liquor Consumed in the United States (From the Statistical Abstract of the United States) Year Gallons Spirits Gallons Gallons Wines Malt Liquors Gallons. Total Gallons Consumption Per Capita 1850 51,833,473 6,316,371 36,563,009 94,712,853 4.08 1860 89,968,651 10,804,687 101,346,669 202,120.007 6-43 1870 79,895,708 12,225,067 204,756,156 296,876,931 7.70 1880 63,526,694 28,098,179 414,220,165 505,845,038 1 0.08 1890 87,829,623 28,945,993 855,929,559 972,705,175 15-53 1895 78,655,063 20,863,877 ,043,033,486 1,142,552,426 16.57 1900 97,356,864 29,988,467 ,222,387,104 1,349,732,435 17-75 1905 120,869,649 35,059,717 ,538,526,610 1,694,455,976 19.85 1906 127,851,583 46,485,223 ,700,421,221 1,874,758,027 21.55 1907 140,084,436 57,738,848 ,822,313,525 2,020,136,809 22.79 1908 I25,379,3H 52,121,646 ,828,732,448 2,006,233,408 22.22 1909 121,130,036 61,779,549 ,752,634,426 i,935,544,on 2 1. 06 1910 I33, I 38,684 60,548,078 ,851,666,658 2,045,353,420 22.19 1911 138,585,989 63,859,232 ,966,911,754 2,169,356,975 22.79 1912 139,496,331 56,424,711 1,932,531,184 2,128,452,226 21.98 1913 147,745,628 55,327,461 2,030,347,372 2,233,420,461 22.68 1914 143,447,227 52,418,430 2,056,407,108 2,252,272,765 22.50 1915 127,159,098 32,911,909 1,855,524,284 2,015,595,291 19.80 1916 139,973,684 47,587,145 1,818,275,042 2,005,835,871 19.40 1917 167,740,325 1,884,265,377 20.00* Estimated. How Much Spent for Liquor? 55 The fluctuations of the past few years have been due to many unusual causes in 1914 came the "hard times" and the following year the consumption of liquor tumbled over ten per cent. Then came the unprecedented "good times" due to the war, when there was a slight increase in the use of liquor. And the war itself has produced an abnormal situ- ation which cannot be made the basis of a fair esti- mate. But the figures shown in the table covering a period of over 60 years show plainly that there has steadily been a comparative decrease in the use of liquor in this country. And yet, this should not satisfy those who are opposed to the liquor traffic. The war has enor- mously increased the cost of government; the whole nation is devoting itself to meeting the new demands made upon it. We are all practising economy, but what are we doing about that two billion dollar drink bill? Why not cut it out entirely and spend the money for other things that will increase our happiness and our efficiency as a nation and enlarge our chances for winning the war? Drink decreases happiness, makes us less efficient and multiplies our chances of losing the war. No one can say one strong unqualified word for the liquor habit, or the liquor business. Lost Jobs When Saloons are Closed A GOOD many policemen will lose their jobs. So will some jail keepers. Some judges will not be so busy. But this will be so because men who now drink will be more profitably employed. They will, there- fore, keep out of the kind of trouble which usually lands a man first, into the hands of a policeman; second, into the hands of a judge; and third, into the hands of a jail keeper. Policemen, judges and jail keepers will be more profitably employed than they were when they "punished'* booze-soaked men. Lawyers will not have so many cases of certain kinds which grow out of the liquor business, directly and indirectly. Doctors will not be called upon so frequently by those who now suffer because the saloons are wide open. There are others who may lose their jobs many of whose occupations are in themselves legitimate enough, but whose time is taken up with handling the wrecks of the liquor business, and dealing with 56 Lost Jobs When Saloons Close 57 V those who are suffering in other ways on account of it. But who will not glory in this loss of employment? The man who heretofore has been a victim of drink will be glad. So will his wife and children. So will those who have been paying big taxes as a result of the saloon's influence. Policemen, and judges, and jail keepers, and law- yers, and doctors, and hospital attendants, and all others who are engaged in occupations whose basis is ethical and humanity-serving, will be glad when the saloon has ceased to damage men and women. But what about workingmen in general? The average workingman fears being out of work more than he does going to hell. The liquor interests have capitalised upon this fear and by presenting an array of figures which seem to prove that a calamity will follow the abo- lition of the liquor traffic they have persuaded large numbers of workingmen who never enter a saloon to vote for its retention. For a long time the liquor men have been de- claring that if their business were destroyed, it would throw one million workingmen onto the labour mar- ket, thus creating "a labor panic." The argument of the liquor men that a calamity will follow the abolition of the liquor traffic is based entirely upon the absurdity that if we no longer spend two billion dollars for liquor, we can by no possibility spend it for anything else. 58 Why Prohibition! They reason that if a man doesn't spend his week's wages for beer or whiskey, the only thing he can do with his wages is to throw them into the sewer. The fact is, he will spend his wages for food and clothing and furniture and other necessi- ties of life creating work and wages and increased business for all kinds of legitimate industries. Count- ing all classes of industries, the transfer of money from the liquor business to these industries would, roughly, give work to four times as many wage- earners, who collectively would receive four times as much in the form of wages, and four times as much raw materials would be required. How can more wage-earners employed, more wages paid, and more raw materials required create a labour panic? Here are some figures showing the relative im- portance of the liquor industry as compared with all other industries, the figures being taken from the Statistical Abstract of the United States : All Industries Liquor Industry Wage-earners (number) . . . 6,616,046 62,920 Wages paid $3,427,038,000 $45,252,000 Cost of materials $12,141,791,000 $139,199,000 Capital invested $18,428,270,000 $771,516,000 It will be noted that the liquor industry employs only about one per cent, of the workers in the manu- facturing industries. The Statistical Abstract indicates that for every Lost Jobs When Saloons Close 59 one million dollars invested in six principal indus- tries the following number of wage-earners are em- ployed: Liquor, 77; iron, 284; paper and printing, 369; leather, 469; textiles, 574; lumber, 579. The iron industry employs nearly four times as many workers for every million dollars invested as does the liquor industry; the paper industry five times as many; the leather industry six times as many; the textile industry seven and one-half times as many, and the lumber industry seven and one-half times as many. The ratio of wages paid to capital invested in this group of industries is as follows: Liquor, 5.6 per cent.; iron, 17.6 per cent.; paper and printing, 21.3 per cent.; leather, 23.5 per cent.; textiles, 23.9 per cent.; lumber, 27.1 per cent. The figures given by the liquor men as to how many wage-earners will actually lose their jobs are greatly exaggerated. It has been pointed out that the liquor industry employed only 62,920 wage- earners according to the last census. But of these 62,920 less than one-fourth were brewers, maltsters, distillers and rectifiers. More teamsters than brewers were employed by breweries. Of these 62,920 wage-earners employed in the manufacture of liquor, fully three-fourths were en- gaged in occupations which are not at all peculiar to the production of liquor. There were 7,000 hot- 60 Why Prohibition! tiers, 15,000 labourers and nearly 3,000 stationary engineers. The remainder were blacksmiths, carpenters, coopers, electricians, machinists, painters, plumbers, firemen and other mechanics. The plea is being made that all the men who would lose their jobs when breweries and distil- leries are closed would be compelled to learn other trades. Would a teamster drive a horse any differently because his truck is loaded with groceries, instead of booze? Does an engineer run his engine in a special way simply because it is furnishing power to a shoe fac- tory instead of a brewery? Does a machinist push his file in a select fashion for a distillery, or does a carpenter use a saw with special adroitness when he cuts a board for the booze factory? Any of these mechanics would feel just as much at home on any other kind of a job in which their services were required as skilled workmen, as they would in a brewery or a distillery. The only wage-earners who would be compelled to change their jobs are the 15,000 or so brewers, maltsters, distillers and rectifiers. According to the Census figures, 10,000 mechanics of various kinds are compelled every year to shift from one occupation to another on account of Lost Jobs When Saloons Close 61 changes in industrial operations, or because of the invention of labour-saving machinery. Many of these are compelled to learn entirely new trades, but this has never created a labour panic it produced scarcely a ripple. The shifting of the mechanics now employed in breweries would never create a labour panic at a time like this, when it is most difficult to secure enough workingmen in our great industrial plants. At present there are a greater number of persons who are suffering very much more because these men are permitted to engage in the liquor business, than these workingmen themselves would suffer were they compelled to engage in other occupations. The question is, shall all the people continue to suffer on account of the ravages of the liquor traffic in order to keep this very small percentage of men employed on their present jobs, or shall we insist that they enter other occupations in which they shall become a blessing to society instead of a curse, even though they are compelled to make this change at a personal sacrifice. But what about the bartenders what will become of them when the saloons are closed? There are 100,000 bartenders in the United States at least that's what Uncle Sam tells us. What makes a man a successful bartender? It's the fact that he's a good salesman, a good mixer; he knows how to deal with men, and the man who 62 Why Prohibition! is a success as a bartender, will be a success as a salesman in almost any other kind of store. The fact is, it requires many more people to sell two billion dollars worth of bread and clothing, for example, than it does to sell two billion dollars worth of booze. Furthermore, most bartenders had some other kind of a job before they became bartenders. A man doesn't become a bartender until he is nearly twenty or more before that time he worked as a mechanic, or as a salesman, or he was engaged in some other occupation to which he may return i provided he hasn't been shot all to pieces on account of the booze business. Here's a quotation that tells the story : "The closing of the saloon merely forces the bartender to change from a bad job to a good job from a job in which he hurts his fellow men, to a job in which he helps his fellow men. "When a bartender puts a man out of a job, he disgraces the man, disgraces his family and makes him unfit for an- other job. "When No-License puts a bartender out of a job, he be- comes a more honourable citizen, his family becomes more honourable, and the community secures a wealth-producing workman, instead of a wealth-destroying workman. "It is better far better that the bartender should lose his job and become fitted for a better one, than that scores of his patrons should lose their jobs and be unfitted for any job." Lost Jobs When Saloons Close 63 A member of the Bartenders' Union recently wrote an article on "How to Be a Bartender," for the Mixer and Server, the official journal of his union. He said that several books have been pub- lished on "How to Mix Fancy Drinks," but in his fourteen years* experience as a bartender he had never yet seen a book on "How to Be a Bartender." Evidently this bartender believes that the ability to mix fancy drinks isn't the most important part of a bartender's job. Here are some of the things which he calls essential if the bartender is to be suc- cessful : "First: He must be immaculately clean, both so far as his linen is concerned and also as to his per- son * * * The old maxim that 'cleanliness is next to godliness' is certainly true in the case of the bar- tender. It is one of his principal assets in applying for and holding a job. "Second: Next to cleanliness comes good com- mon sense. The bartender must be able to size up any situation clearly at a glance. He sizes up the customer, the place he works in, its possibilities, the improvements he would make, and so on; and if he is interested in the success of the business he can find abundant time to make suggestions to his em- ployer that may be appreciated. "Third:. The bartender should upon securing a position, learn where every cordial and bottle is to be found; look the cigars carefully over, so that he 64 Why Prohibition! can pick out any brand of cigar in the case or bottle of liquor without hesitation. "Fourth: He must not 'butt into' the conver- sation of his customer. He should always remember that it is the customer who is spending the money, and the employer wants the customer, and cares nothing for the opinions of the 'man behind' in poli- tics or anything else. "Fifth: He must be polite, answering all ques- tions to the best of his ability. He should thor- oughly learn the city in which he is employed in order to properly direct strangers, many of whom drop into saloons for information rather than ask a stranger on the street. In short the successful bar- tender must be a general information bureau, a doc- tor, lawyer and several other things too numerous to mention, not required by any other man in any walk of life. All of which requires time and study to make him proficient." Imagine a man with these qualifications really looking for a job after the saloons are put out of business! Any man who can fulfil these require- ments would make a successful salesman in many another kind of business. So don't let's worry about the bartender who "will lose his job when the saloons are closed." Taking their chances with other salesmen they will easily hold their own. The Bartenders' Union is probably the only la- Lost Jobs When Saloons Close 65 hour organization which regularly opens and closes its meetings with prayer. At the opening of the meeting the President gives three raps, bringing the members to their feet. "Let us be silent while the chaplain invokes the Father's aid," orders the presiding officer. And here is the prayer that is offered: "Be with us, our Father, in this our Convention. Grant us, we pray thee, a part of Thy wisdom, that we may pur- sue the path which causes all men to acknowledge the brotherhood of men and Fatherhood of Thee." At the close of the meeting the president says: "Let us be silent while the chaplain delivers thanks to the Father." And the chaplain prays : "Thou, O Father, who has created all things as they are, now that we are about to quit this circle and mingle again with the selfish world, we pray Thee to protect and shield us and our work from evil hands, and may we all at last be received into the circle of Thy love. Amen." There would be reason for rejoicing if these workers were to pray for a worthier cause some day they will do so, and they will be glad of the chance. Meanwhile, from whom do they ask God to pro- tect them and shield them? Whose are the "evil hands" from which their work is to be delivered? We think of little children whose lives have 66 Why Prohibition! been blasted because bartenders furnished their fathers with strong drink. We think of the wives whose hopes and dreams have been shattered because the men who offer this prayer helped to ruin the husbands whom they once honoured. We think of the men and women who have been reduced to beggary, whose lives have been broken, who have been sent to prisons and asylums, who are wrecks of their former selves they who in anguish are crying out "Deliver us from tempta- tion!" to the same God to whom the bartenders are appealing, "Shield us and our work from evil hands!" As between the Bartenders' Union, which regu- larly petitions the Almighty to help protect the sa- loon business, and the forces which are characterised as "evil hands," whose efforts are directed toward the abolition of the liquor business, there can be no doubt as to whose prayer God will finally answer ! But lost jobs are not the only consideration. More than half the world is engaged in the blood- iest war in all history and because of it every mafe has a job, probably at the highest wages that he ever received. Wouldn't it be a shame to stop this war and thus throw out of work a large number of mechanics? What though the lives of millions of men are sacrificed and countless widows and orphans remain to suffer. Who cares whether cities are destroyed Lost Jobs JVhen Saloons Close 67 and treasures ruinecj let the war go on, for if you stop it, you may create a labour panic 1 We are told there are 500,000 prostitutes In the United States more people than are employed in the wholesale and retail liquor business as well as in the manufacture of liquor. These 500,000 women furnish an enormous amount of work of all kinds for mechanics and storekeepers. They require a large number of buildings ; they buy a great deal of household furni- ture; thousands of dressmakers are given employ- ment; jewelers are kept busy; chauffeurs and drug- gists are supported and an endless number of men and women are employed as electricians, bartenders, chambermaids, housekeepers, messenger boys, wait- ers and musicians and these honest working people help make this business a success. If we destroy the white slave traffic, we would take away the jobs of all these workers. Shall we, therefore, continue to encourage the white slave traffic? What does it matter whether our daughters are sacrificed and whether our sons are forever ruined the main thing is that these working people who are now supported by the white slave traffic should not lose their jobs. Same way with the booze business. Everybody knows its effect upon those who are engaged in it and upon those who use its product we know that it has sacrificed more lives than have been lost in all 68 Why Prohibition! the wars since the world began but in the minds of a very considerable number of people the only consideration is this how many men will lose their jobs if the booze business is abolished? Nothing else seems to count. What if countless thousands go to jail and hundreds are sent to the death-chair because of the liquor business what if millions of lives are lost in every generation let the traffic in alcohol go on ! Have we gone mad? Isn't there anything else that one must consider besides the purely commer- cial aspects of this business? Do the bodies and the souls of our loved ones count for nothing? Isn't it time that we came to our senses and for- ever destroyed the liquor business? But what about the farmer's job? The liquor men say that he will be "hard hit" if Prohibition prevails. Let's review a few broad facts as to what will happen to the farmer when the booze business is destroyed. There are 10,000,000 farmers in the United States. Their product is worth about $10,000,000,- ooo; that is, $1,000 worth for each farmer. The liquor men purchase from the farmers about $100,000,000 worth of their products or just about $10 worth from each farmer. Of course, prices of food products vary greatly but the figures given may be counted a fair average. In general it may be said that the liquor men pur- Lost Jobs When Saloons Close 69 chase about one per cent, of the farmer's product and according to our statistics this one per cent, amounts to $10 per year for each farmer. Now then what will happen to the farmer when the liquor men no longer purchase each year $10 worth of his produce? Well let's consider another item : There are 100,000,000 people in the United States. The liquor men purchase $100,000,000 worth of the farmers' produce, or just about one dol- lar's worth for each person in this country. If each person were to increase his expenditure for apples, peaches, cherries, grain or any other product of the farmer, by just the price of a two cent postage stamp per week, the farmer would sell to all the people as much as he now sells to the liquor men. And with the better standards of living for all people after the booze business is abolished, can there be any doubt that each person's purchasing power will be increased two cents per week? It's a wise farmer who can read the signs of the times. Practically every farmer is a fair weather prophet the skies and the winds speak to him and he is alert to their warnings. Just now all the signs point toward the abolition of the liquor business. And while men will stop using the farmers' produce in the form of booze, they cannot stop using it in the form of food. Men may cease drinking intoxicants, but they will not yo Why Prohibition! cease eating cereals. Furthermore, the less they drink, the more they will eat. The farmer who may now be supplying the booze business with his produce will furnish it to the food purveyor. And there will be more satisfaction in this use of the farmers' produce both to the farmer and the consumer. The farmer will be free from the con- demnation of having helped to damn the maker, the seller and the user of booze, and the consumer will be free from the curse of the liquor traffic and from the inevitable penalty of drinking booze. At any rate, the only point we wish to make just now is, that if the liquor men do not buy produce from the farmer it isn't at all likely that the farmer will suffer. He will buy just as many automobiles, just as much improved machinery, just as many magazines and all other things which are enriching the lives of the farmer and his family. And the farmer isn't worrying about prohibition in the least. He's helping it along in every way that he can. The white spaces on prohibition maps prove it! Personal Liberty and Prohibition THE doctrine of "personal liberty" as applied to the use of liquor has been over-worked by the liquor men. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as an absolute individual right to do any particular thing, or to eat or drink any particular thing, or to enjoy the association of one's own family, or even to live, if that thing is in conflict with "the law of public necessity." If a member of your family becomes ill with a highly contagious disease he is quarantined no one is allowed to visit him excepting those who minister to his needs. When a great fire breaks out in a congested district, buildings surrounding the fire are blown up in order to prevent the further spread of the fire. These measures are resorted to for the common good. We are told by the liquor men that the State has no right to tell you whom you shall marry. But suppose you, a white man, were to select a Negro woman or suppose you, a Negro, were to select 7i 72 Why Prohibition! a white woman. What do you suppose would hap- pen in some States? Suppose you were to select as your wife an imbe- cile or a lunatic? Legislation on this point isn't quite so far along as it might be, but there's no doubt that soon there will be complete prohibition in this re- spect, in order to help wipe out imbecility and lunacy. You can't marry your cousin in some States; you can't marry your sister in any State, and you will find it difficult to marry a divorced woman under some circumstances. Furthermore, if the present tendency in the matter of eugenics is continued, you'll have to be a fairly perfect human specimen if you wish to marry any woman. You'll have to be free from disease and some other handicaps which might result in the increase of disease, before you can get a marriage license. This will often prove to be a real hardship, and there's a danger of carrying the application of the laws of eugenics too far, but in all this prohibition there's just one consideration the welfare of so- ciety as a whole. It is insisted that the physical and moral weak- nesses of mankind must not be perpetuated through the children born of defective parents. The State declares that it must protect itself against such mis- fortune, no matter how much some individuals may suffer. It is quite apparent that as civilisation advances Personal Liberty and Prohibition 73 society or the state will lay heavier obligations upon all individuals composing the state, even to the point of the sacrifice of one's most precious "personal lib- erty." For it is only thus that society itself can serve all individuals, giving each a larger measure of life and happiness. To prevent the spread of disease, the state has decreed that no longer shall a common drinking cup be used, and the common towel in the hotel wash- room is being abolished. We are told that the law has no right to dictate what a man shall wear. But suppose you were to dress in your wife's clothes? Suppose you tried to shoot game in your own woods, or fish for trout in your own private stream when the law forbids you to do so. Suppose you try to smoke in your own factory, or to run your automobile wherever and however you please. In all these things men are being restricted for the good of society as a whole. Liquor men tell us that one man has as much right to drink a glass of whiskey as another has to drink a cup of tea, but you never heard of one man kill- ing another while he was under the influence of tea, and this fact does have something to do with the question of what a man has a right to drink. You are not permitted to spend your wages as you please if you have a family to support you must first provide for your family. You are not permitted to keep your back yard or 74 Why Prohibition! your kitchen or your cellar in a bad sanitary con- dition, because by so doing you would endanger the lives and health of your neighbours. You are not permitted to keep your children out of school, even though you yourself do not be- lieve in education, because these children also be- long to the State and it is the wish of the State to make them good citizens, so it insists upon com- pulsory education. You are not permitted to use habit-forming drugs, because, among other reasons, if you do so, you may make yourself a burden to the State. A noted defender of the saloon recently said "the State trusts you with the liberty to kill, society trusts you with the liberty to steal, the State trusts you with the liberty to murder." Now if he had added "and liquor furnishes you with the inclination," he would at least have put some truth into the entire statement. But let's see "The State trusts you with the liberty to kill-;- society trusts you with the liberty to steal." Since when ? Doesn't society distinctly prohibit killing and stealing? Doesn't it organise a police force to pre- vent men from killing and stealing? Let this illustrious preacher of personal liberty try to kill or steal in the presence of a big six foot policeman and he'll find out what becomes of his grandiloquent statement that society trusts him with the liberty to kill and to steal. Personal Liberty and Prohibition 75 He'll have his face punched and his head clubbed and he'll find himself landed in jail if he insists upon exercising his personal liberty and he'll re- main there because he has proven that he is a dan- gerous citizen too dangerous to exercise the per- sonal liberty of which he boasts. No ; God and so- ciety say very plainly regarding these and other mat- ters "Thou shalt not" and this is plain prohibi- tion. As far as possible every reasonable measure is taken to prevent men from committing crime, and when they disobey the very reasonable laws which are framed for the safeguarding of men as a whole, they are punished by both God and society. There was a time when men honestly believed that they had a right to own slaves because they thought it was purely a question of property rights <. but to-day we know it is also a moral question. There was a time when men honestly believed that all they needed to do to get a wife was to take a club and hit the woman of their choice on the head and drag her home, but to-day well, women have something to say about it, too. There was a time when men honestly believed that they had an absolute right to do with their chil- dren as they pleased, but to-day they recognise the fact that children have rights of their own. Slaves, women, children these have come to their own because a new conception of rights and duties has dawned upon men. They discovered that there 76 Why Prohibition! is a more fundamental question than property rights that duty is a bigger word than rights. And so the weaker members of society are to-day being given a better chance. But we still hark back to the property rights period and the question of personal liberty when we discuss the saloon and the liquor business. We forget that the biggest thing in this discussion is duty and sac- rifice for the sake of the weaker members of so- ciety and we should be ready to give up our rights when the well-being of mankind as a whole is concerned. The man who is ready to do this proves that he is a big man the little man always stands out for his rights no matter what happens. "Prohibition is based upon the idea that you can take away one man's liberty because of another man's act. The Drys want to run society on the principle of an insane asylum. Is that sound? They find a sick man and they want to compel every- body to take medicine. They find a man with a crutch and they try to compel every man to carry 'a crutch all his life," recently said one of the chief exponents of the liquor business. He's wrong. The "Drys" do not want to run society on the principle of an insane asylum; they are so dead set against insane asylums that they don't want anybody to go there particularly on account of the influence of liquor; and they don't want to compel everybody to take medicine they want tp Personal Liberty and Prohibition 77 eliminate the cause of disease so that nobody will have to take medicine. They don't want to compel every man to carry a crutch all his life they want to abolish the evil which compels men to walk on crutches. They don't want to take away anybody's liberty, because, as Blackstone says, "Laws when prudently framed are by no means subversive but rather introductive of liberty." Recently a great steel corporation employing about ten thousand workers made application to the Industrial Commission of the State for exemption from the law requiring that every worker have one day's rest in seven. One of the chief reasons for making this request, the representative of the steel company said, was because the men themselves wanted to work seven days per week, twelve hours per day. It is always possible to secure signatures protest- ing against reforms even from those who would be most directly benefited by them. During the Civil War ten thousand slaves signed a petition protest- ing against freedom; they said they preferred to re- main slaves. Hundreds of little children in the cot- ton mills have asked that they might be permitted to remain in these mills and that they were not in favour of Child Labor Laws. The same thing has been true of boys in the coal breakers, and women in the canning industry who wanted to work sixteen hours per day. It often happens that workingmen j8 Why Prohibition! fail to appreciate the benefits which come to them because saloons are closed, although they invariably see them after no-license has been in force for some time. The fact that the workingmen in tke steel mill referred to wanted to work seven days per week, twelve hours per day, was one of the strongest ar- guments against the request made by the steel com- pany. Because if working such long periods of time as these men had done had the effect of making them prefer to work almost continuously during their wak- ing hours in a steel mill rather than spend one day per week with their families or in securing recrea- tion, it was an indication that the influence of such labour was decidedly injurious. Surrounding this particular steel mill there were scores of saloons, and at the close of the shift the men rushed to these saloons, standing about the bars, five deep, completely exhausted, and needing arti- ficial stimulants. The man who deliberately wears himself out in this fashion makes it harder to raise the level of living of all other workers, nor can such a man be a normal father and husband, and it is needless to add that he cannot be a good citizen. If the request of this steel company had been granted, it would have jeopardised the interests of all the workers in the State who were engaged in continuous operations. Therefore, if a seven day week not only injures the workingman himself, but his family and the Personal Liberty and Prohibition 79 State, then the State has a right and a duty to pre- vent that man from working seven days per week to save the State and the man. The trade unionist should be the last man in the world to talk about "personal liberty." Suppose a strike were ordered on the job upon which the trade unionist is working, would he dare resist the strike order? Suppose it had been decided by the labour union that eight hours constituted a day's work, would he dare work nine or ten or twelve? Suppose the labour union law declared that there should be no Sunday work, would a trade unionist insist upon working a seven day week if he felt like doing so? Suppose the rules of the union prohibited him from working with non-union men, would he be found on the same job with such men? Practically every demand of the labour union in- fringes upon the "personal liberty" of the trade unionist. The doctrine of personal liberty is a relic of the old Manchester School of extreme individual- ism. There is absolutely no room for this philoso- phy in the trade union movement. The doctrine of personal liberty carried out to its logical conclusion would wipe out every labour union in the world. The best possible argument for the labour union is that it looks upon the problems of the workers from the standpoint of the great mass of working- men and not from the standpoint of the individual. 8o Why Prohibition! When a man joins a labour union he forfeits his personal liberty for the common interest of the work- ingmen of his class. The labour union takes care of the weakest man the one who is least able to defend himself, brings him into the organisation and then stands by him to the limit. It does the same thing for women and children who cannot fight their own battles. The fight for prohibition is based upon much the same principle its chief object is to take care of the weakest members of society. If every man may do as he pleases about the liquor business, then by the same token he may do as he pleases about the labour business. What, then, is the use of insisting that a boss must unionise his shop if every man may do as he pleases? What's the sense of compelling him to run his plant upon an eight hour basis? Why should we declare with fervour that he must pay the union scale of wages? But labour men are right when they stand to- gether to secure justice. They must insist upon the bosses giving their fellows a square deal in indus- try, even though it may mean a sacrifice for the great hody of workers. You can't do as you please in the industrial world there are too many interests to be conserved. No more dare you do as you please with regard to the liquor business. Your personal liberty is the last thing to be considered. The first consideration is the well-being of the majority. Personal Liberty and Prohibition 81 It is rather interesting that the members of the "personal liberty leagues" who stand for the main- tenance of the liquor business become very much incensed when a fellow-trade unionist asserts his per- sonal liberty to vote as he pleases regarding the liquor business. The liquor delegates at a recent meeting of the Central Labor Union in their city brought charges against a fellow delegate because he voted in favour of the "Drys" ; they wanted him thrown out of the Central body because he exercised his "personal lib- erty." This episode shows the insincerity of the champions of the liquor industry. "Personal lib- erty" to them means merely that you shall think and do as they wish you to do; no one has a right to exercise his "personal liberty" excepting themselves. They are fighting for their "personal liberty" not yours, or anybody's else. The labour editor who declined to print a paid advertisement of a Dry Mass meeting, at which only trade unionists were to speak, but filled his columns with announcements and arguments for the liquor crowd, has lost his most precious heritage the rec- ognition of the freedom of speech and of the press. The only "doxy" which such men recognise as genuine orthodoxy, is their "doxy." If the question of closing the saloon is of such extreme economic importance as to result in a great difference of opinion among the rank and file of the members of organised labour, then, in justice to all 82 Why Prohibition! concerned, each side of this question should be pre- sented with the utmost freedom and sincerity of purpose, for if the men who stand for the saloon are wrong, then it is inevitable that their business will ultimately be destroyed, and if those who are opposed to the saloon are right, then no power on earth or under the earth can long withstand them. The Labour Press is assumed to stand for the best interests of all trade-unionists not merely the in- terests of a few and if it is to perform its duty adequately and fairly, its columns must be open for the presentation of all the facts with reference to the effect and influence of the liquor business both now and after it shall be abolished. In no other way can it expect to have the hearty support of the rank and file of the workers. It surely cannot afford to wilfully and persistently pervert the truth, or print only so much of it as is in accord with the wishes of an interested minority the liquor men in the la- bour movement. Why should the labour movement be made the goat of the liquor business when every institution and enterprise having the well-being of mankind at heart is becoming increasingly opposed to the saloon and to the liquor business? Why should the labour movement be a trailer when, if its declara- tions are true and its leaders are sincere, it stands for the building up of our common humanity? Why should the labour movement stand for the saloon when everybody knows that the tendency of the sa- Personal Liberty and Prohibition 83 loon is always against the interests of the working- man? In order to defend the position of the liquor men, one of their noted exponents quotes a Canon of the early church regarding the alleged prohibition heresy of Tatian and his followers which reads: "If any bishop, priest, deacon, or layman abstain from wine out of abhorrence as having forgotten that all things are very good, let him amend or else be deposed and cast out of the Church." But what about "personal liberty" in this case? Is "personal liberty" to be granted only to the man who wants to drink and not to the man who prefers to abstain from drinking? The liquor men insist that these early churchmen were in harmony with the divine order because "they touched hands with the disciples of Christ." But, however effective these disciples may have been in other regards or how true to the teachings of the Scripture, it does not necessarily follow that they were right in their atti- tude toward the use of intoxicating liquor, nor were they infallible in setting up an economic system, or in establishing social customs. Many of the early disciples, including some of the twelve apostles, were in favour of communism; they believed in having all things in common. The fact that communism was practised only a short period of time and was given up because it was impractica- ble, indicated that there was something fundamen- tally wrong with it. 84 Why Prohibition! And so, whatever may have been the teachings of the early disciples regarding the use of liquor, they changed their minds on this as well as on many other subjects, as their experience increased and their knowledge broadened. In law and in civilisation the first consideration is not the individual, but society. Therefore, whatever injures society is not permitted. The greater our civilisation, the more restricted become our liber- ties. You may enjoy civic liberty only as you are willing to sacrifice personal liberty. This does not mean that you are actually sur- rendering anything. Each of us is asked to give up some little things and put them into the common fund which makes up the sum of all our comforts in a civilised community, but each of us draws out of that common fund much more than any of us puts in. You may exercise your personal liberty only in so far as you do not place additional burdens upon your neighbours, or upon the State. No man has a right to drink if by so doing he poisons himself or makes himself an unfit member of society, compelling the State to cure him, support him when he is unable to take care of himself, lock him up when he is dangerous to be at large, bury him at public expense when he is a corpse, and take care of his family after he is gone. No normal man would prefer to live in a state of barbarism where every one does absolutely as Personal Liberty and Prohibition 85 he pleases without regard to the well-being of his neighbours. He would rather make some sacrifices which mean comparatively little to him in order that he, too, might make a contribution to the civilisa- tion which is bringing so much happiness and com- fort to all. When a man thinks there is no other place under God's heaven in which he can drink liquor except in the saloon, and if he insists upon exercising his per- sonal liberty in order to carry out his desires, he is asking thousands of men and women to make a greater sacrifice and to suffer infinitely more because the saloon is licensed, than he would suffer or sac- rifice were he to give up his right to patronise the saloon. Robinson Crusoe upon his desert island could do as he pleased, but on the day that he saw the foot- prints of his man Friday on the shore his liberty was cut in two. He had to reckon with Friday, even though he never saw him; the fact that he was on the island with him compelled Robinson Crusoe to consider him. You cannot do as you please in a democracy not even with the things that are most precious to you. There's your body, for example. You've ten- derly cared for it all through its life. Suppose you try to kill it to commit suicide. If you succeed, Billy Sunday says you'll go to hell. If you fail, the law says you'll go to jail. But suppose to-morrow morning the conscription 86 Why Prohibition! officer should call on you to go to war, with the chances that your precious body will be shot to pieces in the trenches. And suppose you should say to the conscription officer, "Go way, mister; I don't believe in war I am for peace." It wouldn't matter what you believed about war you'd go to the Front. What you dared not do to your own body the State has a right to do, be- cause in a democracy the chief consideration is not the individual but society, or the State. But you wouldn't wait to have the conscription officer compel you to go to war. You'd go because and now read this carefully because you want to do all you can to make u the world safe for democracy." You are ready to sacrifice yourself that others may be blessed. That's why men are being asked to surrender their personal liberty in regard to the liquor ques- tion. They are asked to consider this matter from the standpoint of the citizen whose chief concern is for the welfare of all the people. It is much easier for six people to live together in peace than it is for six hundred to live in har- mony. But there are one hundred million of us in this country, and each of us thinks that he is just as good as the other fellow, if not a little bit bet- ter. Suppose each of us tried to do just as we pleased? It would create a hopeless situation. Justinian has reduced the whole doctrine of law Personal Liberty and Prohibition 87 to these principles: "That we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to every one his due." If these principles were applied to the liquor busi- ness, and all that goes with it, there would be no room for it. Blackstone, the great authority on law, says: "If man were to live in a state of nature un- connected with other individuals, there would be no occasion for any other law than the law of na- ture and the law of God. Neither could any other law possibly exist, for a law always supposes some superior who is to make it, and in a state of nature we are all equal without any other superior but Him who is the author of our being. But man was formed for society and, as is demonstrated by the writers on this subject, is neither capable of living alone nor indeed has the courage to do it. The com- munity should guard the rights of each individual member, and in return for this protection each in- dividual should submit to the law of the community, without which submission of all it is impossible that protection should be extended to any." Blackstone further says: "Every man when he en- ters into society gives up a part of his natural lib- erty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mu- tual commerce, obliges himself to conform to those laws which the community has thought proper to es- tablish. And this species of legal obedience and conformity is infinitely more desirable than that wild 88 Why Prohibition! and savage liberty which is sacrificed to obtain it. For no man, who considers a moment, would wish to retain the absolute and uncontrolled power of do- ing whatever he pleases; the consequence of which is, that every other man also have the same power and then there would be no security to individuals in any of the enjoyments of life. "Hence we may collect that the law, which re- strains a man from doing mischief to his fellow- citizens, though it diminishes the natural, increases the civil liberty of mankind. Laws when prudently framed are by no means subversive, but rather in- troductive of liberty, for as Mr. Locke has well ob- served, where there is no law there is no freedom. The constitution or frame of government, while it leaves the individual the entire master of his own conduct, nevertheless restricts or restrains him when- ever the public's good is affected." According to Blackstone, a man's personal lib- erty is restricted by certain great fundamental facts. For example, he points out that life is the immediate gift of God. Therefore, this life cannot be taken away, that is, it cannot be destroyed, not even by the person himself, nor by any other of his fellow creatures merely upon their own authority. Hence, the State has a right to preserve a man's health from such practices as may prejudice or annoy it. If, therefore, any institution or custom in the community has a tendency to destroy life or health, the State has a right to abolish such institution or custom. Personal Liberty and Prohibition 89 When the manufacture of liquor makes life more burdensome to all the people, and when it cre- ates social and economic problems which threaten to destroy the finest things in human life; when it destroys men's bodies and souls and becomes a men- ace to society, then we have a right to destroy the liquor traffic even though it may cause some incon- venience to a comparatively few people who insist upon exercising their personal liberty. We accept this principle in every other relation- ship in life why not accept it with regard to the liquor business? VI Workingmen and the Saloon A STUDY of how workingmen spend their spare time was recently made by George E. Bevans in co- operation with the writer's office staff. Over one thou- sand workingmen in large cities were interviewed; about one-third of these admitted that they patron- ised the saloon, although more than one-half used liquor in some form. ^ In summing up the results of this investigation, the men were divided into groups according to the number of hours worked per day. It was brought out in this study that, in general, the men who worked the longest hours per day drank the most liquor. For example, when the men were asked the ques- tion, "Do you drink liquor before going to work?" the following were the percentages: From 8 to 9 hours 10. 1 Jo From 9 to 10 hours 17.0% From 10 to 1 1 hours 14-5% 1 1 and over hours 19-3% The total number of men in the entire group who drink liquor at noon was 5 1.3 per cent., or more than 90 Workingmen and the Saloon 91 one-half. It must not be imagined, however, that all of the men who drink liquor before going to work or at the noon hour patronise the saloon. They ap- parently have other means of supplying themselves with intoxicants. It will be seen, therefore, that the closing of the saloon in the neighbourhood of shops and factories doesn't do away with the evil of the liquor habit, and the figures given above prove it. It must, there- fore, be obvious that the liquor problem is an edu- cational and economic problem as well as a political or legislative question. Along side of the fact that the man who works the longest hours spends most time in the saloon, because he seems to need artificial stimulants, came the further revelation tharAmarried men spend more time in the saloon than single men.) This may be accounted for in part by the fact that the younger men are more idealistic. They spend much of their time with their sweethearts and they are occupied with their studies. Life has not lost its zest for them. During their leisure hours they are engaged in profitable occupations, fitting themselves for the duties of life. (The ages between 35 and 45 seem to be the most perilous period in a man's life, according to this study. At this time the average workingman has distinctly slumped; life hasn't much of an outlook for him, for if he hasn't made good at forty, he is practically done for, so far as the bigger things ahead 92 Why Prohibition! are concerned, and so the saloon occupies most of his spare time.,* Each of the workingmen interviewed was asked for what objects he spent his spare cash by spare cash being meant money not spent for the necessi- ties of life< and to help him in his thinking, the fol- lowing items were tabulated: Motion pictures, theatre, beer, wine, whiskey, chewing tobacco, smoking tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, personal contributions to church, family contribu- tions to church, self life insurance, family life insur- ance. If the total number of ways in which this money was spent were represented by 100 per cent., beer took about 23 per cent, of the total, but if we in- clude beer, wine and whiskey, the total amounts to about 34 per cent, of the total spent for all pur- poses. Motion picture shows and theatres required about 24 per cent, of the total; tobacco consumed 24 per cent. ; life insurance required 1 1 per cent. ; the church got a little over 6 per cent. It is evident from the comparison of the hour groups that men working the lesser number of hours per day use their spare time more wisely and more uniformly than do men in the longer hour groups. Men who work the greatest number of hours per day seek in the use of their spare time, first, rest and then recreation that comes cheaply and easily and the saloon usually furnishes the latter in the most effective fashion possible. Workingmen and the Saloon 93 The study indicated that to give workingmen an equal number of hours of leisure would tend to es- tablish a uniform standard for spending spare time. It also showed that there is no justification for the argument that, if workingmen were given a shorter work-day, they would spend more time in the saloon quite the opposite was proven to be the case. Workingmen naturally protest against being sin- gled out as a class and held up as "horrible exam- ples" of what drink will do to a man. Therefore, at the convention of the American Federation of Labor in San Francisco the follow- ing resolution was introduced and unanimously adopted : "WHEREAS, It is a familiar thing in moving pic- tures to exhibit scenes of drunkenness in which the principal actors are represented as workingmen ; and, "WHEREAS, The place of revelry and excess in many instances is shown as a saloon or cafe of the type generally patronised by workingmen; and, "WHEREAS, The constant parading before the minds of the people of the United States of the un- truthful statement that drunkenness and debauchery are common among the toilers and the poor is a stigma upon the entire labouring element of the United States; therefore, be it "Resolved, That we as representative workers unanimously disapprove and condemn such pictures as described above and protest against them as be- ing unfair to that vast army of sober and Indus- 94 Why Prohibition! trious men who form the ranks of the labour unions of the United States." Workingmen are becoming increasingly sensitive when the liquor question is under consideration. They insist that they are not drunken, but that all the tendencies among them are toward more tem- perate living. This is undoubtedly true, especially among the higher grade workingmen. But if it's a bad thing for a workingman to drink booze, it must be still worse for the boss to drink booze. It's worse, because more depends upon the boss, in the matter of efficiency and general prosperity, than upon the workingman. Nobody will deny that there's a necessity for con- ducting anti-saloon campaigns among the toilers. But there's just as great a need to conduct similar campaigns among the bosses. Every^ boss who is interested in having his men remain sober should be consistent and remain sober himself. We have often been told that capital and labour are partners that their interests are com- mon. If this is true, then workingmen have as much right to protest against the drinking boss as the boss has to protest against the drinking workingmen. When the boss patronises the saloon it means not only smaller profits for himself, but less work for his men. If there's any virtue in the bosses band- ing together for a temperance campaign among the rank and file of the workers, there's equal consistency Workingmen and the Saloon 95 in the workingmen organising in order to keep the bosses sober. What's "booze" for the workers is "booze" for the bosses it hits them all in the same place and in the same way. Let's take this for granted in the discussion in this chapter. But, nevertheless, it's worth while to consider the entire subject from the standpoint of the worker, because it does concern him vitally. And here's an illustration: Because Bill Jones "boozes" he's worth $2.50 a day. Because Jim Smith is sober and clear-headed he's worth $3.50 a day. But the boss must strike a fair average, so he pays each $3.00 a day. If there are two men like drinking Bill Jones in the shop, and one like sober Jim Smith, the average wage will probably be only $2.75 a day. But if there are two men like Jim Smith and only one man like Bill Jones, their wage will likely be $3.25 a day. The more men like drunken Bill Jones there are In a shop, the lower will be the average wage. The more men like sober Jim Smith, the higher the wage. Anyway, that's the way the ordinary boss figures it. He must strike a fair average, because he has all kinds of men in the shop. The advantage to the sober man is that he's the last man laid off, and the first man taken on, and he has a better chance for promotion. But even he 96 Why Prohibition! is bound to suffer, because some other man persists in getting drunk or even drinking "moderately." In such a situation there can be no such thing as "personal liberty." No man has the right to degrade his fellow-workers through his personal habits. If the low grade man were the victim of an un- fortunate handicap for which he could not be held responsible, it would be a different matter. But any workingman who deliberately lowers standards for all his fellows simply because he chooses to debase himself through the use of strong drink, should be regarded as a traitor to the cause of labour. Fifty workmen were taken out of the steel mills in Chicago and transferred to better positions in Pittsburgh. They had been carefully selected be- cause of their superior ability from among thousands employed in the mills. Their friends gave them a supper when they were about to leave, and furnished plenty of booze for the occasion. But to the amazement of the hosts every last one of the fifty workmen turned down his glass when the booze was passed. This act was at least one in- dication as to why the fifty were selected for the bigger and better jobs. No doubt the friends who had gathered to bid them farewell were impressed by the action of their guests. It probably took a lot of nerve for these Workingmen and the Saloon 97 workmen to stand by their convictions regarding the liquor question. Most men would have argued that this surely was the one occasion when it was only fair that they should be "decent" to their friends, and drink at least a glass of wine, thereby showing their appre- ciation. The fact is, they turned down champagne which their friends had bought to celebrate the occasion. And this is in line with the increasing tendency on the part of the high-grade artisans to cut out booze. Seamen are presumed to be peculiarly addicted to the use of strong drink. The phrase u a drunken sailor" has become a byword, but booze has hit the sailor man so hard that he has long since been cut- ting it out. In San Francisco the National Seamen's Union has a building of its own. The lower part of it is a store, but it stood vacant for nearly two years although it might repeatedly have been rented for saloon purposes at a very good price. The Seamen's Union declined to rent to a saloonkeeper. There were saloons to the left of it, to the right of it, and saloons abreast of it, and the argument might easily have been raised, "What does it matter one saloon more or less? It can't hurt anybody." But the Seamen's Union stood staunchly against the booze business. The action of an increasing number of employ- 98 Why Prohibition! ers insisting that their workmen shall not drinK booze while "on the job" is "sinking the workmen lower than the slaves of ante-bellum days," accord- ing to a prominent liquor sellers' journal. The increased profits which come to the bosses because their workmen are sober is counted "blood money" by the editor of this paper. The fact that these sober workmen themselves earn and receive a considerable portion of this "blood money" is not, of course, mentioned. That bosses seek to protect themselves against the payment of accident indemnities because those injured or killed were intoxicated, or at least befud- dled by strong drink, is regarded as the basest tyranny and oppression ! What does it matter that thousands may have their lives endangered on railroad trains the rail- road man must have his booze, because, otherwise, he will become just "a common slave and chattel of the railroad company." The bosses must not have their profits increased because their men are sober, because when workmen are sober the profits of the booze sellers are de- creased. And that any boss should regard the health and life of his employes as more to be desired than accident insurance money, is beyond the conception of the booze dealer's defender! In a more general way workingmen themselves Workingmen and the Saloon 99 have bitterly complained about "tainted money' 1 blood money, as the liquor editor puts it. In some instances they have not permitted cities in which they lived to accept gifts from certain capi- talists, because, they declared, these gifts were pur- chased with "blood money." Whatever may be true of the particular indus- tries in which this money was wrung from helpless people, no other industry has produced more "blood money" than the liquor business. The story is as old as strong drink itself. Hopes have been crushed, lives have been blighted, families have been destroyed, cities have been ruined, nations have been wrecked on account of strong drink. There is a great difference between "blood money" in the average industry and "blood money" in the liquor business. While the profits in both the average industry and in the liquor industry go largely to the bosses, the products in the first group of industries usually bless mankind, whereas the products of the liquor indus- try curse mankind. The workers in other industries engaged in ac- cumulating money which has upon it the taint of blood are often themselves innocent victims, and deserve our sympathy; whereas the workers in the liquor industry are definitely and knowingly produc- ing material which too often causes the destruction loo Why Prohibition! of men, and we have a right to condemn both them and their business. The money made in the liquor business is "blood money," and if labour is to be consistent it cannot defend those who are engaged in any branch of this business whether they make liquor or sell it, whether they receive their profit in dividends or in wages. Labour and liquor have absolutely nothing in com- mon. Their interests have always been diametri- cally opposed. The only salvation for labour is to let liquor alone, and to be free from all entangle- ments with those who produce it or dispose of it for beverage purposes. Working for the liquor business is a "steady job" according to the liquor men themselves. This is what they tell workingmen, so that they may continue to vote for the liquor business, in order that those who are engaged in this business may hold these "steady jobs." But the records that Uncle Sam makes regarding the steadiness of employment do not agree with the statements issued by the liquor men. In some tables printed in the Statistical Abstract all of which in their natural state are practically use- less and through their energy and ingenuity they build cities, houses and homes. They take the waste materials of industry and build out of them fame and fortune for themselves, and for the people they create the very necessities of life whereas the liquor men consume the choicest materials God-grown and leave in their wake distress and death. When Gustave Pabst then president of the United States Brewers' Association and himself a large brewer became an exponent of the rights of io8 Why Prohibition! workingmen, the brewery workmen said: "Good stuff now we'll get what's coming to us !" For Mr. Pabst had said that "in the light of mod- ern sociology and economics we know positively that drink is not responsible for all the evils of life; to the contrary we see that the drink evil the abuse of alcoholic beverages is to a very large degree a product of modern industrial methods. We are living at a high speed. In every department of life the cry is 'Speed, speed, and yet greater speed !' The easy-going life of our forefathers has departed ap- parently forever. Let us put the blame mainly where it belongs let us put it on the 'system.' ' Sounds like a "regular" Socialist! So it's the system that makes a man drink to ex- cess? It's the demand for "speed"? But hold on how many glasses of "alcoholic bev- erages" does the average brewery workman indulge in daily? Let the Brewers' President tell us he knows. Ten? Twenty? Thirty? What's the limit that the brewery bosses have placed upon their em- ployes in this respect? But all this is also to be changed according to the Brewers' Journal. "Diseases among brewery workers have been greatly decreased by the introduction of machinery, which prevents the men from working too hard and lessens their thirst," says the editor. But everybody has been taught that brewery work- ers were always among the healthiest workmen ! Workingmen and the Saloon 109 They LOOK so healthy so robust, so rotund, so rosy! But life insurance experts have been telling us that brewery workers die sooner than most work- ers, in spite x of their apparently healthy condition. And they ought to know. And now the brewery workers will not be com- pelled to work "too hard" I This will "lessen their thirst!" One would think that heretofore the brewery workers were having rather a rough time of it = working so hard that they were driven to drink ! What a blessed thing is machinery! And won't it be a great thing when other workers will have disease and death-rates "greatly reduced" because they have cut out booze, just like the brewery work- ers. For if it's a good thing for brewery workers to get away from the ill effects of consuming their own product, it should also be a good thing for the average worker! Why not? And yet the saloon is being offered by the pub- licity man of the liquor industry as a cure for indus- trial ills! After picturing the sordid conditions of industrial workers, pointing out the struggles which these work- ers are making to find escape from their dreadful conditions, this statement is offered: "You have made your fight on stimulants, and, like thousands of others, you have turned to the saloon as the only friend of the physical down-and-out." Many workingmen are undoubtedly suffering most no Why Prohibition! grievously on account of unjust economic conditions and because their work is unhealthy in its character and because their surroundings are bad. But the conditions described by the publicity man, and which booze is supposed to have healed, read very much like those conditions for which tooze, itself, is re- sponsible. Look at a few of his interesting paragraphs : "Have you felt your tongue thicken and your throat parch ? Thousands who drink, drink not because they want to, but because they must." Doesn't this sound like the cravings of a confirmed drunkard? "Have you ever been tired with a fatigue that finds you heavy-hearted in the morning, and dogs your footsteps each succeeding day; that week by week benumbs your power of recuperation ?" But here's a still more graphic picture of the "morning after" "Have you dragged your poisoned body to the daily task with only the loathing memory of your untouched breakfast for sustenance?" Still he goes on: "Have you felt your strength slip from you hour by hour; have you fought with palsied muscles to hold your job and to keep yourself and your family off the street?" Workingmen and the Saloon in Nobody knows quite so well as the workingman that booze does all this and much more. No wonder that the liquor industry's publicity agent asks in despair: "Why do many workers vote the Prohibition ticket, and for the enactment of Prohibition laws? Why do they vote for their enslavement by a set of fanatics who never earned in all their lives one penny by hard work in a mill or fac- tory? Are the laws of God against intemperance no longer sufficient? Had not many workers voted for Prohibition there would be no dry territory in our country." Why does the workingman vote against the sa- loon? Because he has seen the folly of being "dizzy, heavy-footed with pounding arteries and heavy- handed," which is another picture presented by the questioner in his illuminating article. Why does the workingman vote against the sa- loon? Because he is tired of its effects the morning after because he sees that the whole business is a delusion and a snare, and that while the saloon may temporarily dull his brain and make him stupid, so that he forgets the horrors of our industrial sys- tem, he only awakens to it when he sobers up with an extreme contempt for himself, realising that booze merely made him less fit for the fight to get rid of these industrial conditions. This is why the workingman is coming more and more to vote against the saloon no matter how much it may grieve the inventor of the plausible ar- 112 Why Prohibition! guments for the maintenance of the liquor industry. The saloonkeeper always gives preference to the bartender who doesn't drink. If drinking whiskey is bad for the man behind the bar, why isn't it equally bad for the man before the bar? The advocates of the saloon inform us that the saloon is "the poor man's club" that if he doesn't go to the saloon, he can't go anywhere else. Well there's his home. His wife is compelled to remain there in spite of its inconveniences. Often the "poor man's club" the saloon is used to beat his wife with and that's all she gets out of it. Now the workingman is up against a good many difficult problems. His home isn't all that it should be. He doesn't have all the joy that he deserves and needs. But when he puts his home and his joys into the hands of the saloon interests, then it's "good night" to the best things in human life. (The saloon, as an institution, does more to dis- courage progress among workingmen than any other agency in this country. When it serves liquor to a workingman it has a tendency to make that work- ingman too easily contented with his lot." It isn't the man who drinks who produces pros- perity; it's the man who doesn't drink. The work- ingman who drinks has low ideals for himself arid for his class. The man who spends his money for the satisfaction of higher ideals in life creates a de- mand for commodities which not only have perma- nent value, but which give employment to a larger Workingmen and the Saloon 113 number of people than if his desires ended merely in the drinking of booze. There is no greater hindrance to the labour move- ment than the ''satisfied" man. The non-saloon patronising man is a greater asset to the labour move- ment than the man who spends all the time that he can in the saloon. This is the opinion of the best labour leaders the world over. The reason for this is that the total abstainer is not only clear-headed, seeing the injustices in the in- dustrial world, but he makes a better fighter than the booze-soaked worker, whose horizon is bounded by the rim of a glass of beer. Discussing the relation of the labour union to mem- bers who are discharged for using booze, the Union Leader, the official organ of the Electric Railway Employes of Chicago, recently said: "All sensible men in this age realise that booze and busi- ness will not mix and that strict attention to duty and abso- lute honesty is essential to success. The trainman who forms the habit of drinking booze on duty is in a measure to be pitied, for he is giving away to a weakness that must eventually destroy his usefulness. In any event, it must be admitted that the man who follows the practice of drinking intoxicating liquors on duty is dangerous in the street rail- way occupation. He is not only jeopardising the public and company, but himself and fellow-workmen. "The organisation cannot be expected to keep men in positions who refuse to play square. When men accept po- sitions in the street railway service they do so with an un- 114 Why Prohibition! derstanding of what is expected of them. If they choose to drink on duty and fail to register fares they are doing these things of their own volition, and when they get caught and suspension follows they should be men enough to take their medicine without coming to the organisation with a complaint. Certainly the organisation did not instruct them to drink on duty, pilfer fares or become careless. The teach- ings of the organisation are against these practices, so that when disaster follows such acts the guilty have no one but themselves to blame. "The line of resistance in the street railway business is to shun booze on duty, practice courtesy, follow the rules as nearly as possible, try to do the right thing at all times and under all circumstances register fares as you get them. "Jag Joy and Jit Juggling will place your job in jeopardy. If you are a victim of these habits, get right or get off the job before they get you with a record." Booze is not only a waste in itself, but it wastes the resources of the worker as well as of the boss. Other things being equal, a dry town can put a wet town out of business from the industrial stand- point. The actual cost of living is always increased by the drink habit. There is no doubt that the use of intoxicating liquor by the worker reduces his wages. This at the same time reduces the margin of profit of the boss, because his overhead and other general charges are the same, no matter how much he pays for wages. Therefore, when the workingman is at a low state of efficiency it greatly increases the cost of the out- Workingmen and the Saloon 115 put, and hence increases the selling cost of the product. On the other hand, when the worker abstains from the use of alcohol, thereby increasing his efficiency, he advances his own wage rate and increases the profit of the boss, which enables the boss to sell at a narrower margin of profit. It may be put down as a general principle that, other things being equal, whatever increases the effi- ciency of the worker cheapens the cost of the product. The boss can afford to pay higher wages when workingmen are more efficient, because, he himself receives more profit on account of the workingmen' s increased efficiency. The public at large is also the beneficiary of this increased efficiency, because the increased production, due to the workingman's increased efficiency, should enable the producer to sell his product more cheaply. It doesn't matter much from which angle one ap- proaches the liquor problem it must always be apparent that the use of liquor always reacts against the interest of the men and the boss. Therefore, the saloon, which increases the use of strong drink, is always a detriment to any com- munity. Hence, let's put the saloon out of business, and increase the general prosperity of the working- man, the boss and the public. We've been told that when a town goes dry, work- ingmen throw up their jobs. In order to test out this matter telegrams were n6 Why Prohibition! sent by the dry campaign committee in Newburgh, New York, to several leading shipbuilding compan- ies, because the argument had been made by the u wets" that ships must be built to win the war and to build ships quickly requires contented working- men and they had persuaded some employers of la- bour in town that if the saloons were closed work- ers would leave. Here are some answers straight from big ship- building companies: "We have no difficulty securing men and are very much in favour of prohibition." MCDOUGALL-DULUTH SHIPBUILDING COMPANY, Duluth, Minn. "Prohibition has not affected our business in any way adversely. We think men are altogether more reliable and industrious. They have more interest in the work and more ambition to succeed." PACIFIC LIFEBOAT COMPANY, Portland, Ore. "Prohibition increases the efficiency and dependability of labour and does not affect the procuring of it." FRED D. DOTY, President, NATIONAL CONCRETE BOAT COMPANY, Norfolk, Va. "Prohibition affects this company favourably rather than otherwise. We do not have any trouble securing capable mechanics because of prohibition." NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK Co., Newport News, Va. Workingmen and the Saloon 117 And here's a telegram from the man who is su- premely interested in building ships to win the war : The Secretary of the Navy Washington "Replying to your telegram I would say that the ex- periment has been made and the removal of the saloon is an advantage in every way both to industries and to the home." Sincerely yours, JOSEPH us DANIELS. VII Organised Labour and the Saloon ORGANISED labour's next big fight will not be against the capitalists nor against the socialists- its old-time opponents. The next great conflict of organised labour will be within its own ranks it will be between the forces representing the liquor inter- ests and those who are opposed to the saloon and its influence within the labour movement. No one re- alises this more keenly than the craftsmen who are engaged in the various forms of the liquor business and its allied industries, and they are preparing to meet what they believe to be the most important bat- tle in their history. The two leading international labour unions which are most directly interested in perpetuating the liquor business are the Bartenders' League of America and the International Union of Brewery Workmen. These organisations are not only striv- ing to secure "one hundred per cent." unions that is, not only are they determined to have every man working in saloons and in and about breweries be- come members of these unions, but they are fighting even more vigorously to line up the labour forces 118 Organised Labour and the Saloon 119 in a national attack upon the "dry" movement of this country. And their success in this direction should give pause to over-confident prohibitionists. Both the Bartenders' and the Brewery Workers' Unions are affiliated with the American Federation of La- bor, and of the 114 national and international unions affiliated with the Federation, the Bartenders stand sixth in point of membership, and the Brewery Workers tenth. However, there are many other international unions not directly engaged in the manufacture and sale of liquor which are more or less identified in their interests with the Brewery Workers' and Bar- tenders' Unions. For example, the Cigar Makers 7 Union is interested because, they say, practically all union made cigars are sold in saloons. Hence they sincerely believe that if the saloons are closed their union will be destroyed. Many members in the Coopers' Union, which furnishes the barrels for the liquor industry, the Glass Bottle Blowers' Union, which makes bottles and glasses for saloons and breweries, the Wood Workers' Union, which fur- nishes the fixtures for saloons, the union men who manufacture beer pumps and bottle machinery, the men who make automobiles in which the beer is transported to the saloon, and many other groups of workingmen sincerely believe that their destiny is tied up with the liquor interests. The liquor men have tabulated a list of 77 trades and occupations which they insist will be affected by the abolition of I2O Why Prohibition! the saloon. And it is declared that in the line-up which will shortly take place the great majority of workingmen who are identified with these industries will fight on the side of the saloon, even though they, themselves, may be total abstainers. So fearful of the results of prohibition has the Coopers' Union apparently become that at a recent annual convention of their organisation they adopted a resolution requesting the American Federation of Labor to appoint a Commission composed of repre- sentatives of organised labour for the purpose of fighting the dry movement in every part of this coun- try. Had this resolution been adopted by the Fed- eration, it would immediately have resulted in a split in the American Labour Movement, for it would have meant that substantially every trade unionist affiliated with the Federation would be compelled to financially support such a movement. And many trade unionists would have protested against such action by the Federation. Fortunately, the resolu- tion was not even introduced at the convention of the American Federation of Labor. Another indication of the growing conflict in the labour movement is the formation of the "Trade Union Personal Liberty Leagues," whose chief em- phasis is not so much upon the economic aspects of the liquor problem, as upon "personal liberty." A regularly organised movement is on foot to cap- ture State Federations of Labor for the liquor busi- ness, the liquor men often agreeing to pay the bills Organised Labour and the Saloon 121 of delegates to be sent by Central Labor Unions and other labour bodies which otherwise might not send delegates because of the expense. The printed constitution of the Bartenders* Union specifically in- structs representatives of this organisation to get to- gether on the day previous to regular labour con- ventions at which they might be delegates for the purpose of organising to push their propaganda at the sessions of the convention. This movement among the liquor-dominated trades has back of it some of the brainiest and most aggressive labour leaders in America. Incidentally it has the support of the employers, themselves, and of their "special- ists" who are engaged in setting up campaigns against the "drys." In some states the Liquor Dealers' Pro- tective League and the State Federations of Labor are working in co-operation. The liquor interests in the labour movement prac- tically control the Trade Union Label Department of the American Federation of Labor. At the Phil- adelphia Convention of the Federation this Depart- ment adopted a strong resolution against prohibition in all its forms. It was made to appear in many daily newspapers that the Federation, itself, had adopted the resolution. But the resolution was not even considered by the Federation. At the San Fran- cisco Convention of the Federation, the representa- tive of the Brewery Workers' Union became bolder than ever. He stated at the meeting of the Trade Union Label League Department that the time had 122 Why Prohibition! come when every international union must declare itself plainly with regard to prohibition) "Either you are for us or you are against us ; there is no half- way ground," he told the delegates, and at this con- ference another resolution against prohibition was adopted by practically a unanimous vote. It should be understood, however, that the action of the Trade Union Label Department was not endorsed at the regular Convention of the American Federation of Labor in either case. What a farce it is for trade unionists to vote in favour of the liquor business just because some beer-barrels and beer-bottles contain union labels ! Organised labour is prepared to say that goods containing the union label are made under circum- stances which free the worker from the curse of bad economic conditions. Why should it not also guarantee that no user of these union labelled goods will be afflicted by the very curse from which labour itself seeks freedom merely through their use ? We are informed that all men should demand union label goods, because, among other things, it means the prevention of tuberculosis. But every scientist, and every physician who is perfectly hon- est, will tell you that booze is responsible for tu- berculosis. The fact that the Brewery Workers' Union label is on the barrel or on the bottle doesn't make a 'man or woman immune from the effects of the booze which they contain ! Organised Labour and the Saloon 123 We are informed that the union label stands for living wages and a shorter work-day. But all the tendencies of union labelled booze is to lower a man's wages and lengthen his hours of labour. We are informed that the union label stands for the prevention of child labour. But union labelled booze sends little children into the factory and de- prives them of the best things in human life. We are informed that the union label represents sanitary workshops. But union labelled booze never helped a man get a job in a high grade shop where the best standards are maintained. There are many other commendable things for which the union stands, and workingmen should be encouraged in the most practical fashion to secure these ends. But why should organised labour tie itself up to a business which does more to undermine the fine, big principles for which it stands and the practical things for which it is contending, than all the union labels in the country can help it secure? Meanwhile the "drys" in the labour movement are also organising. In Ohio there is what is known as the "Workingman's Protective and Publicity As- sociation." And in Nebraska the "Anti-booze League," composed exclusively of trade unionists, has been formed. The object of the league is set forth in the following statement: "The object of this league is to impress upon the general public that certain 'labour organisations' and 'trades union 124 Why Prohibition! liberty leagues,' controlled by the liquor interests, do not voice the true sentiment of labour organisations of Nebraska in their effort to make it appear that the labouring class is subservient to the whims of said liquor industry. "It shall be the aim of this organisation to publicly dis- claim in every way possible that union labour of Nebraska looks upon the use of liquor as an aid to its welfare and advancement; but rather that the use of intoxicating liquor is the greatest handicap union labour has to contend with in making its fight for justice for the working class. "The members of this league resent any effort of the liquor element to place union labour of Nebraska in the attitude of supporting an industry that never has and never can aid the workingman in his struggle for better conditions for himself and family." Similar organisations are being formed in most of the industrial states. During the Toronto Convention of the American Federation of Labor an immense temperance mass meeting of about 4,000 working people was held at Massey Hall, which was addressed by some of the most prominent labour leaders in America and at which the writer presided and at which time clear- cut, straightforward arguments were presented against the entire liquor business. Following are some quotations from the speakers : "Poverty has driven many a strong man to drink, and drink has driven many a strong man to poverty," said John Mitchell, in arguing that the liquor traffic was the enemy of trade unionism. "I am not at all impressed with the Organised Labour and the Saloon 125 argument that if you close down the liquor traffic you bring about a calamity. When you shut down a distillery, a fac- tory takes its place; and when you close up a saloon, a grocery store is put in. No man has a right to spend a cent upon himself until he has first provided for his fam- ily. But the average workingman does not yet earn enough to give his family all the comforts they deserve. He has no money to spend on drink without robbing his family." John B. Lennon, at that time Treasurer of the American Federation of Labor, said: "What is the effect of the liquor traffic on the standard of living of the people? Is there any influence gone out from the saloon that has helped to make men and women better? The labour move- ment is essentially a moral movement. It stands for equal opportunity for men and women, though it believes that it should be made more easily possible for women to become homemakers. Who can deny that the liquor traffic is driv- ing women to work in factories, in workshops and at wash- tubs who ought not to be there? Every cent spent in the liquor business is wasted. It brings no social benefit and no moral uplift. To the trade unionist there is no redeem- ing feature in the saloon. Go anywhere where its influence is felt and you see the demoralisation it brings. We are fighting for social well-being, civic benefits, and moral up- lift. Never a foul plot is organised to injure public rights and social well-being but the saloon is used for the job. The saloon is the enemy of the people for whom we work." "If you want to know where the miners of America stand upon the temperance question I'll tell you," said Tom L. Lewis, then President of the United Mine Workers. "In our constitution we have a clause which forbids any mem- ber to sell intoxicants even at a picnic. That's what we 126 Why Prohibition! think of the liquor traffic. Some people say that the sa- loon is a necessary evil. I don't believe in that kind of doctrine. Because the liquor traffic tends to enslave the people, to make them satisfied with improper conditions and keeps them ignorant, the leaders of the trades union movement are called on to fight the saloon." The effect of this great meeting of workingmen and women in protest against saloon dominance was marked, and it brought forth hundreds of editorials and articles not only in the labour press but in daily newspapers as well. Here, for example, is an editorial printed in the New York Evening Mall. After quoting from the addresses, the editorial continued: "Expressions like these from conspicuous leaders of the American Federation of Labor mean that the attitude of that body toward the saloon is about to change. "Why should it not change? What worthy thing has the saloon ever done for labour, union or non-union ? True, it has been a breeding place for the mob spirit and con- spiracy among the ignorant and reckless, but what has it added to the dignity or the moral influence of labour unions ? "What has the saloon done for the striker except to take his money for bad liquor and worse advice? What has it given toward the support of his wife and children during his idleness? "How long is the saloon hospitable to the workingman after his money has given out? What real interest does it show in his welfare after he ceases to be a paying cus- tomer? Organised Labour and the Saloon 127 "Has a labour union ever gained strength, either financial or moral, by establishing its headquarters in a saloon? Is an appeal for sympathy or assistance the more effective for being issued from a saloon? "These questions have challenged and are receiving the attention of responsible leaders of the American Federation of Labor, for they involve the influence, if not the very ext istence, of that great organisation. It is difficult to con ceive of any policy through which it might gain so greatly in prestige and public respect as by courageously arraying itself in open opposition to the saloon interest." One of the most important battle grounds of the "dry" and the "wet" forces in the labour movement is in the Central Labor Union the local organisa-. tion which is composed of representatives from all the various unions in the city or other local districts. Naturally when thirty different labour unions, for example, are represented in a Central Labor Union the Brewery Workmen and the Bartenders have a comparatively small body present. But when the representative of the brewers or bartenders intro- duces in the Central Labor Union a resolution which is based upon a real or alleged grievance which af- fects the economic interests of the men in their organisation, there are few "dry" delegates who would have the hardihood to oppose such a resolu- tion. The bartenders' and brewers' delegates insist that as trade unionists they must stand together* against their common foe "the capitalistic class"; and the representatives of the carpenters' union, the 128 Why Prohibition! friachinists' union, the electricians' union, and all others who are affiliated with the Central Labor Union believe that at some future time they may have occasion to make a somewhat similar request of the delegates in support of a fight against their employers, and so they vote in favour of the bar- tenders or brewery workers' resolution, no matter how strongly they may oppose the liquor business itself. This situation often accounts for the apparent sympathy with the liquor business of certain labour bodies when all that was involved in the ques- tion at issue was the safeguarding of the economic interests of wage-earners engaged in some form of the liquor business. But there is no doubt that soon there will be strong feeling against taking such ac- tion by labour bodies composed so largely of oppo- nents of the liquor business. It is a well-known fact that if the officer of an international labour union comes out definitely against the liquor business and talks or writes in favour of the "drys," all the forces of the "wets" in the labour movement will be arrayed against him. This has naturally made many of the leading labour men somewhat timid about declaring themselves with regard to the saloon question. For with most of them it involves their living and practically their future as labour leaders. There is not as yet a sufficiently strong sentiment among the rank and file of the national trade unions in favour of prohibition Organised Labour and the Saloon 129 to justify a national officer to stand for prohibition, if he is to depend upon his constituency for support. There are some notable exceptions to this rule, and many of the national unions have adopted strong resolutions against drunkenness and against holding labour meetings in halls connected with saloons, but no national union with the exception of railroad brotherhoods has come out in favour of prohibi- tion as such. A study of the Constitutions of over one hundred international labour unions in the United States re- vealed the fact that fully one-half of them have taken some action regarding the liquor question. Many will not pay sick or death benefits if the member was killed or injured while intoxicated. Others have adopted resolutions forbidding all local unions from holding their meetings in places controlled by saloons. A very considerable number suspend or expel mem- bers who enter a lodge in a state of intoxication. In many cases they will not admit a man who is known to be a habitual drinker of intoxicants. Oth- ers will not admit to membership men who are en- gaged in the sale of intoxicating liquors, which means that if a member of a particular union gives up his trade and enters the saloon business, he is not per- mitted to retain his membership in the organisation. Some unions have a clause in their contract with employers permitting him to instantly discharge a man for drunkenness. 130 Why Prohibition! Following are some typical organisations and their rules regarding the use of liquor: International Fur Workers' Union. "Any member entering the meeting in a state of intoxi- cation shall be admonished by the President, and if he again offends shall be excluded from the room and fined, sus- pended or expelled as the union may decide." Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers. "No benefit paid when sickness is caused by intemperance. No intoxicating drinks shall be permitted to be served when holding a business meeting." Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. "This organisation is on record as favouring state and nation wide prohibition. The following resolution was adopted by our Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, in May, 1915: 'That this B. of L. E. go on record as favouring state and nation wide prohibition of intoxicating liquor as a beverage.' Our laws also forbid members from using intoxicating liquors as a beverage, either on or off duty. No claim for the principal sum of any policy-holder will be recognised when loss of life has been incurred because of intemperance." International Association of Machinists. "Any member entering the lodge while under the influ- ence of intoxicating drinks, or who has been guilty of using indecent or profane language, shall be reprimanded, fined, suspended or expelled at the option of the lodge. Habitual drunkenness or conduct disgraceful to himself or associates, shall be punished by expulsion." Organised Labour and the Saloon 131 International Brotherhood of Maintenance-of-Way Em- ployes. "To allow no person to remain a member of the Broth- erhood unless he lives a sober, moral life. Should any member know that any other member has conducted him- self in a manner calculated to bring disgrace upon the Brotherhood, or of being guilty of drunkenness, keeping a saloon where intoxicating liquors are sold, it shall be his duty to report the offending party to the officers and mem- bers of the Subordinate Lodge. No benefit paid when sickness is the result of intemperance." Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. "Any member dealing in, or in any way connected with the sale of intoxicating liquors, shall, unless he withdraws, be expelled, and under no circumstances shall a member so expelled be readmitted before the lapse of six months. A brother convicted of drunkenness, shall for the first offense be reprimanded or suspended for thirty days, or both, as the lodge may direct. For the second offense he shall be sus- pended not less than thirty days, nor more than two months. No benefit paid when sickness or disability re- sulted from intemperance." International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stable- men and Helpers. "The majority of our local unions pay a sick and death benefit, and it is specifically stated in their rules, that if sick- ness is caused from the use of liquor or is the result of in- toxication, that the individual will not be entitled to sick benefits." 132 Why Prohibition! International Brotherhood of Steam Shovel and Dredge Men. "No confirmed drunkard, incompetent, disreputable or dishonest man shall be eligible to membership. Any mem- ber who has been recommended to a position by this Brother- hood and gets intoxicated or neglects his work, will forfeit the privilege of asking for a recommendation to any position and shall be liable to a fine or suspension from the Brother- hood." International Seamen's Union of America. "Any member who through bad conduct aboard ship brings the union into illrepute or through drink may cause the delay of any vessel, shall upon proper trial and convic- tion, be fined $5.00 for the first offense; for the second offense he shall be liable to be expelled. No member under the influence of liquor shall be admitted to any meeting and the Chairman shall strictly enforce this rule." Following is a significant set of resolutions adopted by the Virginia State Federation of Labor, by a vote of 78 in favour and 19 opposed, which indicates that organised labour is beginning to take action in this matter: "WHEREAS: The subject of National Prohibition has become of national importance through the victories of pro- hibition in the large number of dry states ; and, "WHEREAS: We believe that prohibition has improved the condition of the workers in Virginia since this State went dry; and "WHEREAS: It is advisable that the Virginia Federation of Labor take a stand on the question ; Organised Labour and the Saloon 133 "THEREFORE : Be it resolved by the Virginia Federation of Labor in convention assembled that this convention go on record in favour of national prohibition of the liquor traf- fic; and, "Resolved, further; That we particularly urge Congress, in the interest of conservation of the grain supply, to pass a measure providing for national prohibition during the war; and, "Resolved, also, That copies of these resolutions be sent to the Congressmen and Senators from Virginia and copies furnished the press." In England labour leaders have formed the La- bour Officials' Temperance Fellowship, whose ob- ject is "the personal practice and promotion of total abstinence, and the removal of trades' society meet- ings from licensed premises." The president of the Fellowship is Arthur Hender- son, M.P., who has also served for many years as chairman of the Labour party in parliament. Among those who have served as members of the executive committee are the Rt. Hon. Thomas Burt, M.P., a member of the privy council; the Rt. Hon. John Burns, M.P., a member of the cabinet; Will Steadman, M.P., secretary of the British Trades Union Congress; J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P., sec- retary of the Labour party; D. J. Shackleton, M.P., chairman of the Trades Union Congress, and Harry Gosling, who served as a member of the London county council. Prominent among the vice-presi- dents were: J. Keir Hardie, M.P., Will Crooks, 134 Why Prohibition I M.P., L.C.C., Phillip Snowden, M.P.; indeed, prac- tically every trade unionist who is elected to parlia- ment is a vice-president of the Fellowship, and this means that nearly every trade unionist elected to par- liament is a total abstainer. The Fellowship had its beginnings in Leeds in 1904, during a session of the British Trades Union Congress. A "tea-party" was held by invitation of the National Temperance League, at which 260 del- egates were present. Arthur Henderson, M.P., on behalf of his colleagues, who had been considering the matter, made the suggestion that a total ab- stinence society be established in connection with labour. During the following year many officials in the trades union movement manifested their in- terest in the proposed society, with the result that at the Hanley meeting of the Trades Congress in. 1905, at a gathering of 300 delegates, the "Temper- ance Fellowship" was launched. Every year since its organisation the Fellowship has given a tea at the time of the annual meeting of the British Trades Congress, and in every case fully half of the dele- gates attending have been present and manifested their active interest in the aim and object of the Fellowship. At the last meeting of the congress there were present 270 delegates, representative of a body of close upon 1,000,000 workingmen. The influence of this organisation upon the rank and file of the workers has been quite remarkable. Temperance Organised Labour and the Saloon 135 sentiment has been rapidly growing among the younger men in the labour movement, and as the secretary of the General Federation of Trades Unions told me, "it is no longer considered honour- able or decent for a labour man to put away three bottles of porter." The Fellowship issues considerable literature and sends out its manifestoes through the various local labour unions and the labour press. When the "Na- tional Freedom Defence League," representing the liquor interests, issued a statement purporting to be in the interest of the workers, the entire commit- tee and all the vice-presidents got out a counter peti- tion, which was given the widest publicity through the daily press. Labour's statement was also given additional publicity through imprints issued by many local and national trade unions. These publica- tions effectually silenced the pretended friends of the workingman. One of the most effective methods of work lies in securing meeting places for local trades unions which are free from the influence of the saloon. A successful effort has been made to secure the use of public buildings controlled by local governing bodies, and in many cases churches have been opened for the use of the trade unions. Samuel Gompers, president of the American Fed- eration of Labor, is not a Prohibitionist, but for many years he has recognised the evil influence of the saloon upon the labour movement. 136 Why Prohibition! In several of his annual reports he has called attention to this subject. Following are some para- graphs from three different reports: Minneapolis Convention: "It is not only the aim, but the trend of our movement to make men more moderate and temperate regarding the use of intoxicants. Through the influence of our movement the so-called labour bureaus, that is, the places where unemployed workmen could seek employment, have been removed from the drinking saloon, as has also the place of payment of wages been removed from that influence. Gradually, but constantly, the unions have sought meeting places in buildings in which intoxicants are not on sale." San Francisco Convention: "In my last report attention was called to the dearth of ample and satisfactory meeting rooms for the constantly growing organisations of the work- ing people of our country. It was pointed out that the tendency of our union men is to have their meeting places disconnected from the saloons. The subject is again com- mended to your favourable consideration so that it may be impressed upon our fellow workers everywhere, and by them made a public demand, that our public schoolrooms, when not in use for their primary purposes, may be utilised for this good cause. Meetings of workmen in our public schoolrooms can have but one effect; that is, the improve- ment in the morale of all, and without detriment to any." Pittsburg Convention: "There is a constantly growing desire among our membership to hold their meetings in halls on the premises of which there is no sale of intoxicants. In the interests of sobriety and morality, I again urge that this convention strongly recommend to our affiliated organisa- Organised Labour and the Saloon 137 tions throughout the country that they inaugurate a move- ment which shall permit the use of our public schoolrooms for the evening meetings of our labour organisations." Great Britain reduced the amount of liquor that might be produced during the war but recently in- creased the quantity, because, it was alleged, the workingmen wanted more booze. The result was that the leaders of labour pro- tested against this excuse for pleasing brewers rather than workingmen. In Clydebank, close to Glasgow a thoroughly in- dustrial city, with ship building as its chief industry < the people decided to have an unofficial referen- dum on the liquor question. All inhabitants above 16 years of age were asked to vote. And how did the "election" go? There were 10,068 ballots cast and 8,207 were marked for prohibition! Every workingman in Great Britain and millions of them in the United States knows Will Crooks, M.P., who made the biggest kind of a fight against poverty and won out. To-day he's a labour rep- resentative in the House of Commons. Here's what he said about the workingmen protesting against cutting down the quantity of booze : "They say the workingmen will revolt! WHO SAYS? Not the workingmen" And here are more protests from prominent la- bour leaders: 138 Why Prohibition! W. Straker, secretary of the Northumberland Miners' Association : "We have got to choose whether we will have bread or beer we cannot have both. We have been told the Government is afraid the workingmen would resist pro- hibition. I repudiate the slander." Thomas Richards, M.P., secretary of the South Wales Miners' Federation: "Absolute prohibition of the manu- facture or sale of intoxicating liquors in any form is essen- tial. I am satisfied that neither the fear of the conse- quences to those in the trade, nor the loss of their beer, will now have any appreciable effect upon the workingmen of this country." Robert Stewart, J.P., president of the Scottish Wholesale Cooperative Society, one of the largest workingmen 's organ- isations in Scotland: "At the Scotch Cooperative Congress, with workingmen delegates from all parts of Scotland, in- cluding the Clyde and mining districts, out of 845 votes cast, over 800 were for prohibition." British workingmen have learned that drink and the saloon are great hindrances to the progress of the people, and, together with [the workers of the rest of the world, they will some day destroy the entire liquor traffic. The indictment against strong drink among la- bouring men in England must serve as a challenge to every man who is interested in the progress of the human race. Here is the testimony of Phillip Snowden, one of England's most famous labour men, regarding the saloon and its influence : Organised Labour and the Saloon 139 "The evil effects of drinking cannot be hidden. They obtrude themselves upon our attention at every turn. The public-house (saloon) is everywhere. The reeling and bru- talised victims of drink meet us in the streets; the slum areas of our towns reek with its filthy odours. Drink pulls men down to the gutter from positions of honour and use- fulness. The columns of our newspapers are filled with the stories of debaucheries, assaults, outrages and murders done in drink. The time of our police courts is mainly oc- cupied in hearing cases in which drink and the public-house figure; our prisons have always thousands of inmates, sent there through drink; our lunatic asylums are fed to a con- siderable extent by drink; judges are unanimous in assigning to drink the responsibility for much of the crime they have to condemn; doctors ascribe to drink much of the physical degeneration of the age; and regard it as one of the most potent causes of disease, physical and mental; the educa- tionalist and social reformer find drink to be one of the chief hindrances in their path, for it enfeebles the physical strength of the workers, it takes away their independence, it destroys their self-respect, it lowers their ideal of life, it makes them content in poverty and filth ; it destroys their intelligence, it makes them the easy victims of every unscrupulous ex- ploiter who seeks to fatten upon them. A person does not have to be a fanatical teetotaler to subscribe to the strongest indictment which can be framed against the drink traffic as one of the greatest curses which afflict our country and man- kind to-day." How can labour make progress when it is com- pelled to carry upon its back this giant of Strong Drink? No wonder that labour men who have the 140 Why Prohibition! responsibilities of leadership trade unionists and socialists are more and more coming out against the liquor traffic. On the other hand, so strong is the feeling against "boozers" in the labour movement that the day will soon come when any man who aspires to leadership among workingmen will be required to become a total abstainer. For the rank and file of the workers have realised that those to whom they have entrusted not only their own welfare but the destinies of their wives and children must be clear-headed and alert to every sit- uation which may arise that has to do with their industrial progress. The way to determine whether or not organised labour can afford to stand for the saloon is to find out what organised labour itself stands for and then' see how the saloon measures up to its standards. Organised labour believes in better jobs for work- ingmen. The saloon and its influence take away a man's job. Organised labour stands for greater efficiency. The saloon makes a working man less skilful and drives him into lower grades of employment. Organised labour agitates for higher wages. The saloon and its influences tend to lower wages. There never yet was a saloon that helped a workingman in- crease his pay because that workingman patronised the saloon. Organised labour is fighting to keep children out Organised Labour and the Saloon 141 of the factory and in the schools. The saloon, be- cause of its influence upon drunken fathers who are the natural supporters of the children, sends chil- dren into the factory at an early age. It deprives them of the best things in life; they are forever robbed of the rightful heritage of childhood. Organised labour stands for the dignity and ele- vation of womankind. It demands equal pay to men and women for equal work. The saloon has a tend- ency to degrade womanhood and frequently sends women down to the gutter. Organised labour is fighting for the preservation of the home. The saloon disintegrates the home, scatters its members and leaves it but a memory. There is no agency that is doing more to destroy the home than the saloon. It is the chief contribut- ing cause of poverty. It does more to bring about unemployment than any other single factor. The interests of the saloon are always opposed to the interests of the workingman. Therefore, or- ganised labour must not stand for the saloon in any particular. It is very true, as Samuel Gompers has said, that the labour movement, in its fight for shorter hours and better working conditions in general, has de- creased the tendency of workingmen to drink booze. They have become more temperate in their habits, because their lives have become more normal. But even Mr. Gompers must know that the sa- 142 Why Prohibition! loon as an institution never helped a man to secure shorter hours or better working conditions. If more temperate living on the part of working- men is a desirable thing, and if shorter hours help to make a man more temperate, then why stand for the saloon, which helps neither to secure shorter hours nor to make workingmen more temperate in their habits? And why oppose the anti-saloon movement which does both? It is not necessary for one group of men who are bringing about these desirable results to oppose another group of men who are accom- plishing the same results, simply because their meth- ods of approach are different. It is incontrovertibly true that the saloon never assisted the workingmen to secure legislation or to promote sentiment which made life easier and more comfortable for the toilers. On the other hand, all of its tendencies and influences have been in the op- posite direction. The Mixer and Server is the official journal of the Bartenders' Union. In a recent number appeared an article on the "Economic Phase of the Liquor Traffic." Here are some quotations from this article : "I freely admit that the sum total of human misery re- sulting from drunkenness is almost beyond the comprehen- sion of the finite mind. The manufacture of liquor is prob- ably centralised in fewer hands than almost any other busi- ness involving so much capital, and the profits are large. The Organised Labour and the Saloon 143 rum-seller does not choose that business because he wishes to make drunkards and criminals, nor does he prefer it to others. He knows that it is regarded by many as hardly respectable. No one feels this more keenly than he and his family. With him running a saloon is purely a business proposition. He observes that every line of business and well-paid labour is already overcrowded; yet he must do something. He concludes that selling whisky is less risky and more lucrative than most other kinds of business. H$ also reasons, perhaps, that if he does not engage in it soma one else will. Thus untoward circumstances practically force him into a discreditable and harmful occupation." These are rather remarkable confessions to be printed in a journal which is supposed to boost the booze business. Of course, the editor does not pre- tend to be responsible for these sentiments, because they appear in a contributed article, but he deserves some credit for printing them, nevertheless. Suppose that the same things could be said about any other business enterprise? Take the first para- graph, for example: "I freely admit that the sum total of human mis- ery resulting from drunkenness is almost beyond the comprehension of the finite mind." If it could be demonstrated that any other busi- ness enterprise was responsible for "human misery beyond the comprehension of the finite mind," there rs no doubt that a strong effort would be made to abolish such business no matter how much profit 144 Why Prohibition! there may be in it to the comparatively few persons who are engaged in conducting it. Also, can one imagine the labour movement which is organised to wipe out human misery, to enlarge the life of the people, to bring greater freedom and happiness to the masses, and to emancipate the en- tire human race from every form of oppression and misery, endorsing and fighting for such an industry? But this is what the trade unionists in this coun- try are being called upon to do. The knock-down argument against the contention of the liquor men that prohibition is merely a tool in the hands of the bosses to thwart the objects of the labour movement, is the statement that the boss needs to fear sober workmen more than booze- soaked workmen. And the bosses know it. There's simply no getting away from this argu- ment. Short-sighted and silly must be that labour leader who believes or says that booze-befuddled brains can make a better fight than sober brains. If a labour leader who indulges in strong drink ever wins a fight, it's in spite of the fact that he drank, rather than because of it. And the rank and file of the workers know it. Look back and read the history of labour men who were given to boozing. As soon as the men in the shop discovered that their leaders were guilty of it, almost invariably their heads went off as soon as these workingmen were given the chance to express their wishes. Organised Labour and the Saloon 145 The fool statements being printed by some maga- zines that the anti-saloon movement is "designed to thwart the real labour movement," is a manifesta- tion of asininity which is not reflecting credit on either the good sense or the wise judgment of their editors. Emile Vandervelde was formerly the Belgian Minister of State. For many years he has been fighting alcohol. At the Anti-alcohol Congress at Stockholm, Prof. Vandervelde delivered an address which has had wide circulation in Europe. Here is the concluding paragraph: "Alcohol lames, it produces insensibilities, it stupefies. It saps the energy of the working class. It deprives the workers of the feeling and understanding for the injustices of which they are victims. It puts to sleep those whom, in their own interest and the interest of their class, we wish to awaken. With men who are saturated in alcohol a riot can be started but not a far-reaching revolution which aims not merely to destroy but to construct. "I have unlimited faith in the future of the workers. I am unshakeably convinced that the dominion of the world will fall to them head-workers and hand-workers. But this is just the reason why I lay such extraordinary stress on the war against alcohol ; they who seek to rule the world must first of all learn to control themselves." The amazing nerve of the liquor interests is typified in a statement made by the President of the National Wholesale Liquor Dealers' Association at 146 Why Prohibition! the Annual Convention of this organisation. Here's what he is reported to have said: "The persons engaged in the liquor business contend that they are simply supplying a want and a need. The demand is here, otherwise there would be no supply; the people have an inalienable and inborn and God-given right to their product; it relieves more misery than it causes; it produces more joy than sorrow; it adds to efficiency instead of tak- ing away from it; it is a tonic for the body, a stimulant for the body, producing stronger and healthier minds, which is a great preventive of crime of all kinds, and causes a lesser demand for institutions such as jails and hospitals for the insane, feeble-minded, etc., than would be required under prohibition or total abstinence." Alongside of this statement should be placed that recently issued by a special committee of the So- cialist party in a report submitted in Chicago : "Alcohol weakens the intellectual powers. The very in- hibitory soothing or deadening influence which alcohol exer- cises upon both mind and body, by which it enables the user to forget hunger, worry, sorrow and pain, constitutes its danger, when viewed from the standpoint of those who wish the workers to be keen, capable of sustained effort and resist- ance to capitalistic oppression." Commenting upon this report, the committee de- clared that the time has come when the Socialist party must "assume the offensive in the liquor question." Were it to do so, it would be following the prece- dent established by their fellow-Socialists in several Organised Labour and the Saloon 147 leading European countries, who have taken a strong position against the saloon and against the liquor traffic in general. As between the National Wholesale Liquor Deal- ers' Association, whose only interest is that of sell- ing strong drink, and the special committee of the Socialist party, whose only business it is to secure better conditions for workingmen, there can be no doubt that the latter is a safer guide in this instance than is the former. In a strike of the construction workers on a rail- road in the Canadian Northwest it was becoming evident that the saloon was hindering the progress of the strike. The warm stove in the back room of the saloon was proving to be more comfortable than the picket line. Anyway, the leaders of the strike had reason to believe that the hired thugs of the strike-breaking concern that was handling the job were responsible for brawls "in which it was easy to blackjack or shoot men who otherwise were active workers in the strike." It was suspected that the saloonkeepers were fur- nishing valuable information to the contractors, and so a boycott was ordered against the saloons, and all the strikers instructed to stay away from them. Some of the strikers disobeyed these orders. Then the strike committee got busy. It began to picket the saloons, as well as the contractors' camps. When a striker was seen approaching a saloon he was warned to stay away. Those who were seen 148 Why Prohibition! sneaking out of the back door were reported to the committee and disciplined. There was a good deal of objection on the part of some of the men against this summary action, but the strikers, as a whole, backed up the committee. The tone and the temper of the men were quickly improved because of the absence of liquor and sa- loon fights. The strike was soon settled, because the men could think through their own problems more clearly, and they secured quicker and more intelli- gent action. Incidentally the bosses had a greater respect for the strikers. It isn't so long ago that the writer, as a machin- ist, with others in a big New York shop, went out on a strike. The men proceeded to a big hall back of a saloon to talk over their "grievances." Day after day they met in this hall, and during the intervals of the meet- ings many of them made the saloon their "head- quarters." When the time for the regular meeting arrived, and when matters of great importance were to be talked over and decided, scores of the men were not only unfit to think clearly but they were in no con- dition to act fairly, either to themselves or toward the boss, because they had indulged too freely in booze. How much damage was done to all the men and their families on this account nobody can tell. Organised Labour and the Saloon 149 If saloons and consequent drunkenness are bad for the workers when they are out on strike, they are bad for them at all other times, particularly when workingmen meet to discuss the most serious prob- lems which confront any group. Muddled brains are a great handicap to any man. They are especially bad for men who are deciding the future of large numbers of workers and the des- tinies of their wives and children. And booze al- ways muddles men's brains. Daniel J. Keefe, for many years President of the Longshoremen's Union, said in one of his annual reports, regarding the influence of liquor: "The greatest foe the toiler has to combat is liquor. Low wages and long hours furnish the greatest number of vic- tims of intemperance. It is this enemy of progress that has kept many a man at the foot of the ladder who would otherwise have made a mark in the world. "No man who works for wages can afford to drink if he hopes to better his condition, or will allow the demon of drink to steal away his health and strength, leaving him a prey to disease, want and poverty. "It is the duty of strong men to counsel and advise their weaker brothers, and set an example of sobriety for them, discouraging that character of sociability which leads to the ruin of so many of our young men. Any movement of temperance reform should receive our hearty cooperation." A rather significant resolution was introduced at the convention of the American Federation of La- 150 Why Prohibition! bor in San Francisco by Delegate Homer D. Call, of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen, with reference to "certain organised crafts" referring to the bartenders and allied "crafts." Here's the resolution : "WHEREAS, There are now certain organised crafts that are opposing the efforts of the Butcher Workmen in some localities in their efforts to secure the closing of Meat Mar- kets on Sunday; and, "WHEREAS, The American Federation of Labor has at several conventions gone on record as favouring one day's rest in seven; therefore, be it "Resolved, That this Thirty-fifth Annual Convention of the American Federation of Labor endorses the action of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America in their efforts to secure the Sunday closing of meat markets in all localities and pledge them their moral support in their efforts." Talk about "class interest"! What the liquor delegates to labour conventions mean when they talk about class interest is their class! Everybody else may get along as best they may. The same group of labour leaders who have opposed the working- men in meat markets in their efforts to secure "one day's rest in seven" have also opposed the barbers in the same way, and for the same reason. And why do the bartenders fight for a seven-day week ? Don't they like to have Sunday off ? Surely they do, but in order to perfect their own organisa- Organised Labour and the Saloon 151 tion, they have been compelled to sell themselves to the saloonkeepers, promising to support any meas- ure that may be considered in the interest of the liquor business, no matter how much it may be op- posed to the interest of their fellow trade unionists ! If meat markets are closed on Sunday, what chance will a saloon have to open its doors on Sunday? They are quite ready to stab decent labour men in the back while they are trying to secure legisla- tion which every humane and moral organisation in the land is fighting for, but when it comes to elec- tion time, and their bosses' business is in danger then up goes the cry of "Brother, help us!" to these workingmen whom they have betrayed sounds like the cowardly cry of "Kamerad" that comes from the German trenches. Some day the double-faced trickery of the liquor men in the labour business will be shown up so clearly that all true trade unionists will throw them out of the labour movement. "The Hotel and Restaurant Employes 7 Interna- tional Alliance and Bartenders' International League of America," is the 1 3-word name of this unscrupu- lous labour union which comprises waiters, wait- resses, cooks, porters, pantrymen, silvermen, vege- tablemen, cooks' helpers, dishwashers and bartend- ers. For quite a number of years the culinary workers have been trying to cut loose from the bartenders. But the international officers have so dominated the 152 Why Prohibition! conventions of their organization that thus far this has been impossible. At the San Francisco convention of this organisa- tion, it was decided by an overwhelming vote to de- cline to permit even the introduction of a resolution which would pave the way for a division of the or- ganisation into two international unions one com- posed of bartenders, and the other consisting of bona fide culinary workers. And yet the international of- ficers who control the destinies of the cooks, waiters and bartenders are everlastingly shouting about "personal liberty" this in the face of their refusal to permit the membership of their organisation in the spirit of democracy for which organised labour stands to determine their own destiny ! "Secession" is the worst heresy in the labour move- ment. This makes it well-nigh impossible for the culi- nary workers to cut loose from the bartenders unless the bartenders permit them to do so. It is likely, therefore, that the only way in which they will ever get relief is through the abolition of the liquor traffic when there will be no further need of bartenders. The cooks and waiters in a certain city were on strike for higher wages and improved working con- ditions. They naturally expected their ally, the Bar- tenders' Union, to act with them, but no co-operation could be had from the bartenders. The cooks and waiters officially passed resolutions pleading with the bartenders to come out and help them because they are an official part of their union, Organised Labour and the Saloon 153 but the bartenders aren't very anxious to help their "brothers," because as just stated, the bartenders have given their employers a definite promise that they will stand by them in all their troubles, on con- dition that they (the bartenders) be permitted to organise ! It's anything to save the Bartenders' Union no matter what becomes of the "brothers" in other unions, who are continually being called upon by the Bartenders' Union to stand by them in their fight against the "anti-saloon crowd." Here is a striking letter from Frank H. Kennedy, the editor of the Western Laborer, of Omaha : "This you may depend on the Western Laborer will never let up until the booze industry of this country stops using organised labour as a badge of respectability and pla- cards it as such in all the windows of all the booze joints in the country. "Organised Labour is as good as the Elks, Masons, Wood- men, Knights of Columbus, or the other decent, respectable organisations of this country, and the booze industry would not dare use any of these as a front for their game." In a two-page advertisement which appeared in Washington newspapers while the Senate was dis- cussing the question of war-prohibition it was de- clared that 2,082,637 union workingmen petitioned the President and Congress against "cutting off their booze." This advertisement was a fake here are the facts : 154 Why Prohibition! First, according to the official report of the secre- tary of the American Federation of Labor at the time this petition was being prepared there were 10,000 fewer members in the Federation than there were alleged signers of the petition. Second, only twenty-two states are mentioned in this petition, and yet the number of alleged signers from but twenty-two states is greater than the total membership of the American Federation of Labor in forty-eight states. Third, as a matter of fact this petition was not signed by individual workingmen. In most cases a small minority of the members of the organisations mentioned presumed to speak for the entire member- ship. Fourth, only 445 local labour bodies out of 22,000 local labour unions are listed as having signed the petition. Fifth, in many cases individual trade unionists were counted again and again: first, in their inter- national organisations; second, in their state labour bodies; third, in their central labour unions; fourth, in their local unions; fifth, in such organisations as personal liberty leagues, mutual benefit societies, etc. For example over 150,000 of those enumerated as being identified with union label trade departments, labor temple associations, sick benefit funds, mutual benefit societies and personal liberty leagues, are counted a second time in bona fide labour unions. Organised Labour and the Saloon 155 The alleged petition is a slander and an insult to vast numbers of the finest type of American work- ingmen. Besides it is a deliberate attempt to deceive not only workingmen but the public in general. The men who printed and paid for this advertisement know that they lied. Every trade unionist who stops to think about it knows that they lied. Any man who can read the English language knows that they lied if he will take the trouble to analyse their figures. If the leaders of the wet campaign lied about workingmen they will lie to workingmen, and they will lie to and about anybody else, even the Presi- dent of the United States it's anything to get away with the goods. Labour is being made the tail for the liquor men's kite. And it's getting labour nowhere. Like the tail to a regular kite, labour serves to make the liquor business a "steady" business: but it's the kite that gets ahead^ the tail comes in as a trailer, and it comes in last. Labour is using its influence to keep the liquor business "square to the wind" because Labour seems to have a notion that its interests are tied up with the interests of the liquor business. The only way that Labour is tied up to the liquor business is in such a way as to make it profitable for the liquor business. Without the support of Labour the liquor busi- 156 Why Prohibition! ness could not exist. This does not mean that labour- ing men are the chief supporters of the individual saloon by buying booze Labour is supporting the saloon by voting for its retention. Being a tail to the liquor business is a job alto- gether unworthy of Labour. It's also a losing game for Labour. It's a losing game because no matter how much balance Labour may give the liquor business, the lat- ter will soon begin to "dive." Your small boy can tell you what happens to a "diving kite." And when the kite goes to smash,! somehow the tail gets tangled up in the debris. It's going to take a lot of nerve for labour men to do to the liquor business what their good sense al- ready tells them is the only reasonable thing to do throw off the yoke of the men who are engaged in it, and then destroy it absolutely. And when this happens there will be such a revival in the labour movement as it has never seen before. As it is, not only is the saloon a drag on working- men, both unionists and non-unionists, but those who have anything to do with the saloon brewers, bar- tenders, distillers and all others who are tied up with the business are a distinct detriment to the cause of the workingman. When any great moral issue arises in the com- munity the saloon and those who are identified with it are sure to be on the wrong side. This means that they will do everything in their power to drag Organised Labour and the Saloon 157 with them those whom they may influence for what- ever reason. The trade unionists who are engaged in any form of the liquor business constantly remind their fellow trade unionists, engaged in other occupations, of the pledge which they assumed to stand by a "brother'* who is in trouble of any kind. They forget that the labour movement is a movement in the interest of the entire working class. Furthermore, if any particular group of men who happen to be trade unionists merely for what they get out of the union and not for what they put into it clearly prove themselves to be a curse to labour, then by every principle of the labour movement these men should be expelled from the ranks of organised labour. As already stated, it will take a lot of nerve to do this job, but some day the best men in the labour movement will rise up with the determination to see this thing through at whatever cost. There never yet was a reform movement calcu- lated to benefit working people but what somebody insisted that its introduction would spell "ruin" for some industry or group of people. Centuries ago the labour guilds, including masters and men pitted their strength against the advancing Christian army. Back to the time when no man can remember, and before history began the people had been worshipping the "unknown god" through amulet and idol. The manufacture of these had be- come an industry which gave employment to great 158 Why Prohibition! hosts of workers. Formed into various guilds or trade unions they sought to preserve their crafts against the growing tendencies of Christian converts to discontinue the use of fetish or dumb gods. A remarkably well authenticated instance of this is found in the Acts of the Apostles. Ephesus was the seat of the great temple of Diana. To it were at- tracted the worshippers who purchased silver shrines, fashioned by the smiths who made their living through the sale of these idols. But one day Paul, the Apostle, appeared in their midst and preached a new doctrine the doctrine of the unknown God whom the people had been seeking in vain. The finding of the true God began to work revo- lutions. The idols were cast out, the temple was deserted by the people of the new found faith. Soon the effect of this became apparent to Demetrius, the silversmith, leader of the guild. He assembled the men engaged in his craft, who raised a great outcry; "Great is Diana of the Ephesians !" A mob quickly came together, and then the truth was revealed. These silversmiths were not so much concerned about Diana as they were about the permanency of their craft. This man Paul, whom they were opposing, was, through his preaching, driving out their busi- ness. What if the people were living in heathen darkness; what if the progress of the race was im- peded the chief and apparently the only considera- tion was the personal welfare of the silversmiths. So strong and so persistent was the opposition, and Organised Labour and the Saloon 159 so subtle the arguments of the craftsmen, that later in many parts of the then known world a compromise was reached between certain leaders of the Church and the leaders of labour guilds to the effect that the heathen paraphernalia be retained, although the true God might be worshipped, and this we find even in our day but the continued sin of idol worship may be laid at the doors of the labour guilds of the Apos- tolic days. The story is graphically told in C. Os- borne Ward's "The Ancient Lowly," which tells of the rise of the working class. When those who fought against child labor in' glass factories a few years ago objected to little boys entering these factories at so tender an age, it was answered that it was necessary for them to do so, "so that they might early become accustomed to the heat." But when they abolished child labor in glass factories it was discovered that older boys soon learned to endure the heat at least as well as those who were younger. Many of the employers of these little children said that if they were compelled to dismiss the children in their employ it would "ruin" their business. But they soon found out that instead of being ruined, their business went forward by leaps and bounds. The same has been true in other industries. Always has there been opposition to the things which meant progress to the great mass of people. Either the employing group were opposed to these reforms, or the so-called "intellectual" group dis- 160 Why Prohibition! approved of them, or a considerable portion of the masses, themselves, were betrayed or misinformed. But finally the common people won out in every case. As a result of these experiences we have become sus- picious of men who cry, "Ruin! Ruin!" when other reforms are suggested. Perhaps it is natural that they should desire above all things to continue in a business with which they have become familiar, no matter what its consequences to the masses of the people. They dislike to do the more difficult and perhaps less profitable thing even though the change would undoubtedly benefit the vast majority of the people. This applies specifically to the liquor business. Its owners have long since ceased to defend it upon a moral basis. They know very well that it cannot be harmonised with the modern tendency toward efficiency. They have been overwhelmingly defeated by Jife insurance men upon the basis of health and life. They are now taking the last stand of the greedy capitalists, declaring that they and their em- ployes would be ruined if beer and whiskey were abolished. Even if this were true, there are other considerations which must enter into the final verdict. But it isn't true, and the liquor men, themselves, know it isn't true. They would be forced to adjust themselves to the new situation, but others have done the same thing both employers and workmen and won out. To-day the trade union is facing a great crisis. Organised Labour and the Saloon 161 The forces opposing the liquor interests are gather- ing strength, and ere long the saloon shall go if the people finish the task which they have so well begun. But again the craftsmen who live by the profits of an evil which is even more generally recognised than was the sin of idol worship in the days of Paul are making protest. It seems natural that men should oppose a movement which threatens to destroy their positions as craftsmen. They have their families to support, and their own welfare to consider, they insist. But is there no other consideration? Must the saloon, with its attendant evils, for which no man can successfully argue, always remain with us, simply because its removal will cause a re- adjustment in industry, and because many of those now engaged in the brewing and allied interests must make a living in other ways which will work no harm to their fellows? That they will all find work, there can be no doubt, but shall the trade union be made the scapegoat for an evil which it is sought to con- tinue against the best judgment of increasing num- bers of workingmen? Shall future generations hold it against organised labour that in the twentieth cen- tury it allied itself with those who stood for the sin and debauchery of the saloon? Shall the saloon dominate the labour movement, when every other decent organisation and institution is breaking loose from the power of the saloon? These are questions which organised labour must answer. VIII The Saloon and Social Reform IT is easily possible to make out a case for the "wets" by using only certain groups of statistics- leaving out altogether some fundamental facts for which statistics do not usually account. The purpose of this chapter is chiefly to present some illustrations of what liquor men fail to discuss when they argue through the use of figures for the merits of the saloon and the use of liquor. Statistics on the divorce question in dry and wet states seem to indicate that many of the dry states have an excess of divorce cases over some wet states. But before one accepts the verdict which these figures appear to give, it is necessary to consider some im- portant facts which have a direct bearing upon the entire divorce problem. The states in this country which are wettest are predominantly Roman Catholic. It is well known that the Roman Catholic Church has always stood as a bulwark against granting divorces. This ac- counts in a large measure for the apparently low percentage of divorces granted in some wet states. The wettest states in this country are industrial 162 The Saloon and Social Reform 163 in character and strongly foreign in their popula- tions. Every social worker who has had experience among the poor in our cities knows that there are large numbers of desertions which are never re- corded in the divorce courts. Husbands and wives leave each other without going through the for- mality of a divorce suit. If all these cases could be recorded, there isn't the least doubt that they would greatly outnumber the cases in which "regular" or legal divorces were obtained in dry states. The difference in divorce laws in the various states must be taken into consideration. For a long time the older states in the East, which happen to be the wettest, have had more stringent divorce laws than some mid-western or far-western states. Without uniform divorce laws it is extremely difficult to make fair comparisons on this point. Furthermore, as divorces are most frequently granted to people living in the states which are pre- dominantly American, or to those who are Ameri- cans by birth, one would be compelled to admit, on the basis of the liquor men's argument, that Ameri- cans are more immoral than are the people of other nationalities, assuming that immorality is the chief cause for divorce. It is true that in the United States we grant more divorces than are granted in any other civilised country in the world, with the possible exception of Japan. We grant one divorce for every 12 marriages, as against one divorce for every 22 marriages in Swit- 164 Why Prohibition! zerland, one for every 30 marriages in France, one for every 44 marriages in Germany and one for every 400 marriages in England. Does this mean that Americans are more immoral than are the peo- ple in these foreign countries? Not at all. It means, in the first place, that our divorce laws are more lax, but it is also due to the fact that Americans are more high-strung or temperamental in their na- tures. It is a curious and at the same time a de- plorable situation that, as people become more sensitive to the finer things in life, the dangers of incompatibility increase. This has been the condition in some strongly American communities, whether they were wet or dry. It should be remembered in this connection, that divorces are rarely granted in wet states for drunk- enness, even though this may be the real cause for seeking a divorce, but because of the inability to secure a divorce on this ground, some other reason which will stand in the courts is given by the com- plainant. For this reason the actual number of di- vorces granted on account of drunkenness is never made public, because it is rarely made a matter of record. Exponents of the liquor business are making much of the statistics indicating the number of homicides committed in "dry" states. They are insisting that more murders are committed in dry cities than in wet, the inference being that the more sober a man were to be compared with the nine wettest states (including the District of Columbia) on the same date, the following would indicate the number of paupers in almshouses per 100,000 of the popu- lation in 1910: Dry states 46.5 Wet states 127.7 The number of paupers in almshouses isn't always a sign that people in a given state are poor because they drink intoxicants, because the number of pau- pers may depend upon whether the state is old or new, upon the predominating nationality or colour of its inhabitants, upon the general condition of the soil, upon the efficiency or financial ability of the state officials in caring for the poor within its bounds, of whether there are other methods of caring for paupers besides using almshouses. There are many other determining factors. But it has been clearly demonstrated, in general, that as people become The Saloon and Social Reform 173 more temperate in their habits, they are less likely to end their lives in the poorhouse and the juggled figures of the liquor men can't make us believe any- thing else. In defence of the booze business an employed in- vestigator declares that it is not responsible for the large number of criminals which Prohibitionists say it produces. And he seeks to justify his position by saying that after having spent a month in the Carnegie Library in Pittsburgh studying the criminal records of the world, he found that 56 per cent, of all criminals were abandoned in childhood. How does it happen that so large a percentage of the criminal class was abandoned in childhood? What kind of parents did they have ? I have lived and laboured among the poorest peo- ple in our big cities for thirty years, but I never knew of a case of child abandonment on account of pov- erty. No doubt there have been such cases, but they are rare exceptions. Usually a mother will work herself to death rather than abandon her child. A mother or father who abandons a child is below normal, and it isn't too much to say that such subnor- mality is frequently due to drunkenness. Nobody knows, but it would be interesting to find out how many of the parents of the 56 per cent, of criminals who were abandoned in childhood were addicted to drink. That a drunken parent may easily start a chain of 174 Why Prohibition! criminality and immorality is demonstrated by the story of the famous Jukes family in New York State. In 1720 the Jukes family consisted of a lazy, irre- sponsible fisherman and five daughters. In five generations the known descendants num- bered about 1 200 persons, of whom 310 were pro- fessional paupers, living in almshouses; 440 were physically wrecked by their own wickedness; more than one-half of the women were immoral; 130 were convicted criminals; 60 were habitual thieves; 7 were murderers; and 300 died in infancy. Not one of them had even a common school edu- cation. Only 20 of them learned a trade, and 10 of them learned it in the state prison. This family has cost the state of New York over a million dollar's and the cost is still going on. At about the time that Jukes, the fisherman, died, Jonathan Edwards the New England preacher and reformer left a large family. In 1900 as many as 1394 of his descendants were identified. Of these, 13 were college presidents; 3 were United States senators; 65 were college professors; 30 were judges; 100 were lawyers many of them distin- guished; 60 were physicians; 75 were officers in the army and navy; 100 were clergymen, missionaries, etc.; 60 were prominent authors and writers; 295 were college graduates; 80 held public offices. One was a vice-president of the United States; several were governors of states, members of Con- The Saloon and Social Reform 175 gress, mayors of cities, ministers to foreign courts. Fifteen railroads, many banks, insurance compan- ies and large industrial enterprises have been in- debted to their management. Almost every depart- ment of social progress and of public welfare have felt the impulse of this healthy and long-lived family. The relation of the immigrant to the liquor 'prob- lem is a very serious question. The percentage of foreign-born people in the United States is practically no greater to-day than it was in 1860. The constant percentage for 50 years has been just about 14, and it hasn't varied I per cent, from this figure during all this period. And yet we have gotten the impression that somehow this country has been overrun by foreigners. The reason for this lies in the fact that foreigners have become congested in certain states and in most cities the strongholds of the saloon. Two-thirds of the immigrants that land at our ports of entry go to New York, New Jersey, Penn- sylvania and Massachusetts. In 1910 there were 229 cities in the United States having a population of 25,000 and over. These cities contained 3 1 per cent, of the entire population of this country, but they also contained 56 per cent, of all the foreign-born whites in the United States. Thus, while these cities have less than one-third of the peo- ple in the United States, they contain more than one- half the foreign-born people of the entire country. A study of the dryest and wettest states indicates 176 Why Prohibition! that, generally, the wet states have a large per- centage of foreign-born, whereas the dry states us- ually have a small percentage of foreign-born. Here are the figures for the states which were dry prior to January, 1915. The immigration figures are from the census of IQIO: Percentage of Dry States Foreign-born North Carolina .3 Mississippi .5 Georgia .6 Tennessee -9 Oklahoma 2.4 West Virginia 4.7 Kansas 8.0 Maine 14.9 North Dakota 27.1 And here are the percentages for the states which were wettest prior to January, 1915. Percentage of Wet States Foreign-born Rhode Island 33-O New York 30.2 Connecticut 29.6 New Jersey 26.0 Montana , . . . . 25.2 Nevada 24.1 Arizona 23.9 Pennsylvania 18.8 New Mexico 7* 1 The Saloon and Social Reform 177 However, the actual number of foreign-born in these wet states is ten times greater than it is in the dry states, the figures being as follows : Dry States 550,272 Wet States 5,54^,203 Obviously, the anti-saloon forces have an import- ant and difficult task in educating our foreign-born citizens to vote against the saloon. But the task is hopeful. And yet the programme must be one which will frankly and courageously meet the condi- tions in industrial and immigrant centres. An elaborated rural programme will not suffice. The task calls for statesmanship of the order which is required to solve all the other great social and eco- nomic questions found in our big cities and industrial states. It is probably true, as a well-known booze de- fender persists in saying, that "the Prohibition South has more poverty than the liberal North." But the poverty of the South is not due to prohi- bition, and the brazen booze defender knows it ! The South was poor before prohibition was enacted. The South has been bravely struggling since the Civil War to readjust itself to an entirely different eco- nomic situation. It has succeeded to a wonderful degree. The North simply continued on its way after the war, in precisely the same way as before, having 178 Why Prohibition! already had the advantage over the South in com- mercial and industrial methods. The South was compelled to carry along with it the great mass of negroes, who, when freed by the North were extremely poor. There are still large numbers of whites who live in the mountains and elsewhere, who are reckoned as citizens of the South who are poverty-stricken. Prohibition didn't make the South poor. It found the South poor and it's going to help make the South rich. If the men and women of the South were persuaded that Prohibition was a blight that made them poor and who would know about this better than they? does anybody imagine that they would continue to vote themselves poor? That some state federations of labour, some cen- tral labour bodies, and some international labour unions are stultifying themselves with regard to a most important social question is manifested by the sudden change in their attitude toward woman suffrage. For a generation organised labour has taken a leading position with reference to the woman ques- tion. It has demanded equal pay to men and women for equal work. It has given women the same rights as men, and has demanded of them the same obli- gations that it has demanded of men, within the la- bour movement. One of the declarations in the platform of the The Saloon and Social Reform 179 American Federation of Labor stands for "woman suffrage co-equal with man suffrage." Samuel Gompers has declared himself with regard to woman suffrage as follows: "Women's lives are affected by political institutions. They ought to be given the opportunity to participate in the determination of political affairs because their rights are affected by those determinations. The American Federation of Labor, recognising the necessity for complete freedom for women wage-earners, at its convention in 1890 endorsed woman suffrage and has repeatedly reaffirmed that declar- John Mitchell has said: "Organised workmen have been practical and earnest ad- vocates of woman suffrage for nearly a quarter of a century. Workingmen are advocates of equal suffrage, first, because it is right that all those who bear the burdens and enjoy the protection of government shall be entitled to equal partici- pation in the affairs of the government ; second, because they know in a vital way that without the ballot wage-earning women are unable to protect themselves against the wrongs and the unnecessary hardships incident to and connected with our wonderful industrial development. ... I believe it is the duty of the organised wage-earners to take the lead and render every assistance they can in the movement for the enfranchisement of women." Until within a year or two this clear-cut position on the part of organised labour has never been ques- tioned. But in various parts of the country the 180 Why Prohibition! liquor interests have become active in their oppo- sition to woman suffrage because of their conviction that if women were given the vote the saloon would be abolished. They believe that woman suffrage and Prohibition necessarily go hand in hand. This, of course, is not true; but nevertheless, they have brought their influence to bear upon such labour lead- ers and labour organisations as they can control, forcing them to repudiate the actions of the Ameri- can Federation of Labor with reference to woman suffrage. Whenever the question of woman suffrage is pre- sented at a labour convention it is invariably fought by the unions connected with the liquor industries. It is pathetic that, after having fought so strenu- ously for woman suffrage and having helped to bring it to the point where it is rapidly being recognised as just and fair by the citizens of this country, organ- ised labour should be deprived of the credit which belongs to it for having become the advocate of woman suffrage long before the political parties of the country dared stand sponsor for it. It is unfortunate, too, because organised labour will lose the respect and support of the women in industry who have always looked to the trade union movement as an agency for securing their emancipa- tion from social, economic and political injustice. This attitude on the part of those labour unions which fight woman suffrage, whether they be local or national in character, will not be tolerated by the The Saloon and Social Reform 181 rank and file of the men comprising the entire move- ment. "I simply cannot permit these girls to meet in a hall that is owned by a saloonkeeper; I feel that I am personally responsible for their morals, as well as their general physical well-being," said the walk- ing delegate of a bookbinders' union composed of a thousand working girls, as she told me the story of her effort to secure a meeting hall for her organisa- tion. . It appeared that she had made arrangements over the telephone, with a saloonkeeper, for the rental of a hall large enough to accommodate the members of her organisation. And as attendance upon the meetings of this organisation was compulsory, they required a good-sized auditorium. But when this "labour leader" came to the saloon to sign the con- tract and the saloonkeeper discovered that he was dealing with an organisation composed exclusively of women, who in all probability would not patronise his bar, he raised the price of the rent sixfold, thus making it impossible for these women to use this par- ticular meeting place. The saloonkeeper magnani- mously offered the use of a very small room on the top floor of the building, which offer was promptly turned down. And here she was this guardian of the morals and the well-being of a thousand working women of a big city. What was she to do? Her organisation had had no meeting for several weeks. 1 82 Why Prohibition I A rather liberal church that is, liberal in its methods of work offered the use of its main audi- torium for meetings to be held monthly on Monday nights, from 6 until 8 o'clock, the only charge being that for light, heat and janitor service. Why shouIH the women in industry be compelled to suffer so great a handicap by being compelled to meet in buildings which are dominated by a saloon? Can anything good come out of such an affiliation? Why should the daughters and the sisters of work- ingmen be subjected to the humiliation of the insults and the signs of depravity which stare one in the face in passing the open saloon door, when these sisters and daughters are trying to the best of their ability to raise their standards of living, and to bet- ter their economic conditions? The publicity departments of town booming asso- ciations, real estate boards, Chambers of Commerce, Merchants' Associations, and other organisations of business men, never so much as mention even the best kind of saloons when they try to induce others to move in or to invest capital. These organisations talk about the schools. They are a distinct asset to a community. But saloons decrease school attendance. Therefore, the saloon is a detriment to educational institutions. The publicity committees give a prominent place to the churches. But the saloon tries to undermine the work of the church, and, if it were possible, would destroy it altogether. The Saloon and Social Reform 183 These business men are proud of the cities' play- grounds. They enrich the lives of the children. The saloon has a tendency to take children out of the playgrounds and send them into the factory. These wise boosters are proud of the railroads. But the saloon incapacitates the workers on these railroads to such an extent as to compel their mana- gers to prohibit railroad men from patronising the saloon. Indeed there is scarcely a single item in the long list of "attractions" of which the average city is proud, but what the saloon and its influence either destroys or minimises their influence and effective- ness. No no city is proud of its saloons. They are always mentioned with an apology. By every pos- sible comparison saloons show up to a disadvantage. They do not attract manufacturers and families. The only people who are brought into the city by the presence of saloons are almost invariably a detriment to the city. Even liquor men themselves are ashamed of the saloon why, then, should the average citizen vote for the saloon? The Department of Health of the city of New York has for several years been conducting a definite campaign against alcohol. From all over the coun- try strong commendations of this movement have come from medical and sociological societies, and in i84 Why Prohibition! many cases, similar movements have been inaugu- rated by the health departments of other cities. It is rather interesting to compare the opinions of these organisations, which are interested in the con- servation of human life with the judgment of the president of the National Wholesale Liquor Dealers' Association, who said in his annual address that: "Liquor relieves more misery than it causes, pro- duces more joy than sorrow, ; adds to efficiency; is a tonic for the body, a stimulant to the mind, and a preventive of crime. " But here's what others say about it. The Medical Society of Nova Scotia: "Since it has been established that alcohol is not a food, in that none of its elements is incorporated into the tissues, and since the heat it produces by oxidation is over-compensated for through heat lost from the blood vessels of the skin, and since alcohol is not re- quired to aid any physiological process, and since by its excessive use all systems of the body are in- jured and the moral nature so altered as to lead to crime, this meeting desires to impress the community with the benefits to be obtained by abstinence from alcohol as a beverage." The Conference of Medical Health Officers of Nova Scotia passed the following resolution : "WHEREAS, It has been absolutely proven that alcohol has a pernicious and injurious effect on the public health of our country, in that it lowers the resistance of the individual to The Saloon and Social Reform 185 disease, thereby disposing to tuberculosis and other infectious diseases; and, "WHEREAS, It is one of the chief contributing factors to poverty, misery and crime ; "Therefore, we, as Health Officers of the Province of Nova Scotia, place ourselves on record as opposed to its use as a beverage and strongly recommend its use only upon medical prescription." The American Nurses' Association, in its San Francisco convention strongly endorsed the Anti- Alcohol campaign inaugurated by the New York Health Department, and adopted the following reso- lution : "WHEREAS, The American Nurses* Association believes that alcohol lessens vital resistance, fosters poverty and all the diseases that come from poverty hindering the progress of the community; and, "WHEREAS, The American Nurses' Association is firmly convinced that it is the greatest cause of human ills ; "THEREFORE, be it resolved, That the effort of the New York City Health Department to establish a betterment of public health by conducting a systematic, vigorous and defi- nite campaign against this acknowledged evil be given a full and whole-hearted endorsement by the American Nurses' Association assembled in San Francisco." W. Frank Persons, director of the Charity Organ- isation Society of New York, in commenting upon the propaganda engaged in by the Health Depart- ment, said: 1 86 Why Prohibition! "I have been delighted to read of your intention to con- duct an educational campaign against the drink habit. A survey of the field is warranted on the consideration of pub- lic health alone. I feel sure that the public is ready to sup- port earnestly and effectively the work of the Department of Health along this line." Dr. Frank Crane, in an editorial in the New York Globe, wrote as follows: 1 At last the alcoholic question is getting around to the right basis. It is being considered as a matter of public health and not of public morals. It is getting away from the preachers and into the hands of the doctors. . . . "Let the health authorities of all cities follow the lead of those in New York City and declare that the matter is to be taken up solely as a question of public health and they will have the support of the level-headed common people." Here is an item from the Weekly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the city of New York: "It is conceded that alcohol is not a real brain stimulant, but acts by narrowing the field of consciousness. By grad- ually overcoming the higher brain elements the activities of the lower ones are released, hence the subjective stimula- tion and the lack of judgment and common sense often shown by those even slightly under the influence of alcohol." Professor Irving Fisher, the eminent teacher of sociology at Yale University, says: "Whatever degree of power alcohol still possesses is kept alive chiefly by the force or inertia of old traditions, by the The Saloon and Social Reform 187 assumption that so prevalent a practice must have virtues, by the fear of individuals to break away from custom, and by the well-known difficulty of emancipating one's self from any drug habit. If we look at the alcohol-habit squarely, we see that it is merely one of the harmful drug habits, like opium in China, hasheesh in Turkey, cocaine, etc. Alcohol is a poison, and its evil effects are so great that every courageous man should help to eliminate them." Whose judgment shall we follow? The president of the National Wholesale Liquor Dealers' Associa- tion, or that of physicians, nurses, sociologists, busi- ness men, newspaper editors, charity organisation workers and Boards of Health? The Social Workers' Club in Minneapolis voted unanimously in favour of the drys in the recent fight on the saloon in that city. The members of this club represented the leading social agencies in Min- neapolis, most of them being the officials of their organisations and acknowledged to be among the most efficient experts on social problems in this country. This action of the social workers in Minneapolis is characteristic of the men and women everywhere who are responsible for the physical, industrial and moral welfare of the depressed in our big cities. No- body knows quite so well as they do how much of the sufferings of the poor may be charged up against the saloon. It is their sole business to study in a scientific and yet in a sympathetic manner the causes of social 188 Why Prohibition! evils. They have no other ends to serve than the well-being of those who for any reason whatsoever are being deprived of the best things in human life. Unquestionably, these social workers recognise the need for recreation and relaxation among work- ingmen and working women. If they felt that the saloon supplies this need better than any other agency there is no doubt that they would unhesitatingly say so. But they don't! Quite the contrary. They are saying most emphatically that much of the suffering of those in whom they are interested is due to the influence of the saloon. Therefore, they are opposed to the saloon. It is a favourite argument of the liquor men that the use of liquor has a great social value that it brings out the repressed or suppressed characteristics of many noble souls. And so they insist that Prohibition must not pre- vail because it restricts the men whose "personalities are expanding." I've seen such fellows haven't you? They were some personalities! Sometimes it required only a couple of glasses of booze to produce the state of "expansion," and then, again, it required a quart. They expanded so greatly that they required the entire sidewalk to navigate. Often nobody else could or would remain in the same room with them. When some men have gotten into this state of "expansion," they wanted the "personal liberty" The Saloon and Social Reform 189 of wiping up the earth with anybody who happened along conveniently. Often they imagined themselves to be millionaires, or kings, or even presidents. It would be a great injustice to restrict such "noble souls." The development of "individual character- istics" which impels these unfettered ones to "live their own lives" must not be interfered with, no not by a jug-full. But there are really some other considerations. IX Liquor and the Length of Life IN Europe, during 350 years the length of life increased from an average of twenty years to about forty years. With scarcely an exception men and women in every country are living longer than for- merly. Only here and there is a country which seems to be almost stationary in this respect. In India, for example, the length of life is almost the same as it was three hundred and fifty years ago, the average duration of life to-day being about twenty-five years. But wherever the light of modern civilisation has gone, there men have been fulfilling the plan of their Creator, with regard to a larger and longer life. In Sweden, the expectation of life at birth is fifty- one years; in France it is forty-six years; in England and Wales forty-four years; in Italy forty-three years; in the United States it is about forty-five years. Life has been lengthened in several leading coun- tries as follows: The annual death rate in Austria during 1881 to 1885 was 30 per thousand; in 1912 it was only 20 per thousand. In England and Wales it decreased during this period from 19 per thousand to 13 per thousand; in Hungary from 33 to 23; in 190 Liquor and the Length of Life 191 Italy from 27 to 18 ; in Spain from 33 to 22; in the United States the death rate decreased from 20 to about 13 from 1880 to 1916. This struggle for life is in harmony with the pur- pose of Jesus, who said that He came that men might have life and that they might have it "more abun- dantly." There are some who say that this refer- ence to "life" has to do simply with "spiritual life," but this is manifestly absurd, when one stops to con- sider that Jesus himself spent a large part of his time healing the sick so that they might have a more abundant life. And when He fed the hungry He did so because of the same motive. It must therefore be pleasing to God that His chil- dren have diligently sought to have life extended and enriched, and whatever has this for its purpose should be encouraged, and whoever assists in this task is a benefactor to the human race and is carry- ing out the will of God in the world. By the same token, whatever and whoever works in opposition to this supreme purpose is a curse to mankind and should be condemned. It isn't so long ago that in England there were over two hundred "crimes" which were punishable by death. To-day, all the tendencies are toward the humanising of our treatment of the "criminal." To read the stories of the official murder of even little children during this earlier period because of an alleged "crime," is heart rending. Now we regard even the worst criminal capable of redemption, pro- 192 Why Prohibition! Vided that we succeed in establishing a point of con- tact with the good that is in him. That an occa- sional ungrateful man disappoints the forward-look- ing warden of a penitentiary is no indication that the modern method of dealing with criminals is wrong; it would be fairer to point to the thousands who have been raised to self-respect and honour through this method. There was a time when great epidemics swept over the country, and men, women and children died by the thousands. And even some pious folks declared that this was a "dispensation" of Providence. But God intends that men should have life, not death. It is not His will that any should perish. No we can't charge it up to the Almighty. It might be more reasonable to charge it up to the board of health. To the doctors and sanitary experts who have done so much to decrease the possibility of epi- demics, we are increasingly grateful. Others insisted that this systematic decimation of the human race was a great economic factor, or- dained of God, because these wise men believed that there was danger that the number of people on earth might become too great. They said as inexorable law had decreed that the increase of mankind was in geometrical proportions, and whereas the increase of food products was only in arithmetical propor- tions,' therefore the time must come when it would be impossible to feed all these people and so God mercifully killed them off, periodically. Liquor and the Length of Life 193 Fortunately, just at the right time in the history of the human race, men were raised up whom we called agricultural experts or specialists, while others in- vented agricultural machinery, and they're going to settle this food question for us, thereby making the rest of us debtors to them. It isn't so long ago that some men believed that it was necessary to compel little children to work in factories under bad conditions, in order to "save" certain industries. But to-day most of us have a strong conviction that it is better to save children than to save industries. We are convinced that any industry which requires the sacrifice of children upon its altar merely to win gold has no right to live. Therefore, we take off our hats to the national committees and local committees which are loyally fighting to lengthen the life of little children. To-day we no longer talk merely about the "sur- vival of the fittest" : we are also concerned about the "revival of the unfit." It is largely due to this fact that the average length of life has so greatly increased. The poorest people in the tenements of our big cities may have the services without charge of the greatest specialists in the medical world in so far as this is humanly possible. Great in- stitutions have been built almost exclusively for the benefit of the masses of the people, so that their lives may be lengthened and enriched. When it is confidently asserted by scientists that the length of life in the United States could easily 194 Why Prohibition! be increased from 45 to 60 years and that this may be done within a generation the statement is hailed with delight, for 15 years added to one's life gives one an opportunity for greater service, per- mitting men and women to enjoy for a longer period the fruits of the continually increasing time required to prepare for their life's work. If health and length of life are so great factors in the life of the individual as well as the nation, then anything that undermines these should be removed. In arriving at safe conclusions regarding the in- fluence of the liquor business, in so far as it affects the length of human life, it is no longer necessary to depend upon the "questionable figures'* of tem- perance agitators, nor to be swayed by their "emo- tional appeals." The exact consequences to us, as a nation, of the manufacture and sale of intoxi- cating liquor are now being determined by statisti- cians experts who are guided by hard, cold diag- noses of ascertained facts who eliminate sentiment, and look only for scientific results. Therefore, when we are informed by these men that the equivalent of the working lives of 60,000 men engaged in the liquor business is destroyed in each generation, it's worth while to pay attention. For this means, in substance, that the liquor in- dustry wipes out among its workers in each genera- tion the equivalent of all the married men in a city about the size of Indianapolis, Jersey City, Kansas City, Minneapolis, New Orleans, or Washington, Liquor and the Length of Life 195 D. C., or the average city of about 300,000 popu- lation. Indeed, it is as though they never existed. Thomas Oliver, who is the world's authority on dangerous trades, has shown us that in England the death rate of brewery workers between the ages of 35 and 65 is 50 per cent, higher than it is among all occupied males. But in America the figures are even higher. Recently forty-three life insurance companies in the United States and Canada made an investigation of the comparative mortality of various groups, in- cluding hundreds of different kinds of occupations. The study is known as the Medico-Actuarial Mor- tality Investigation Arthur Hunter, Actuary of the New York Life Insurance Company, being the chair- man of the committee having the work in charge. The companies in question supplied their records for a study of about two million lives, covering a period of 25 years. This was the largest and most com- prehensive investigation of its kind ever undertaken by life insurance companies anywhere. It required three and a half years of continuous labour to fin- ish the study. It should be borne in mind that the statistics produced in this investigation were not got- ten together for the purpose of serving as total ab- stinence arguments to be employed by temperance agitators. They were gotten out for practical use in a great business which is conducted upon scien- tific principles. The work was done by actuaries and medical directors of national reputation, whose 196 Why Prohibition! knowledge of mortality statistics is based upon their experience with all sorts of men and women. The very existence of life insurance companies depends upon securing u new business." It is not to their advantage to exclude anybody who may be insurable. Therefore, the statements given by these men as to the probable length of life of a particular group are worthy of respect. The cases studied by these experts included among others, men engaged in the following occupations: proprietors, superin- tendents and managers who attended bar in hotels; proprietors and managers who attended bar in bil- liard rooms, pool rooms and bowling alleys; pro- prietors, managers and superintendents of brewer- ies; foremen, maltsters and brewery workers in gen- eral; proprietors, superintendents and managers of restaurants with bars; waiters in hotels, restaurants and clubs where liquor is served, and proprietors of groceries with bars. According to the statistics furnished by the life insurance companies, the death rate of brewery workers in this country is 52 per cent, higher than the "expected deaths"; while that of waiters in res- taurants, hotels and clubs where liquor is served is 77 per cent, higher than the "expected deaths." Saloon proprietors and managers who attend bar have an "extra mortality" of 78 per cent. The method of arriving at these percentages was as follows : Liquor and the Length of Life 197 Taking the case of saloon proprietors and man- agers insured during the period of the study, there should have been among these 479 deaths, this be- ing the normal number of "expected deaths." But there were actually 830 deaths among this groupr-^ the ratio of "actual" to "expected deaths" being 173 per cent., or 73 per cent, of "extra mortality" (100 standing for the "expected" number of deaths). Among hotel proprietors, superintendents and managers who attend bar, the death rate from cir- rhosis of the liver was six times the normal; from diabetes and Bright's disease, three times the nor- mal, and from apoplexy, heart disease and pneumo- nia, twice the normal. Unquestionably some of the excess mortality among those engaged in the liquor trade is due to long hours and to unsanitary con- ditions, but the greater part of the excess mortality is due to their contact with alcohol in its various forma. At any rate, the lives of these men were shortened because they were engaged in the liquor business, no matter what the immediate causes of death may have been. It should be remembered that the insured were men who were the best of their kind, for, as is well known, the various life insur- ance companies require applicants for insurance to come up to a fairly high physical standard. That the death rate among some other workers is also in excess of the average death rate for all occupied males is not an argument in favour of the liquor 198 Why Prohibition! business. The liquor industry cannot hide behind others 1 sins. As already stated, there are about 300,000 men engaged in various forms of the liquor business who lose an average of six years of life, or a total of 1,800,000 years. Assuming that their wages, sal- aries and profits average $1,000 a year each, it would mean substantially that there is a dead loss of $1,800,000,000 to every generation of workers in this group. This sum of money almost equals the annual drink bill of the United States, about $2,000,- 000,000 being spent for liquor. It is about 50 per cent, greater than what is said, by the liquor men themselves, to be invested in the entire liquor busi- ness in the United States, including the capital in- vested in brewing, distilling, wine-making and malt- ing; the capital invested in the entire retail business, including fixtures and furnishings, and in what is known as the "allied industries," such as cooper shops, bottle factories, etc., for all these enterprises have invested in them only about $1,294,000,000. The men engaged in the liquor business, there- fore, make a contribution every twenty years, in the terms of life, of the equivalent of enough money to entirely re-establish the liquor business. It must be apparent that the curse of liquor rests upon the maker and seller of intoxicants, as well as upon the user of strong drink. In the discussion with regard to the relation of the workingmen to the liquor traffic, it is constantly Liquor and the Length of Life 199 being said that the liquor industry pays a higher rate of wages than some other industries. This may be true in some instances. But what does it profit a man and particularly his family if, in order to obtain a couple of dollars more per week in wages, he is compelled to make a contribution of six years of life, besides being unable to insure his life for the benefit of his family, for no standard life insur- ance company will now accept as risks men engaged in the liquor business* although two or three will do so at a greatly advanced premium rate and with cer- tain other restrictions. What about the ordinary users of intoxicating liquor? The Medico-Actuarial Mortality Investiga- tion undoubtedly demonstrated that the steady use of alcoholic beverages or occasional excesses are det- rimental to the individual, and that the total ab- stainers from alcohol live longer than those who use it. Even those who would be regarded as "moder- ate drinkers" lose an average of four years of their lives. It may be that some "jolly good fellow" will say that it is worth losing four years of one's life to have a "good time" by drinking beer and whiskey when he pleases. But he should not forget that the average loss of life is four years. He, himself, may lose 15 years because of his indiscretion. The men in question were not considered immod- erate drinkers at the date of application, nor was their standing in the community bad. They were 2OO Why Prohibition! all men considered by the insurance companies to be entitled to policies, without paying extra pre- miums, their habits not being regarded as a serious detriment. The causes of death showed that the death rate from cirrhosis of the liver was five times the normal; and from diabetes, tuberculosis, pneumonia and sui- cide, twice the normal. It should be said that, in the opinion of some students of this question, the mortality among men who are total abstainers from alcohol is practically the same as that of men who are total abstainers from tobacco, and that, generally speaking, the same body of men are included in these two classes. There are other factors which enter into this mat- ter abstainers are proportionately oftener found in non-hazardous occupations than in hazard- ous. For example, a larger proportion of clergy- men are found among abstainers than among mod- erate drinkers; the conditions which surround the home life may be better among abstainers than among non-abstainers; the abstainer is probably ab- stemious in his eating. It has also been observed that those who are total abstainers are so because they are vigorous and active, and do not feel the necessity for stimulants; whereas those who are not total abstainers may not be their equal in physique. However, Mr. Hunter, the Actuary of the New York Life Insurance Company, has said: "I have Liquor and the Length of Life 201 been in the actuarial profession for over 20 years, and have had the opportunity of studying not only the published statistics, but many private investiga- tions. I cannot recall a single large class of men or women, using alcohol freely, but not immoder- ately, at the date of application for insurance, or who had used it in excess formerly, and were now temperate, that did not have a higher mortality than the normal. While I am not a total abstainer, I am convinced it would be immeasurably better for this, or any other country, to have the production and sale of alcoholic liquors abolished if it were practicable. The advantages claimed for alcohol are a small offset in my judgment to the evils which proceed from its use and its abuse. The effect of prohibition of the manufacture and sale of alco- holic beverages in Russia must be such that the sav- ing in human life, alone, will be enormous. The loss of 500,000 men as a result of the present war could be made good in less than ten years through complete abstinence from alcoholic beverages in Russia." The increase in the length of life which has come to mankind as a whole during the past 50 years is practically nullified for those who are engaged in the liquor business, as well as for those who use intoxicants, even moderately. Such great havoc and destruction of life does the liquor business create. Speaking at the First National Conference on 202 Why Prohibition! Race Betterment at Battle Creek, Michigan, Mr. Hunter said: "It may interest abstainers to know that in 1840 an application was received by an English insurance company for a policy on the life of an abstainer, and the directors of the company decided to charge 10 per cent, more than the ordinary premium because they looked upon the applicant as 'thin and watery, and as mentally cranked in that he repudiated the good creatures of God as found in alcoholic drinks/ As the result of this action, he, with his friends, founded the first temperance insurance company in Britain, and himself lived to the age of 82. "There has been published only one comparison between abstainers and non-abstainers, based on the experience among the insured in an American company, and this was presented by the New England Mutual Life Insurance Company. The insured were divided into four classes: (i) Total ab- stainer; (2) Rarely use; (3) Temperate; and (4) Mod- erate. The standard used in testing the mortality was the American Table, which is generally the basis for the calcu- lation of premiums. The following shows the approximate percentages of that table: Total abstainer 59% Rarely use 71 % Temperate 84% Moderate 125% "According to the above table, the moderate drinkers had twice as high a mortality as the total abstainers." The following is a synopsis of the published ex- perience of insurance companies in other English- speaking countries : Liquor and the Length of Life 203 Mortality of General Approximate ex- or Non-Abstainer cess of mortal- Section compared ity among with that of Ab- Non-Abstain- stainer Section. ers over Ab- stainers. United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident In- stitution (England), expe- rience from 1866 to 1910. . . 135% 35% Sceptre Life Assurance Com- pany (England), experience from 1884 to 1910 150%; 50% Scottish Temperance Life As- surance Company (.Scot- land), experience from 1883 to 1907 140% 40% Australian Temperance and General Life Assurance So- ciety (Australia), experience from 1900 to 1910 160% 60% Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (Canada), experi- ence from 1902 to 1910 175% 75% "From the non-abstainer section were excluded those who were known to drink immoderately at the date of application for insurance." In an interesting article in The Outlook, Samuel 1 Wilson answers the question "Is Moderate Drinking Justified ?" Interrogating forty life insurance com- panies as to their attitude toward insuring liquor dealers and liquor drinkers, he discovered that every reputable company either refuses entirely to insure 204 Why Prohibition! liquor dealers or treats them as an hazardous class, imposing upon them an extra premium. One prominent eastern company wrote that re- tail liquor dealers, employes in distilleries, grocers having a bar, saloonkeepers and bartenders, as well as travelling salesmen for liquor houses are all excluded. A Philadelphia company answered: "We do not accept any liquor dealers, and only a limited number of those who are brewers or wholesale dealers we prefer total abstainers to those who imbibe even moderately." A Southern company said : "This Company does not insure the lives of persons en- gaged in the sale or manufacture of intoxicating liquors." A Canadian company answers: "The practice of this company is to require an extra pre- mium wherever an applicant is engaged in the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors. The extra premium as a rule is $10.00 per $1,000 insurance." "We do not write saloonkeepers, bartenders, pro- prietors of hotels where the bar is a prominent fea- ture of the hotel business, brewers or liquor sales- men, except that we sometimes write wholesale liquor dealers who do not themselves drink or have direct charge of the stock," is the reply of a prominent company in the middle west, located in a city in Liquor and the Length of Life 205 which brewers and saloonkeepers are a great po- litical power. From everywhere the answers were substantially the same liquor dealers and liquor drinkers are un- desirable from the viewpoint of life insurance com- panies. The experts employed by these companies to study the factors which influence the duration of life have given their verdict plainly it is to the ef- fect that alcohol is a poison and they have decided that men who use it are bad risks. Logically, therefore, those who dispense it and institutions in which it is sold, are a detriment to human welfare. When enough people believe with these scientific business men, then the use of liquor will cease. A notable address before the convention of Public Health Officials and the Massachusetts Association of Boards of Health, on April 29, 1915, by Dr. Charles W. Eliot included the following statements: "The next evil which should be attacked with the utmost vigour by all boards of health is alcoholism. Public opinion needs to be enlightened on two points with regard to the use of alcohol as a beverage. "In the first place, it should be brought home to the entire population that the habitual use of alcoholic beverages re- duces, in a serious degree, the productive efficiency of the community. "In the second place, recent experiments on the effects of alcohol on the nerves and glands of the human body have 2o6 Why Prohibition! demonstrated beyond a doubt that alcohol invariably does harm, and never any good either in health or disease. The use of alcohol as a defense against exposure or fatigue has been given up by all sensible persons. . . . "This evil is rooted, first, in what are called vested inter- ests that is, in the investment of large amounts of capital in the plants which produce, store, and distribute beers, wines, and spirits, and secondly, in the methods of taxation to which the white nations are accustomed. Heretofore the medical profession and the public health officers have given an uncertain sound concerning the use of alcohol. . . . "It remains for the boards of health to attack this hideous evil with the weapons and in the spirit of preventive medi- cine. They should bring to the work all recent knowledge concerning the effects of alcohol on the human body, call to their aid legislators who can find equivalents for the public revenue now derived from the manufacture and sale of al- coholic drinks, and re-enforce to the utmost the wise coun- sellors who by moral teachings have brought about during the past fifty years considerable improvements in regard to the use of alcohol in the more intelligent and conscientious classes. . . . "The responsibility of physicians and boards of health in regard to the advice they give to young people on these mat- ters is heavy indeed; and so is their responsibility on these subjects towards legislatures, municipal governments, courts, and state executives." And Dr. Haven Emerson, then Commissioner of Health in New York City, said in an address deliv- ered before the General Sessions of the American Liquor and the Length of Life 207 Public Health Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, Octo- ber 24, 1916. "Alcohol causes a lowered resistance to communicable dis- eases, to infections, and in addition to the clinical experience generally accepted, there are certain facts which add specific evidence to the general proposition. Clinical experience is unanimous on these points, but clinical experience has not been acquired or written up in a manner to be a convincing argument for those who consider that alcohol is a detriment to the public health. It is, therefore, necessary for us to search among the laboratory evidences and the special studies, and some of them I would suggest for your consideration and use in your educational work. "Conradi showed that there was a diminished production of antibodies in cholera, in people using alcohol freely, after a dose of protective inoculation had been given. In other words, in a given group in the community, you can accom- plish a very substantial protection against cholera by pro- tective inoculation ; but if the people in the presence of and following the protective vaccination, continue the use of alcohol, they lose the benefit of antibody production which your procedure has stimulated or should stimulate in their bodies. "Pampoukis and Szeckley found unfavourable results and a persistence of the virus of rabies in subjects under anti- rabic treatment if they are users of alcohol. This study ex- tended over twenty-five years of administration of Pasteur treatment at Budapest. "Reich noted unmistakable lowering of body resistance to disease, indicated by a less effective phagocytosis in typhoid 208 Why Prohibition! in man and less resistance of human red blood cells to hypo- tonic salt solutions in proportion to the use of alcohol. These are two valuable methods of measuring cellular resistance to disease and response to infection. "In addition to the specific lowering of resistance to in- fection and lowered ability to combat infection when once acquired, alcohol plays an undoubted contributing part in the acquisition and spread of venereal diseases. "Benedict and Doge in their classical monograph on the psychological effects of alcohol, reached in their exact studies of the time reactions of various reflexes in people treated with small amounts of alcohol, a precise foundation for the common knowledge that alcohol increases liability to acci- dent. To the casual observer it is apparent that this in- creased liability to accident is due to delayed preception of signs occurring in the immediate vicinity of the individual (which would, to an alert and sensitive person, indicate a warning) followed by delayed response and decrease in the velocity and amplitude of the necessary muscular move- ments which must be carried out to avoid injury. "They found that there was a delay of 10 per cent, in the patellar reflex and a diminution of 46 per cent, in those dosed with small amounts of alcohol. Similarly they dis- covered a 10 per cent, diminution in the lid reflex, 5 per cent, in the eye reflex, 3 per cent, in the speech reflex, 14 per cent, diminution to faradic stimulation, 9 per cent, diminution in the finger movements and n per cent, decrease in the ve- locity of the eye movements. Just note what that series of ob- servations means. Remember that an accident occurs or is missed according to the rapidity, quality and amplitude of the neuro-muscular response. The saw, the lathe, the swing- Liquor and the Length of Life 209 ing beam of steel does or does not mutilate the careless workmen, according to the reaction of a thousandth of a sec- ond upon which the self -protective mechanism depends. We used to say, explaining an accident, 'The man was dull with his beer'; now we know the measure of his dullness, that the slight dose of alcoholic beverage will, with certainty, delay his response of eye, voice and hand, and he suffers accordingly. "It is not strange, therefore, that careful students ob- serving large numbers of dispensary patients reach the con- clusion which Brickley reached at the Haymarket Relief Station in Boston, where 40,000 patients a year pass through the hands of physicians and surgeons. "Brickley summarises the results of his studies as fol- lows: That alcohol causes accidents. Obscures the diagnosis. Increases the danger of infection at the time of accident. Prevents adequate treatment. Increases the danger of intercurrent complications. Retards the process of repair. Gives poorer end results. Increases the mortality from accidents. "We, the public health officers of this country, must over- come the inertia of this habit in the community and offset the momentum of great industries by teaching the consumer and producer of alcoholic beverages to discontinue their mutual conspiracy, which is robbing the future generations of their birthright of health. "What are you, as public health officers, and your staff doing now by personal example and by teaching through 210 Why Prohibition! the spoken and written word to wean your community from a habit which is a large contributory factor in the cause of the deaths and sicknesses for the prevention of which the community employs you and trusts to your advice? We must teach the consumer not to use liquor, and I believe the public is learning the lesson. I think that there is no power in the country so great as the power of the public health officers if they speak and write to this effect in no uncertain tones, unanimously and continuously." As Dr. Emerson suggests, health boards have a distinct obligation resting upon them to fight the use of liquor. When bad tenements kill babies and you can kill babies with bad tenements as well as with axes the health department gets after the owners, and the rotten rookeries are cleaned up or torn down. When unscrupulous department store managers compel women to work in foul basements, the health department insists that proper ventilation shall be provided, or else there's trouble. When boys and girls are crowded into shops and factories where the dust is thick and lungs fill up with disease-breeding germs, the health department exer- cises its authority and demands that these boys and girls shall be properly safeguarded by such contriv- ances as will expel the dust and germs. It is the business of the health department to pro- tect the health and the lives of all the people. Any- thing which endangers these is dealt with strenuously when the health officer is on the job. Liquor and the Length of Life 211 But this isn't purely a "slum" proposition it af- fects the men who drink in clubs and cafes on the avenue, as well as those who spend time in dens and dives in the alley. It should be recognised as a fundamental pro- posal that booze is bad for one's health, and we should go after it just as we would tackle sewer-gas and foul gutters and dust germs and whatever else makes men sick and causes them to die. In opening the convention of the American Med- ical Association in New York in 1917 Dr. C. H. Mayo, of Rochester, Minn., the famous surgeon urged national prohibition: "No one except the policeman sees more of the results of overindulgence in alcohol, demonstrated by pauperism, sick- ness, immorality and crime, than the physician. Medicine has reached a period when alcohol is rarely employed as a drug, being displaced by better remedies. Alcohol's only place now is in the arts and sciences. National prohibition would be welcomed by the medical profession," he said. The New York Convention of the American Med- ical Association just referred to which represents many thousands of the leading physicians in this country resolved to exclude alcohol from the phar- macopoeia the book published by its authority con- taining the formulas and methods of preparation of medicines for the use of druggists. This action by prominent medical men is in line with an increasing conviction among physicians that 212 Why Prohibition! alcohol is bad for the human race, and it would be an easy matter to multiply such testimony. There is no point to the bit of sarcasm on the part of the liquor men that if we would abolish the saloon because of the high death-rate of those en* gaged in the liquor business, then, by the same token, we must abolish the railroad business, because it also has a high death-rate among its employes. In the first place, deaths among railroad men in the past have often been due to the influence of the liquor business. It was because some railroad men patronised saloons that accidents occurred. This was so true that to-day most railroads will not per- mit their employes to patronise saloons at any time, on penalty of dismissal. "Safety First" has put the saloon out of business in many railroad centres. Sober railroad men will greatly reduce the num- ber of deaths due to accidents. Now the railroad men themselves are fighting the saloon, because they know that not only is the life of the man who drinks imperiled, but he also endangers all those who work with him. Furthermore, even though the death-rate of the men in the railroad business is above the normal, it should be remembered that the railroad business is a productive business, that it serves a good purpose and that it has a permanent value. There are few business enterprises which have served and still serve the people more efficiently than the railroad compa- nies in this country. Liquor and the Length of Life 213 This cannot be said for the liquor business. Its tendency is to do harm instead of good; it does not serve the people except to ruin them. The liquor business not only injures those who are engaged in it, but it destroys those who use its products. There is almost no escape for those who patronise it. On the other hand, while there is a heavy death- rate among the employes of railroad cpmpanies, the number of passengers killed is comparatively small only an average of about 300 per year, or about one passenger out of every 3,000,000 car- ried. It is true that railroad companies kill many more people trespassers, and many who were not tres- passers, besides men in their own employ but we are considering the question of the relative number of those who are killed because they patronised either saloons or railroads. Alcohol is used for making gunpowder; therefore, say the booze advocates, Prohibition is unpatriotic, because without gunpowder we could not defend our country against an alien enemy. It is granted by the liquor enthusiasts that Pro- hibition laws may be so framed as to provide alcohol for scientific, mechanical and non-beverage purposes, but it is insisted that during normal times that is, when no war is on alcohol plants could not exist commercially for the purposes of supplying these uses alone. Hence, the booze makers want the privilege of 214 Why Prohibition! running their distilleries at full blast during times of peace as a result of which many hundreds of thou- sands of lives may be destroyed in order that they may be ready to run their distilleries during times of war, when other hundreds of thousands of lives may be destroyed. What a destructive thing the booze business is, anyway ! Interesting, isn't it, that the liquor men demand the right to kill more men illegally during peace times than would be killed during war times just so that the booze business may be saved no mat- ter what havoc it may create throughout the world ! Why the Saloon Must Go CLARENCE DARROW the "labour-lawyer" who defended the McNamara brothers, the California dynamiters, a few years ago threw a bluff into a labour meeting the other day, where he spoke under the auspices of a local bartenders' union against the prohibition movement. "Has drink ever done you any harm?" he asked his audience, and he waited a moment for a re- ply. "It killed my brother!" volunteered a voice in the pit. "It killed my brother, too!" said another man a little further back. Darrow was flabbergasted! He didn't know the real sentiments of his audience. He probably sup- posed that he was talking to a bartenders' crowd. "Has drink ever done you any harm ?" The work- ingmen of America are coming to believe that it has. It isn't safe to recklessly throw into a crowd of workingmen a challenge which may so easily be an- swered! For they are coming to know the facts. 215 216 Why Prohibition! And the facts are always against the liquor busi- ness. It is bad enough for booze to kill the body of your brother it is a worse thing for booze to kill his soul. But what about the man who carries a dead soul in a living body? This is what happens to many a man who has become booze-soaked. For drink destroys a man's soul before it kills his body and usually he doesn't know what's hap- pening to him. That's the sad part of it. We are realising more and more that soul-culture and the things that grow out of the use of booze cannot occupy the same body at the same time in the end one will drive the other out and usually booze comes out ahead in the struggle. The attack upon the liquor traffic cannot be side- tracked because the liquor men declare that exces- sive eating is as harmful as excessive drinking. We'll readily admit that "temperance" must in- clude moderation in the eating of food as in every- thing else. In some things, however, the practice of "temperance" isn't enough there are certain cus- toms or tendencies which demand Prohibition or total abstinence. A "temperate" murderer, for example one who kills others only "moderately" isn't to be tolerated under any circumstances. If it can be demonstrated that the use of alcohol, even in moderation, is injurious to the human mind Why the Saloon Must Go 217 and body, then it becomes a question as to whether even its temperate use is to be permitted. As to the relative harmfulness of excessive eating or drinking, it will be admitted that the man who drinks to excess is more harmful to society than he who eats to excess. For while both may be injuring their bodies on account of their intemperate habits, the man who drinks to excess also almost invariably becomes a charge upon the State, or at least he is liable to do harm to others on account of his drinking habits. George Washington owned a wine cellar we are told by some ardent saloon defenders. Others go so far as to say that he was also an inn-keeper. Therefore, they assume, it's all right in this day and generation for a man to own a wine-cellar and run a saloon. But George Washington was also a slave-owner. Whether he was a kind slave-owner or a brutal slave- owner, doesn't make any difference. We are sure that he owned slaves. Shall we also assume that it's all right for men in this day and generation to own slaves ? Suppose President Woodrow Wilson owned a slave-pen because his illustrious predecessor, George Washington, owned one? It doesn't require a great stretch of the imagina- tion to picture what would happen to him, even though he is President of the United States. 218 Why Prohibition! Standards change. What may have been accepted one hundred years ago is now outlawed. Our ideals advance. What may have been con- sidered moral and right long ago is now scorned as the ethics of the jungle. The saloon business to-day is a discredited busi- ness, no matter whether George Washington owned a wine-cellar or not. That's why no man who cares anything about his standing or the standing of his wife and children goes into the liquor business. You can't charge it up to George Washington, either, for he did the best he knew in his day and generation. And the world expects every man to do his level best to-day. When a man sees clearly, and feels and knows that he's doing wrong, he can't expect to get any mercy because some other man in a darker age was guilty of the same sin. The liquor men wish to u save the boy," but here's how they want to "save" him according to the "Anti-Prohibition Manual of the Wholesale Liquor Dealers' Association." They propose to subject him to all the temptations of the saloon, and if he doesn't fall, he's saved; if he does fall, then "it's his fault and the fault of his parents." But the real point of their argument is that a boy is no good, anyway, unless he's been up against all Why the Saloon Must Go 219 that the use of beer and whiskey subjects him to, and he has definitely proven that he cannot be over- come by their influence. To be sure, the force of their own logic compels them to admit that there's very grave danger of the boy's falling through the use of strong drink. But what of that? The only way to "save the boy" is to give him a chance to go wrong ! If there's evil in strong drink, the logical thing to do is to leave it alone isn't it? That's the way we regard every other evil. If the good in the use of liquor were so great as to make it of supreme value if it brought advan- tages which could not be secured in any other way then there might be some justification in putting a boy into a position where he'd have at least a fight- ing chance. But everybody knows that there are some boys, who, subjected to the temptations of the taste of liquor, are almost certain to be overcome and to subject the stronger boys to the test isn't worth the game. "The saloon is a blessing instead of a curse," vociferates the exponent of booze. Is it? Let's see. When an institution or a business is a blessing to society every fair method is adopted to push it along. That's what we do with schools and colleges, churches and hospitals, art galleries and museums, chambers of commerce and business men's clubs, and 220 Why Prohibition! a score or more of other organisations whose value the people as a whole readily acknowledge, and whose prosperity and success are rejoiced in. But what about the saloon? In most enlightened communities, no saloon is permitted within a given distance of a church. If the saloon is a beneficent enterprise, why not tie up the church and the saloon so that they may together work out the spiritual and ethical problems of the people ? No saloon is permitted within a certain distance of a public school. If the saloon's influence is good for children, why not have the teachers in the public school use it as an object lesson to demonstrate the social and educational value of the liquor business? If the saloon is a wholesome business, and its influence is uplifting in municipal affairs, why does the State declare, in many parts of our country, that the saloon shall be closed on election day? If the saloon is a blessing to mankind, why are the number of saloons usually limited? And why are they restricted to certain areas in the average city? If they are good for the people^ why not welcome them as to numbers and as to tha locality in which they may exercise their benign in* fluence? Not even the poor who live in wretched tenements should have a monopoly of such true blessedness Why the Saloon Must Go 221 as the saloon always brings with it if it is good for all men. if If the proceedings within the saloon are of such an inspiring character, why not permit them to do business without restraint in the neighbourhoods where they are permitted to exist? Why limit the number of hours in which they may sell booze, and why have the curtains drawn, and why have panels to obstruct the view of those who are outside !, Why does the State persist in taxing the saloon and the liquor business, penalising it at every op- portunity? If it is such a beneficent business why doesn't the State subsidise it, as it has done with some other industries; or, why doesn't the State en- dow it, as it has its schools and colleges? Why doesn't it relieve the liquor business from the neces- sity of paying taxes upon its property, as is the case with the churches? Why? Well any half-grown boy or girl can tell you why. It doesn't require an opinion from the court, nor the verdict of an expert sociologist. Mil- lions of wives and mothers can tell you why. And the liquor men themselves know why. This business of fighting the saloon isn't a propa- ganda which owes its origin to a few fanatics it is the result of an uprising among the people in pro- test against the evils of the saloon. It isn't to be accounted for by charging it up to "meddlers" or "busybodies," neither is the fight on 222 Why Prohibition! the saloon due to a desire to force upon an unwilling nation "sumptuary legislation." The desire to wipe out the saloon is due to the natural instinct of men to preserve the race. When there's a prairie fire the entire country-side turns out to extinguish it. When there's an epidemic of any kind, the State and the nation will go to any expense in order to halt its ravages. When a flood sweeps through the lowlands, it's a matter which con- cerns everybody. It's precisely so with the saloon. When it is shown that the saloon destroys life, wrecks manhood and womanhood and degrades childhood, we don't stop to parley about giving the saloon "a square deal"; we put it out of business. We don't discuss the question of compensation one might as well talk about compensation and "a square deal" in connection with smallpox or tuber- culosis. No the existence of the saloon is a call to strong men for service just as though a foe were to invade our native land. We fight for the race in response to that instinct which is born in the hearts of all true men and women, and it is this instinct which makes us fight the saloon. The chief reason why fighting the saloon is dif- ferent from fighting most other social evils is the fact that the saloon business has hit most of us in a very vital spot. The liquor men complain that those that oppose Why the Saloon Must Go 223 the saloon are "unreasonable" that they do not look at all the facts in the case, social and economic. This may be true, with regard to a considerable number of saloon opponents. They have never stopped to reason out how many men will lose their jobs, or how much the government will lose, or whether the farmer will be unable to dispose of his produce, when the liquor people no longer purchase it. All this means very little to them. There is just one consuming reason as to why they fight the saloon the saloon has taken their boy. Now, the liquor men may argue until they are black in the face, and the philosophers may phil- osophise until they have exhausted their fine spun theories, and the scientific "doctors" may quote from other authorities who believe in booze until the crack of doom but the whole aggregation will never suc- ceed in persuading that heart-broken father and soul- wrung mother that a booze joint is a "good thing." For how can a "good" saloon cause the wreckage of the son in whom they had placed all their hopes? And if it caused the downfall of their boy, why won't it cause the downfall of some other boy? "Hysterical," all this? Sentimental? Fanatical? Call it what you please. It's what's back of most of the opposition to the saloon. And all the cold- blooded ridicule of the saloon crowd can't take it out of the fight. Economic arguments are needed. Scientific truth is good. But the biggest factor in wiping out the sa- 224 Why Prohibition! loon will be the thoroughly human sentiment that the saloon wrecks men and women. "It isn't the saloon that makes a man miserable it's his poverty," says the exponent of the saloon. But you never heard of a saloon relieving a man of his poverty. Every time he comes out of a saloon, he's a lot poorer than when he went in. He's poorer every way. He's poorer financially. There never was a saloon that made a customer richer in cash. He's poorer in self-respect. The longer he re- main in the saloon the less respect he carries away with him. He loses his self-respect, and his friends often lose their respect for him. He's poorer economically. As a workman, he be- comes less efficient. Never yet has the saloon made a workingman richer in the ability to do things. He's poorer physically. The saloon never im- proved a man's health. The man who patronises the saloon becomes more susceptible to disease he is less able to resist disease. He cannot stand the strains of life so well. He's poorer mentally. His brain is befuddled. He doesn't think straight. The more time he spends in the saloon, the less others will be inclined to tr ist his judgment. He not only loses confidence in him- self, but those with whom he does business lose con- fidence in him. He's poorer socially. His value as a contributor to the common good of his fellowmen is lessened. Why the Saloon Must Go 225 Those who are interested in securing better condi- tions for workingmen cannot afford to become the victims of the drink habit. If it's poverty that makes a man miserable, then he had better keep away from the saloon for the saloon never made a man richer in the slightest de- gree in any particular. There is no group of men which knows more about the effects and influence of the liquor business than the inmates of penitentiaries. It is not sur- prising, therefore, that these men should advocate the abolition of the saloon. Such an expression on the part of certain groups of convicts has brought forth from the liquor men's journals bits of sarcasm and ridicule which are shot at both the convicts in question and at anti-saloon men with whom, it is being said, these "jail-birds" have lined up. Of course, no argument is produced to demon- strate that the " jail-birds" are wrong. they are sim- ply jeered at because they have taken sides with saloon fighters. If these same men had declared themselves in favour of the saloon, if they had voted in favour of red-light districts and gambling houses the liquor men's journals would never have said a word against them. But when men who must know why they are sent to jail, and what led them into the wrong life, frankly state that they are ready to do away with that which. 226 Why Prohibition! cursed them, then the liquor men's journals scorn them and make light of their resolutions. It should be remembered that the average man in jail to-day is very much like most other men. It it being demonstrated that there is no "criminal class." Those who are in jail are usually there be- cause of unusual temptation, and the saloon is a chief factor in making sin and vice attractive. Nobody knows this quite so well as those who have had their own experiences in saloons. They know what they are talking about. And when men of this type tell us that the saloon business is a bad business, the rest of us can afford to listen. Everybody knows that the saloon is the breeding place of vice and crime ; that it harbours and encour- ages the white slave traffic ; shelters crooks and gam- blers; is the birth-place of rotten politics; causes dis- ease and death; is the enemy of peace and order; causes the most degrading poverty; wrecks more homes than any other institution; fills jails, alms- houses, and insane asylums; and sends men to the scaffold and the electric chair. To quote from Robert G. Ingersoll : "It brings shame, not honour; terror, not safety; despair, not hope; misery, not happiness; and with the malevolence of a fiend it calmly surveys its frightful desolation, and unsatisfied with havoc, it poisons felicity, kills peace, ruins morals, blights confidence, slays reputation and wipes out national honour ; then curses the world and laughs at its ruin. Why the Saloon Must Go 227 It does all that and more. It murders the soul. It is the sum of all villanies, the father of all crime, the mother of all abominations, the devil's best friend and man's worst enemy." And from Martin Luther: "Whoever first brewed beer has prepared a pest for Ger- many. I have prayed to God that he would destroy the whole brewing industry. I have often pronounced a curse on the brewer. All Germany could live on the barley that is spoiled and turned into a curse by the brewer." And Theodore Roosevelt: "The friends of the saloonkeepers denounce their oppo- nents for not treating the saloon business like any other. The best answer to this is that the business is not like any other business and that the actions of the saloonkeepers them- selves conclusively prove this to be the case. The business tends to produce criminality in the population at large and law breaking among the saloonkeepers themselves. When the liquor men are allowed to do as they wish, they are sure to debauch, not only the body social, but the body politic also." And here's some live testimony right up to date from the liquor men themselves. "Bonfort's Wine and Spirit Circular" of New York is one of the best-known liquor journals of the country. Here is its evidence : "The modern saloon has been getting worse instead of 228 Why Prohibition! better. It has been dragged in the gutter ; it has been made the cat's paw for other forms of vice; it has succumbed to the viciousness of gambling and it has allowed itself to be- come allied with the social evil." P. H. Nolan of New York, chairman of a com- mittee of the National Liquor Dealers' Association, had this to say about the brewers in an address de- livered in Kansas City: "The average brewer in a mad desire for wealth is care- less of public sentiment. He has no respect for law, regula- tion, or public decency. He buys a church window for $100 and then assumes a sanctimonious attitude. His business is to corrupt public officials that he may thrive. The brewers of the United States are a menace to society." And here's some more testimony : "The rat, the vampire, the knocker living on the life-blood of an industry threatened with destruc- tion, which they are doing little or nothing to pro- tect" this is the characterisation by the editor of the Liberal Advocate of the liquor dealers who failed to attend a liquor dealers' convention. There must be a good many of these species among saloonkeepers if what the editor says is true be- cause the attendance at these "important" meetings is comparatively small. It is rather rough on the saloonkeepers to be called such gentle names by their own friends! It Why the Saloon Must Go 229 isn't very often that even an anti-saloon "agitator" uses such epithets in describing a saloonkeeper. Possibly the editor of the Liberal Advocate knows more about saloonkeepers than the anti-saloon men do ! And, of course, he has a perfect right to "show up" the men who are in the saloon business. We'll probably have to accept the characterisation since it comes from so high an authority. And so we can understand why "pure beer and clean business" is now to be the slogan of a famous brewing concern with reference to the management of saloons. An attempt is to be made to have all breweries join in this movement for the purification of the saloon business. But there are difficulties in the way, the brewery men declare. They are right. They are more nearly right than they know. Not only will there be difficulties in the way so far as other brewers are concerned, but in a movement of this kind one must consider the thou- sands of saloonkeepers whose chief profit comes to them because of the disreputable character of their business. These are not likely to join the brewers in their crusade against unclean saloons. Undoubtedly there are many saloonkeepers who would rather run decent saloons than indecent ones. But the matter is beyond their control. They cannot choose their patrons. If they tried to do so, they would soon have no business at all. There are certain glaring evils which may be minimised by heroic efforts but the worst features 230 Why Prohibition! of the American saloon are not those which hit one in the face and which are only too obvious the worst features of the saloon are the insidious, ser- pentine influences which cannot be readily "scotched" and destroyed. The saloon is notoriously on the side of crooked government and grafting, bribing politicians. The influence of the saloon upon social life is bad it's always bad, when one counts up all the items, no matter how much the saloon may serve in some minor details. It's the very nature of the saloon to cast a shadow over society. How can the brewers, however good their intentions may be, meet this situation? Plainly, they do not intend to. They know that they could not if they would. It is quite natural, therefore, that at successive conventions of various kinds of liquor dealers' as- sociations resolutions should be passed deploring the tendency of the saloon to become the centre of so many bad social and political influences, and that it is "resolved" to clean up the saloon business, be- cause, these wise men argue, if they don't clean up their business, the public will clean out the entire liquor business. But here's a peculiar thing about the entire situa- tion while the liquor men themselves frankly admit the evils which exist in the saloon, there are large numbers of perfectly respectable people who are Why the Saloon Must Go 231 fighting the battles of the saloon and systematically voting for its retention. It is unthinkable that there should be any com- promise in the fight on the booze business. They tell us that we aren't fair in our attack. They say that we hit "below the belt." Now, that's what every fellow who is being beaten always says. He always cries "foul." But how can one be "fair" to the liquor business? You can't be "fair" to booze any more than you can be "fair" to the smallpox or any other disease that is ravaging the people. No the liquor business is a bad business, and be- cause it's a bad business it must go ! It may seem unkind to some of those who in various ways are identified with it, but our chief concern must be for the great mass of people to whom the liquor men have themselves been brutally unkind, and who have been made to suffer incalculable injury, the extent of which cannot be measured in the terms of dollars. There can be no compromise. There will be none. There's just one thing, and only one, that will cause anti-saloon fighting to cease the complete extinction of the saloon. But "If you close the saloon, and make it dif- ficult for men to get strong drink, they will be driven to the use of drugs," we are told by the defenders of the saloon. It has been amply demonstrated that ordinarily those who use drugs also drink BUT THEY DRANK FIRST! 232 Why Prohibition! Shall we continue to encourage the use of strong drink, and thus increase the number of people who would inevitably be driven to the use of drugs? Or shall we close the saloon, which is primarily responsible for the use of both drugs and liquor? Men are drinking the vilest kind of stuff in Russia and elsewhere because they cannot get regular vodka or booze so we are told. Suppose it is true. What makes them do it? It's the booze and the vodka that they drank before they began to poison themselves with vile substitutes. The argument as to conditions in Russia is the same as has been put up to us with reference to the use of drugs in this country. If booze has this effect upon a man if it so en- slaves him that it drives him to practices which are almost certain to kill him then how in the name of common sense can anybody use this fact as an argu- ment in favour of using more booze so that a still larger number of people may be thus enslaved. The bad sanitary conditions in saloons are a strong argument against them. "Call him a bartender. Look at that song-and- dance shirt; that collar he's wearing. He put it on Monday and to-day's Thursday. Look at his hands enough muck under his finger nails to plant a gar- den; see those cuspidors. filled with garbage. They haven't been cleaned in a month. Look at the mirror can you see your reflection through the fly specks? Why the Saloon Must Go 233 Wonder the air doesn't poison the patrons of the place !" Pretty good description of some bartenders and some saloons, isn't it? But who wrote it? A fas- tidious W. C. T. U. investigator? Or an anti-saloon agitator? Or a "Prohibition crank?" Not at all. It was written by the general secretary of the Bartenders' International League of America, quoting the local representative of the union and he should be a pretty good authority on such matters. Of course, it was a non-union saloon and a non- union bartender he was describing. Here's some more of it: "The porter is back there playing cards. He is so lazy he sleeps with his clothes on don't they look it? The porter and bartender take turns in visiting the barber shop once a month they have cleanliness on the Ve-don't patronise' list ; and you wonder why we refuse to solicit such cattle to become members of our grand little union? Let's get out of this before we get cholera or something equally serious. We'll walk down the street, and I can show you several more such places with fellows who disgrace the name of bartender." And remember that this description is given to us by an "expert." The secretary was being escorted about town by the business agent of the local bar- tenders' union, who apparently was charged with making too slow progress because he was too par- ticular as to whom he invited into his union, and 234 Why Prohibition! the secretary was apparently trying to justify his position. But you may draw your own conclusions from this little episode. It certainly proves that there are a very considerable number of saloons which even the most low-down citizens should be afraid and ashamed to patronise. Railroad companies have abolished the common drinking glass. Each passenger is entitled to an in- dividual paper cup on up-to-date railroads. The common towel has long since disappeared from even the smaller hotels. The churches are discarding the common cup used for the communion service, small individual glasses being employed. In the cases mentioned, the average person using glass and towel and cup is at least a fairly decent in- dividual, having regard for his neighbour, and try- ing to observe the rules of cleanliness. But what about the saloon with respect to sanitary conditions ? With the exception of those who conduct the com- paratively few "cafes" for the benefit of the profes- sional, merchant, upper clerk class, and others in this group, the average saloonkeeper douses the used glass in a puddle of water, which, in a short time, becomes a pool for microbes, thick with germs and thus full of peril to every patron of the saloon. Men with tuberculosis and all kinds of malignant diseases patronise these saloons. No matter how Why the Saloon Must Go 235 vile the afflictions, the average bartender will sell such men drinks, endangering the health of all his customers. No man would consciously subject himself to the dangers which lurk in the saloonkeeper's water trough. The average man simply does not stop to think of this peril when he patronises a saloon. And so, what liquor itself may fail to do to some men, the disease-breeding glass, fresh from an im- mersion in the germ-laden "cleansing" water, does for them. It is doubtless true that some other places besides saloons use unsanitary glasses, but this is no excuse for the saloon, which could well afford to employ only modern methods for cleansing glassware. Be- sides, the contents of the glasses in these other places aren't as dangerous in themselves as are the contents of the glasses used in saloons and there aren't the same chances for "catching" the diseases often found among patronisers of some saloons. Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, pure food expert and for- mer "guardian of the national digestion," who can- not be regarded as a fanatical fighter of the liquor business, but who must always be considered as a scientist who dares to speak his convictions, has been saying some mighty interesting things with regard to the use of intoxicating liquor. Here are a few brief but striking sentences: "At least 75 per cent of the whiskey, beer and gin now 236 Why Prohibition! sold in New York would be eliminated if the adulterated beverages alone were banished. "The people must be educated up to an understanding of the harm which intoxicants inflict upon them; they must be shown clearly the ravages of alcohol upon the masses of those who use it, and they must be given definite proof of the effect upon the individual. This done the path to- ward temperance and Prohibition is well cleared. "All alcohol is harmful to the human system. This is admitted by the medical profession. "The idea of nation-wide Prohibition appears to be gain- ing ground every day, not only in this country, but all over the world. "I used to be opposed to any legislation on the part of the State or national government which tended to limit the right of people to eat or drink what they wished. I con- sidered it a question of personal privilege which did not concern the State. My views on this subject have under- gone a radical change within the last few years. I recog- nised the fact that the use and sale of habit-forming drugs should be curbed and regulated by the government, acting for the good of society. "Then came the question of adulterated foods. Should a man be allowed to manufacture and sell foods which were not pure, merely because of the right of each person to eat what he wished? If so, then at least the individual ought to be allowed to know what he is eating. The cause of tem- perance and the abolition of alcohol is closely allied to both these propositions. Therefore I am in favour of Prohibi- tion." And so it goes. The leaders in every walk of life Why the Saloon Must Go 237 in this and every other country who have the inter- ests of the people at heart are becoming increas- ingly conscious of the effects of liquor and of the saloon upon mankind. XI Taxation and Compensation THE liquor men are telling us that if saloons are abolished, the city and the county will lose all the money now being paid by the liquor business in the form of taxes. If it could be said that the liquor business resulted only in good, first to those who are engaged in it, and second to those who are consumers of liquor, the money received through the taxation of the liquor business might be regarded as a blessing to the com- munity. But we are compelled to pay out in return many times more than the taxes received, because of the evils which follow the consumption of intoxicating liquor. Liquor is responsible for 19 per cent, of the di- vorces, 25 per cent, of the poverty, 25 per cent, of the insanity, 37 per cent, of the pauperism, 45 per cent, of the child desertion, and 50 per cent, of the crime in this country. And this is a very conserva- tive statement. If we were to add the expense of maintaining the police departments, the cost of penitentiaries and 238 Taxation and Compensation 239 asylums of various kinds that the State is compelled to support to take care of the wreckage of the liquor business, the comparatively small amount obtained from the liquor tax would seem very slight indeed. Who makes up the most of this extra amount for which the liquor men do not pay through their taxes? The workingman. Whoever else may evade the payment of his taxes, the workingman must pay every cent of his. He pays them when he buys groceries or meat or shoes or clothing, or when he pays his rent. Ordinarily he does not pay his taxes direct, and so he does not see in exact figures just how much the saloon is actually costing him but he can make up his mind that for the most part he is taking care of the wreckage of the saloon. How long will the workingman be the "goat" of the liquor business? The United States Government receives annually three hundred million dollars from liquor dealers through the internal revenue tax. And the liquor men are insisting that if their busi- ness is destroyed and this sum of money is no longer paid into the treasury of our country, we are sure to lose the war and that other great calamities will befall us. As a matter of fact, who pays this three hundred million dollars? Surely not the liquor men; it is paid by the consumer the man who drinks booze. And what is this three hundred million dollars* 240 Why Prohibition! used for ? Presumably it is used to pay the legitimate expenses of the Government. If this is true, then it's a fair tax for all to pay. Why may it not be placed upon any commodity which is generally used by all the people ? For example, we spend as much for bread and clothing as we do for booze. If the three hundred million dollars now raised through the internal revenue tax were raised through taxation upon bread and clothing, it would amount to just three dollars per year per person. But this isn't what the average workingman would be compelled to pay. The apportionment of the en- tire sum would depend upon the amount and quality of the bread and clothing purchased. The well-to- do man pays more for his clothing than the working- man, and he would pay just that much more in pro- portion of the total tax. It is altogether likely that the average working- man would not pay more than one dollar per year the price of a two-cent postage stamp per week< if the entire internal revenue tax now paid by the liquor men were to be paid by bread and clothing manufac- turers. And it will be worth an extra two-cent postage stamp each week to live in the United States with all the saloons wiped out. Furthermore, our general expenditures will be reduced by three hundred million dollars if the saloons are abolished, because it will no longer be Taxation and Compensation 241 necessary to take care of the wreckage of the liquor business. It is altogether likely that we are paying fully as much as this through indirect taxation be- cause the saloons exist, and many of us are called upon to privately take care of many of those who have been wrecked by the liquor business. And again, the transfer of money now invested in the liquor business to legitimate industry will em- ploy 250,000 wage-earners four times as many wage-earners as are now employed in the manufac- ture of liquor. There are other important advantages which would come to us were we to obtain in other ways the amount now raised through the internal revenue tax upon the liquor business. Professor Irving Fisher, of Yale University, re- cently said: "It is penny-wise and pound-foolish to argue that prohi- bition destroys revenue it simply requires a transfer of taxes from alcoholic beverages to non-alcoholic beverages and the other productions to which our energies would be trans- ferred. The net result will obviously not be additional eco- nomic or tax burdens, but quite the contrary. One might as well argue against a public health measure to reduce the death rate on the grounds that it would reduce inheritance taxes. To keep alcohol for revenue is as comical as Charles Lamb's description of the Chinese method of roasting a pig by burning down a house with the pig inside." We need not be at all alarmed as to what will 242 Why Prohibition! become of the United States if the liquor men no longer make us a "present" of the three hundred million dollars they talk so much about. It is almost pathetic that so many people are de- luded by the liquor men's arguments that if the saloon is abolished, the taxes will be so greatly in- creased that their homes and their businesses will be lost. Let's assume that a town of 20,000 has twenty saloons, each of which pays one thousand dollars per year for a license fee making a total of twenty thousand dollars. The city would probably receive about fifteen thousand dollars of this amount be- cause the remainder would go to the State. Now, of course, the saloons in the town will have much of this fifteen thousand dollars returned to them in the form of police protection and other ad- vantages which come to the liquor business, because it is located in a well protected community. But in order to secure the fifteen thousand dol- lars in question, the people of the city are compelled to spend three hundred thousand dollars over the bars! Isn't this a wonderful financial system? Suppose the three hundred thousand dollars spent in the saloons of the city were spent in other stores in town ? There is no doubt that a very considerable number of additional clerks would be engaged and every merchant in town would be so much more prosperous that he would pay a larger tax because of his increased income and in the end the city would Taxation and Compensation 243 be much better off than it was when the three hun- dred thousand dollars were spent in the saloons. Assuming that there were absolutely no other method whereby the fifteen thousand dollars re- ceived from the saloons could be raised, and that it would come directly out of the pockets of the peo- ple, how much would it mean for each person in town? Fifteen thousand dollars divided among twenty thousand people would amount to seventy- five cents per year and this would "break" every householder in town wouldn't it just about one cent and a half per week! Now that the liquor business is on the run and even the liquor men themselves see their finish, they are beginning to talk about compensation they want the State to pay them for the "loss" of their busi- ness. Before we begin to pay over any money to the liquor men, let's look at a few perfectly plain facts. First: No liquor license is issued for more than one year at a time and no saloonkeeper has a right to expect that he shall be permitted to remain in business for a longer period. If he desires to make improvements in his enterprise, he does so at his own risk; he cannot expect the rest of us to pay for his losses in this respect. Second: No man has any right to hold or use property of any kind for any injurious purpose in any community. The courts have repeatedly said 244 Why Prohibition! that the saloon is a distinct detriment to every com- munity. Third:, It is not true that property upon which liquor has been made or sold is confiscated through prohibition. The land values remain the same; the buildings and much of the machinery may be used for other purposes, as is being demonstrated in every part of the United States where the liquor business has been destroyed. The property is never taken from the owner although it should be remembered that the use of property by liquor dealers usually reduces the value of nearby property. Fourth : Saloon fighters are willing to grant com- pensation to liquor men provided it is done in a legal manner. Waiving all technical terms, such matters are usually decided by taking into account the losses sustained by both parties in question. Let the saloon men make a statement as to the amount of money which they have actually lost through the abolition of their business and then let the City and the County and the State bring in their bills against the saloons for the extra expense to which they have been put in taking care of the wreck- age of the liquor business in public institutions. And then, if it is at all possible, let us express in the terms of cold cash the hot anguish of men, women and children who have suffered because of the exist- ence of the liquor business. The chances are when the books are balanced, that the liquor men will be paying money into the Treas- Taxation and Compensation 245 ury of the State, instead of the State paying money to the liquor men. And this is the only legal way whereby the ques- tion of compensation may be settled. This country has already outlawed slavery, polygamy, the lottery and the opium traffic and those who suffered financial loss were not compensated, because Governments never compensate those engaged in immoral pur- suits or in a traffic which is against the public wel- fare, and precisely the same principle applies to the liquor traffic. The Supreme Court of the United States has said "All property in the United States is held upon the implied condition that the owner's use of it shall not be injurious to the community." The Supreme Court of Ohio has said: "When a man invests his money in the liquor traffic, he takes the risk of having his property destroyed by State action to save society from the evils of his busi- ness." The United States Supreme Court has said : "The police power of the State is fully competent to regu- late the liquor business, to mitigate its evils or to sup- press it entirely." It would be as fair to compensate a burglar when taking away his tools as to compensate liquor men when the State can no longer tolerate the work of destruction carried on by the liquor business. The arguments of the liquor men regarding com- pensation are based upon the assumption that they 246 Why Prohibition! are conducting a legitimate industry, having the same legal status as have dealers in food, clothes or house- hold goods, but the courts have denied to it all natural or inherent rights of commerce. Its status before the law is that of a legalised outlaw. The United States Supreme Court has declared, "There is no inherent right in a citizen to sell in- toxicating liquors by retail; it is not a privilege of a citizen of the state, or of a citizen of the United States " The authority for outlawing the traffic at will of he Government is given in these words: "As it is a business attended with danger to the community it may be entirely prohibited, or be permitted under such conditions as shall limit to the utmost its evils. The manner and extent of regulation rest in the dis- cretion of the governing authority." Samuel Wilson, of the Anti-Saloon League of New Jersey in his pamphlet entitled "Compensation," calls attention to some interesting facts regarding this subject. He says: "Prohibition is the basic law, modified by authority to grant the privilege to sell upon specified conditions. In New Jersey the opening words of the Werts Act, which is the general license law, are 'Hereafter no license to keep an inn or tavern or to sell shall be granted except, etc.' " "A license is merely a temporary suspension of prohibition," says Mr. Wilson. Any person who Taxation and Compensation 247 does not buy this temporary immunity from the pen- alties that attach to the sale of alcoholic liquor is under a prohibition law and becomes a criminal if he deals in liquor. Those who advocate compensation insist that the Government is a partner in the saloon business and as a fair partner must help stand the loss when the business is abolished. But Mr. Wilson points out that a partnership is a business agreement with mutual investments and mutual sharings of profits and losses. The relation between Government and the saloon has nothing whatever to do with profits or losses. If the collection of revenue constitutes Uncle Sam a partner, then like collections from dealers in to- bacco or oleomargarine, and the duties paid by im- porters of a thousand articles of commerce, the internal revenue tax on sales of stock, telegraph and telephone messages, railway and sleeping car tickets, makes him a profit-sharer in all these varied indus- tries. Municipalities collect license fees from owners of dogs. Are they partners in the ownership and jointly responsible with the master of the dog should it bite a citizen? What about peddlers and jitney drivers is the Government in partnership with these, simply be- cause they pay the Government a license ? The compensation argument is an assumption that the license granted to a dealer, or the receipt for 248 Why Prohibition! taxes paid to the Federal Government, have intrinsic value as property. It is the refusal to reissue the privilege to sell that raises objections from the out- lawed liquor dealers the real property losses are merely incidental. As expressed in a decision of the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey, written by the Chief Justice: "License is in no sense property. It is a mere temporary permit to do what otherwise would be illegal, issued in the exercise of the police power." The Supreme Court of the United States ren- dered the following decision in 1887: "There is here no justification for holding that the State, under the guise merely of police regulation, is aiming to deprive the citizen of his constitutional rights; for we can- not shut out of view the fact, within the knowledge of all, that the public health, the public morals and the public safety may be endangered by the general use of intoxicating drinks; nor the fact, established by statistics accessible to every one, that the disorder, pauperism and crime prevalent in the country are in some degree at least traceable to this evil. "The principle that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, was em- bodied in substance, in the constitutions of nearly all, if not all, of the several states at the time of the adoption of the 1 4th amendment, and it has never been regarded as incompatible with the principle, equally vital, because essen- tial to the peace and safety of society, that all property in Taxation and Compensation 249 this country is held under the implied obligation that the owner's use of it shall not be injurious to the community. "Such legislation does not disturb the owner in the con- trol or use of his property for lawful purposes, nor restrict his right to dispose of it, but is only a declaration by the State that its use by any one for certain forbidden purposes is prejudicial to the public interests. Nor can legislation of that character come within the I4th amendment in any case, unless it is apparent that its real object is not to pro- tect the community or to promote the general well-being, but, under the guise of police regulations, to deprive the owner of his liberty and property without due process of law. "The power which the states unquestionably have of prohibiting such use of individuals of their property as will be prejudicial to the health, the morals or the safety of the public is not, and consistently with the existence and safety of organised society cannot be burdened with the condition that the State must compensate such individual owners for pecuniary losses they sustain, by reason of their not being permitted by a noxious use of their property to inflict injury upon the community. The exercise of the police power by the destruction of property which is itself a public nuisance, or the prohibition of its use in a particular way, whereby its value becomes depreciated, is very different from taking property for public use, or from depriving a person of his property without due process of law. In the one case, a nuisance only is abated ; in the other, unoffending property is taken away from an innocent owner." And here is another decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of California versus 250 Why Prohibition! Christensen in which it is pointed out that no man has an inherent right to sell liquor: "It is urged that as the liquors are used as a beverage, and the injury following them, if used in excess, is volun- tarily inflicted, and is confined to the party offending, their sale should be without restriction, the contention being that what a man shall drink, equally with what he shall eat, is not properly a matter for legislation. "There is in this position an assumption of fact which does not exist, that when the liquors are taken in excess the in- juries are confined to the party offending. The injury, it is true, falls first upon him in his health, which the habit un- dermines; in his morals, which it weakens; and in the self- abasement which it creates. But as it leads to neglect of business and waste of property and general demoralisation it affects those who are immediately connected with and dependent upon him. By the general concurrence of opinion in every Christian and civilised community, there are few sources of crime and misery to society equal to the dram- shop, where intoxicating liquors in small quantities, to be drunk at the time, are sold indiscriminately to all parties applying. The statistics of every State show a greater amount of crime and misery attributable to the use of ardent spirits obtained in these retail liquor saloons than to any other source. "The sale of such liquors in this way has, therefore, been, at all times by the Courts of every State, considered as the proper subject of legislative action. Not only may a license be exacted from the keeper of the saloon before a glass of his liquor can thus be disposed of, but restrictions may be imposed as to the class of persons to whom they may be Taxation and Compensation 251 sold, and the hours of the day, and the days of the week on which the saloons may be opened. Their sale in that form may be absolutely prohibited. There is no inherent right in the citizen to sell intoxicating liquors by retail; it is not a privilege of a citizen of the State or of a citizen of the United States. As it is a business attended with danger to the community, it may, as already said, be entirely pro- hibited, or be permitted under such conditions as will limit to the utmost its evils. The manner and extent of regula- tion rest in the discretion of the governing authority." If no man may use his property to the injury of society, then, by the same token, no man may use his labour power to the injury of society. If it is wrong for one man to run a saloon be- cause were he to do so it would hurt his fellowman, it is equally wrong for another man to manufacture the material which may afterward be sold to the hurt of his fellowman. Every argument that one uses against the saloon- keeper may be used, in principle, at any rate, against the workingman who is employed as a brewer, a dis- tiller, a rectifier or a maltster, to say nothing about the bartender. XII Substitutes for the Saloon iWlTH the closing of the saloon in so many states there has naturally arisen a desire to provide sub- stitutes. It is the old story of the penalty of prog- ress in ending old abuses, we create new problems. Long ago we were taught the lesson that a house "swept and garnished" is not sufficient and this has a most vital relationship to the question of nation- or state-wide prohibition. It is foolish to insist that the saloon never served any good purpose. It is true that the good in the saloon was out-weighed by the evil that was in them but there was good it meant a great deal to many of those who patronised it. The fact that the sa- loons are closed does not necessarily prove that the needs of these men no longer exist. We have been discussing the bad features of the saloon. Let us consider some of its strong points in order to find out just what is required to provide those things which must take their places. What is it that makes the saloon so attractive? The fundamental reason must be that it supplies in a natural manner the demand for a social centre, be- 252 Substitutes for the Saloon 253 cause everywhere men accept it as an agency which ministers to certain social needs. It is not the drinking habit alone strong as this may be. It is quite true that a considerable number of men have said that the only thing that drove them to the saloon was the desire for strong drink, and they are impatient with others who declare that this was not the chief attraction for them. But they must not judge all others by their own tastes and inclina- tions. Several outstanding peculiarities immediately strike one as the saloon is studied. In the first place, there is the perfectly natural way in which the saloon is conducted. There's nothing strained about it. Men aren't made too welcome. Few restrictions are imposed. Those who conduct the place make them- selves as inconspicuous and as unobtrusive as they can. They believe in the saying, "I must decrease, while my customer must increase"; at least this is the practise in the best and most successful saloons. Those who patronise the saloon usually have noth- ing special done for them. They pay for what they get, and they do it cheerfully often hilariously. There's a spirit of democracy about the saloon which is tremendously appealing. A five cent piece places the average man upon an equality with everybody else in the place. When I was in the machine shop and attended the meetings of my labour organisation, we met in the back room of a saloon. We met there for two rea- 254 Why Prohibition! sons : first, oecause the saloonkeeper charged no rent for the use of the hall, and second, because there was no other place in which we could meet, as every hall in that part of the city which was at all convenient was owned by a saloonkeeper. Because saloonkeep- ers have a monopoly of most of the cheap halls in the larger cities, they become the meeting places of social clubs, labour unions, lodges and practically every other organisation of the poorer people. Here, too, they have their christenings, their wed- dings, their dances and other social functions, espe- cially among the immigrant populations. Unless they are connected in some way with the church, most of the people in the community look upon the saloon as the social clearing house of the neighbour- hood. It is from here that the gossip of the neigh- bourhood goes out. It is to the saloons that the political parties often look for their greatest strength. A famous New York politician once said that he would rather have one saloon back him than ten churches. The thing that impresses one about the saloon is that it is always handy it is always there. You will find it in the most prominent places in the city, for saloonkeepers usually select the best sites in town. Saloons are well lighted and they are warm in win- ter and cool in summer. Did you ever realise how attractive is the free lunch offered by the saloon- keeper? It is usually served in an appetising man- ner and in almost unlimited quantities. The saloon Substitutes for the Saloon 255 daily feeds thousands of clerks and workingmen who thus secure their noonday luncheon for the cost of two glasses of beer and often for the cost of only one. Frequently a small charge is made for a special lunch which is far superior to the unattractive meals served in the cheap, dirty restaurants to which many otherwise would be compelled to go. It is quite a common thing for a man who is "broke" to go into a saloon and if he doesn't look like an out and out hobo or bum, he is invited to take some of the lunch and he isn't asked to "go slow" on the lunch either. "Let no hungry man pass my door," reads a sign in front of a Buffalo saloon. N ?r is the man who has only five cents in his pocket compelled to drink beer in order to get the free lunch he may have a glass of milk or soda water, ginger ale or some other soft drink and he will be treated just as courteously as though he drank straight-out booze. Here's the story of a workingman-preacher's ex- perience one who went out to see what it was like to live as an ordinary man he worked at his trade of carpenter. One time, two days before pay day, he had no money and he went into a bakery to ask for enough bread to last until Saturday, when he should receive his pay, offering to leave his hammer, for which he had no immediate use, as a guarantee that he would pay. But the baker would have nothing to do with him. He then tried another tradesman with like 256 Why Prohibition! results, and then he went into a saloon where he had eaten his luncheon several times and without any hesitancy the bartender said to him "sure, come in and eat what you like, and if you want to, come in again you look square" and he wouldn't take the hammer. The saloonkeeper himself is a factor in the prob- lem. His cordial greeting, his neat appearance, his large acquaintance, not only with the men in the community, but beyond, his superior sources of in- formation, make him a great influence. Often he se- cures work for both the workingman and his chil- dren. He loans him money without setting up the "work test" of the charity organisation societies. No questions are asked as to whether or not the recipient is deserving; frequently he lends "hoping nothing in return." This is part of the general business policy of the saloon, which depends so largely upon the spirit of good fellowship which must be of first importance in the successful conduct of the enterprise. The sa- loonkeeper understands human nature. This is his chief stock in trade. It is his business to attract men and to so attract them that they will continue to make his place a permanent rendezvous. He seeks to secure as much transient trade as possible but his chief dependence is upon the men who come day after day and night after night bringing their friends with them. It is the treating habit that makes the saloon business pay. Substitutes for the Saloon 257 Comparatively few excepting those conducting the lower kinds of saloons will permit a man to become intoxicated in their places; they will not permit swearing, indecent stories are prohibited, no gambling is allowed. Many of their families are in the churches, not only in the Catholic churches but in the Protestant as well. None treat the preacher more cordially than the saloonkeeper when the min- ister makes a pastoral call. In short, the saloonkeeper is decidedly a human being; this must be taken into account in dealing with him. Those who patronise the saloon smile at the caricatures of the saloonkeeper that appear in some temperance journals, showing him as a creature with cloven hoofs and a demon's face. Such a person would attract no one least of all a man who is searching for a place that will satisfy his social needs. Some of those who have studied the saloon and seen the natural attractions, have thought that the saloon itself might be reformed and used as a "sub- stitute." The "Subway Tavern" was perhaps the most con- spicuous illustration of such attempts. Every pos- sible objection that had been raised against the or- dinary saloon was considered in this enterprise in- augurated by Bishop Potter and his friends in lower New York. This was to be an "ideal" saloon. It was to be demonstrated that a saloon in which intoxicating 258 Why Prohibition! liquors were sold could be so conducted for the bene- fit of workingmen as to make it practically free from the evils which are now charged against regular drinking places. After a year's trial the institution was voted a com- plete failure. Whatever may have been the causes which led to its discontinuance, it is interesting to note the comments of the purchaser who afterward ran it as a common bar. On the walls of this saloon which reverted to its original type he posted cards bearing these sen- tences : "Rum and religion won't mix any more than oil and water." "You cannot follow the Lord and chase the devil at the same time." "A saloon is a place for drink, not worship." "Religion follows rum; it does not go with it hand in hand. A man thinks of religion the morning after." "You cannot boom drink and temperance too." "Running a saloon by telling people of the deadly effects of rum is like telling a man to please buy poison because the undertaker needs the money." "The best patron of a saloon is the man with the biggest thirst, not the man with the most religion." "They sang the Doxology when they opened the place. We'll sing 'Here's to good old wine/ " This was really another illustration of the fact that the saloon cannot be reformed, because the basis of its business is bad. Substitutes for the Saloon 259 But what about a substitute for the saloon what can take its place? -There is no panacea no one thing that can take the place of the saloon. An institution which has in it so many serious objections many of which con- stitute its main charm and attractiveness for those who patronise it cannot very well be duplicated minus all these features and still be a success. ; What we need to do is to try to discover what are the really good features of the saloon, and then to incorporate them in existing agencies or organise new ones which will meet the situation. It cannot be urged too strongly upon those who are studying the question of saloon substitutes that they must be willing to study all the conditions which are involved. If they expect some one to present them with a set of blue prints, or diagrams, with rules and regulations for running a saloon substitute, they are destined to be very much disappointed. There are no such specifications. It is essential to make a social "survey" or study of the problem in the local community. This does not necessitate a complicated investigation, but it means among other things, that one must know some- thing about the kind of men for whom the saloon substitute is to be provided. For the "lumber-jack" a substitute is required which is quite different from that provided for the young men in a country village. Sailors who frequent our coast cities are in a class by themselves. Skilled artisans in manufacturing 260 Why Prohibition! centres have ideas of their own as to what they want. Different groups of foreign-speaking workers must be studied systematically, for they have their pecu- liar prejudices, their likes and dislikes. Most commonly one hears that coffee houses will supply all the needs of those who formerly patron- ised the saloons, but this is usually true only when conducted for such groups as cabmen, teamsters, or other street or night workers who patronise them mostly for the sake of the hot drinks which they need on cold winter days or nights. For these the well- known wagons or small stands on wheels are best suited. Reading-rooms may be very easily organised, but they are exceedingly difficult to maintain under or- dinary circumstances, largely because they lack the efficient management which one finds in a public library, for example, where the service is continu- ous, well ordered and fairly complete. There is no reason, however, why a successful reading-room may not be conducted separate and apart from a public library, but as a rule, if there are ample facilities in the public library this serves all the purposes of this kind required, and should be heartily supported by anti-saloon fighters. A well set-up soft drink parlor and billiard room combined may be successfully conducted assuming that the management is broad enough to understand just what the requirements are. "Comfort stations" or public toilets are one of Substitutes for the Saloon 261 the greatest needs in the average city. Large num- bers of men patronise saloons merely for the pur- pose of using the toilet facilities which are freely offered, and, of course, they feel the necessity of taking a drink when passing through the barroom., Motion picture houses have undoubtedly proven themselves to be the chief rivals of the saloon. Nothing else quite approaches them in this respect, and the motion picture house, when properly con- ducted, often serves as a saloon substitute without any further thought on the part of those who are concerned about the question from the anti-saloon standpoint. Saloonkeepers have realised that the movie is sup- planting the saloon in the big town, and they are or- ganising to fight it. And when the saloonkeepers or- ganise to fight motion picture houses it is a sign that the picture shows are either very, very bad, or very, very good that they are so much worse than the saloon that even a saloonkeeper cannot stand for them, or else that they are so much better than the saloon that they threaten to injure the saloonkeep- er's business. There is no doubt that the latter is the actual situation. "The liquor industry has not appreciated the scope of the moving pictures in their harmful effects on the liquor business," says the editor of Mida's Criterion a liquor man's paper. He insists that liquor is always portrayed in a most unfavourable light by the movies; u drink bouts, 262 Why Prohibition! cabarets that are draining youth of manhood, and maidenhood of virginity, murders following the use of the bottle and pretty nearly everything else that makes liquor the arch-villain, will be found nightly in most of the picture theatres in this country," says the editor of this liquor paper. Very rarely does the movie present the drinking of booze as a habit which makes for better manhood and womanhood. It is usually the villain or the fool in the play who is given the part of the booze drinker. No wonder that the editor of Mida's Criterion is dispirited and that he asks plaintively, "What are we going to do about the MOVIE MENACE? That's its name in capital letters. It is the subtle, insidious, back-door gossip of the liquor industry, and it has made a million hammers, but not one solitary horn for the liquor business !" And the editor ought to know ! If what the liquor men say regarding the movies is true every one who is opposed to the saloon should come out strong for the motion picture house. Nobody knows just how many motion picture houses there are in this country, but 15,000 would probably be a conservative estimate. If the average daily attendance for each of the 15,000 motion pic- ture houses is 400, about 6,000,000 people see the movies every day. Anyway, it's safe to say that every week 25,000,000 people "take in" the movies. And if these 25,000,000 "movie fans" are taught that the use of booze is bad or foolish, then the mo- Substitutes for the Saloon 263 tion picture show is a mighty good propaganda medium for the anti-saloon men. The motion picture house possesses many of the virtues of the saloon, and practically none of its vices. Here is found the free normal atmosphere to which the average man is accustomed. Attentions are not forced upon him. He may come and go as he pleases. There's no one at the door to bid him an embarrassing welcome or speed him a confusing farewell. He doesn't have to talk about himself and his affairs, nor about his family. The average work- ingman is about as shy a creature out of his natural element as one can find anywhere. In the motion picture house he may come and go in the dark. He isn't compelled to wear good clothes^ he doesn't even have to change his shirt or put on a stiff linen collar. He can come just as he is. To the average workingman "dressing up" is an intolerable burden. When a man takes the little ticket that is flipped at him through the cleverly contrived machine in the selling booth in front of the picture house he takes it with a feeling of independence, and he passes into the show with his head up. Furthermore, he can take his wife and children. He cannot take them to the saloon. The working- man can afford to take his family to the picture show, because it usually costs him no more than if he spent the evening in a saloon. And he feels a lot better for it the morning after. This often induces him to try it again. A few such experiences and the en- 264 Why Prohibition! tire family are regular customers at the motion pic- ture house. Whereas in the saloon the evening is usually spent in an inane or worse manner, the modern motion pic- ture show has in it a distinct educational advantage, and the education comes in a form which is palatable and easily digested. The mind isn't taxed unduly. The workingman really hasn't much mind left at the end of an average day's work. Also, popular edu- cational films are interspersed with others of a dramatic or humorous character. Sometimes the dramatic picture has an element of moral or ethical teaching which is decidedly wholesome. The inane harmful film is rapidly disappearing even from the cheaper houses. The entire film business is on the up grade. Where this is not the case, it usually happens that the people who have constructive sug- gestions are not co-operating with the picture house manager. It is surprising how readily he will work with an intelligent, broad-minded group of persons who have taken pains to study the motion picture business and its possibilities. To what extent the Church or the school may en- gage in the motion picture business depends upon the character of the neighbourhood, the ability to prop- erly finance such an enterprise, the opportunity for making a selection of the right kind of films, and some other questions which may be peculiar to the lo- cality or the organisation attempting it. But prin- cipally, it is a matter of conducting the enterprise in a Substitutes for the Saloon 265 business-like manner, for running a motion picture show isn't a job for amateurs it requires specialisa- tion and experience, which, however, may be ac- quired by educational and religious institutions if brains and energy are put into the task. Chiefly, one must have studied the element of human nature. Ten per cent, of the workingmen in large cities eat their lunches in saloons, according to the study of the habits of life of one thousand workingmen already referred to. It would be a great advantage if employers of labour were to furnish separate places in which their employes might eat their luncheons, but of all those involved in this study only 1 6 per cent, replied that this was the case in the shops in which they worked. Hot coffee, or milk, or other soft drinks might be served with advantage. There should be absolute freedom from paternalism, every feature of the enterprise being conducted in a democratic spirit and as nearly as possible upon a self-supporting basis. Public drinking stands or fountains should be pro- vided which should be sanitary in every particular, and there should be a sufficient number to supply the needs of the people, especially in the poorer parts of the city not merely in parks or recreation centres. The expense of furnishing these fountains is com- paratively small. In this connection it is well to remember that the saloons have made it their busi- ness to furnish drinking troughs for horses, and this has served as an attraction to the saloon itself; 266 Why Prohibition! for the drivers of these horses, out of a sense of gratitude, or because they feel impelled to do so for other reasons, enter the saloon to buy drinks for themselves. This arrangement is unsanitary for the horses, for they are just as liable as humans to suf- fer from the "common drinking cup" but facilities should be provided for furnishing water to horses whose drivers have their own drinking pails. The desire for sociability which is often satisfied in the saloon is a legitimate one, and it must be reck- oned with when one is considering substitutes. In the saloon the average man may "shake out his heart." Here he finds a freedom which makes the saloon peculiarly attractive. Workingmen will sit about the tables and for hours at a time discuss with perfect freedom the questions which so vitally con- cern them. Saloons that contain stalls are always popular. Small parties of men sometimes like to get together in private conference and talk over personal mat- ters. Perhaps a few old-time friends have just met and they want to be alone. At present they go to the saloon for this conference, and, of course, they take a drink. And often they aren't through drink- ing until each man in the party treats the rest. A saloon substitute might well be equipped with such stalls where similar conferences may be held. Lounging and rest rooms are a very essential fea- ture of a saloon substitute. Substitutes for the Saloon 267 Saloons have free 'phones. This should also be a feature of the saloon substitute. At present there are very few places where men may go to enjoy the privileges of the shower bath and the swimming pool. Men do not naturally pre- fer to live in filth; they will be clean if they are given an opportunity to do so. The Y. M. C. A. has made such provision, but the patrons of the saloon and the Y. M. C. A. have very little in com- mon. The open forum idea should be developed. For here men will find that which so readily appeals to them they may talk back at the speaker and ex- press their own convictions. The open forum prin- ciple is really developed to a considerable extent in the average saloon, for here workingmen and others find an opportunity to freely express them- selves. Properly organised, the open forum, in this respect at any rate, may be made much more attrac- tive than the saloon, for the discussion is more in- telligent in the open forum. "Labour Temples" have become exceedingly popu- lar, especially with the organised workingmen. In- toxicating liquor is rarely, if ever, permitted inside these buildings. These practically become social centres for the members of trade unions and their families. Not only does one find the regular head- quarters of the union in these buildings, but fre- quently special social affairs are conducted. Lectures are given and the smaller rooms are used for parties 268 Why Prohibition! of various kinds. In many parts of this country stock companies for the purpose of erecting Labour Temples have been organised, and it is suggested wherever possible that those interested in furnish- ing saloon substitutes for workingmen help these or- ganisations by purchasing stock, thus making it easier for the workers to realise their laudable ambitions. In most cases such stock will provide a fairly good financial investment. But even though no financial returns are received it would be a good investment anyway. Workingmen also frequently organise social and athletic clubs of their own, assuming entire respon- sibility for their management and support. Such enterprises should not only be heartily encouraged, but, whenever the opportunity offers, they should be made more easily possible for the workers who may not have a sufficient amount of money to conduct them as they would like, their personal efforts be- ing supplemented by those interested in such enter- prises. School-houses belong to the people. They have a right to use them, in spite of the technicalities upon which trustees and other governing bodies sometimes deny their use to the masses. School buildings may be used in many ways. One of the good things about them is that their use appeals to the entire family. Indeed, a school-house may more easily become the social centre for the community than any other estab- lished institution which one may find in the ordinary Substitutes for the Saloon 269 city. It should not be very difficult to keep the buildings in such a sanitary condition as to make them usable during the day for the children, and for their parents during the evening. In many cities evening lecture courses are provided in the public schools. These are of a popular character, and ap- peal even to the uneducated among working people. In most cities social settlement buildings have been established. Ordinarily they are conducted upon a thoroughly democratic basis. The rooms of the set- tlement may be employed for clubs composed of men or women in the neighbourhood. Many churches are in a position to furnish facil- ities which may answer the needs we are considering. The effectiveness of the Church as a saloon substi- tute depends largely upon its location, the breadth of view of those in authority, and its freedom from sec- tarianism. Whether the Church itself may serve as a social centre or whether it might be better to operate through an outside organisation, must be determined by each Church for itself. One of the best methods of providing saloon sub- stitutes is that of furnishing a general social centre which will provide gymnasiums, bowling alleys, card tables and games, baths and swimming pools and halls for lecture courses. There might be refresh- ment rooms, lodge and club rooms which may be rented at a nominal cost. It is true that under or- dinary circumstances such substitutes are patronised chiefly by young men and women, and in but a few: 270 Why Prohibition 1 cases by adult artisans. However, they do serve a good purpose to this extent. In conducting an enterprise of this kind ample facilities should be provided for women especially of the industrial class, for there is no group which needs the right kind of a social centre more than working women. And if there were more recreational centres of a wholesome character in which young men and women might together enjoy their leisure time without too many artificial restrictions and too much espionage > a real need would be met. When a social centre is conducted in a "down- town" district or in some other section of the city where men predominate especially men who are in the city temporarily, as for example, sailors, soldiers, farm hands, lumber-jacks and others of this type. * it is necessary to conduct the enterprise in a manner peculiarly adapted to meet their needs. But while a vigorous and possibly a somewhat noisy programme may be essential in some parts of the building, pro- vision should be made for games and other features of a quieter nature. Saloons are frequently used as employment agencies and for banking purposes. One of the worst features of this practice is that the temptation to spend wages for drink is almost irresistible. Here is a field for real service in the saloon substitute. It may be desirable to provide dormitories for men. This would be of immense advantage to large Substitute^ for the Saloon 271 numbers who, especially during the winter season in our great cities, spend the nights in the back rooms of saloons. The social centre may during the year become the home for thousands of homeless men who now spend their time on the streets or in the barroom, because there is no other place to which they can go. We have not begun to appreciate the value and attractiveness of the drama for the people. Of course, it is well known that the theatre is tremen- dously appealing, but there are great possibilities in this field to depict the life and the hopes and the aspirations of workingmen which have not yet seemed to grip those who are in a position to de- velop dramatics among the working classes. With a combination of semi-professional and amateur per- formers gotten together for the presentation of plays of various kinds, of tableaux, and even of vaude- ville of a. high order, attractive programmes may be worked out in local communities. For those who have talent in this direction there is abundant op- portunity to serve the people. Music is a most appealing feature. Why may not concert halls in which high-grade music is regularly furnished be provided as a saloon substitute? These concert halls should be placed not so much in the so-called "uptown" districts, but in great halls in the centre of the section in which the poorest people live i. e., in the same districts which were pre- viously occupied by the saloons. Choral unions com- 272 Why Prohibition! posed of the young people from the churches or any others who desire to learn how to sing may become the centre about which such concerts might be or- ganised. Other musical organisations will readily suggest themselves. Wherever it is not possible to organise an elaborate musical society or even to fur- nish an orchestra or band, one may still rely upon a first-class phonograph or even an orchestrion. The phonograph has in it great possibilities for furnish- ing high-grade music. A pianola may also be em- ployed with good effect. During the summer season when outdoor recrea- tion is required public parks may serve as saloon substitutes. But such parks should contain features which will make them the actual playgrounds for the people, and these features should furnish or- ganised amusement for adults as well as children. In cities which are located on water fronts recrea- tion piers will be found exceedingly valuable. It would be an ideal thing if the average saloon substitute could be conducted by the municipality or the State, for this would give it a degree of perma- nence which is not always possible when it is de- pendent upon private philanthropy for its mainte- nance private philanthropy is often spasmodic. Furthermore, when the city conducts such an enter- prise it promptly eliminates the element of patronage or paternalism, because the average man would look upon such an institution in the same way in which he regards the public school which his children at- Substitutes for the Saloon 273 tend. He feels that to a degree, at any rate, he is a taxpayer, and that he, himself, is helping to main- tain the enterprise in whosebenefits he is participating. However, saloon substitutes or social centres con- ducted by interested individuals may do certain things which the city's "plant" may not carry out with the same degree of freedom and adaptability. So that one need not feel discouraged or inclined to dismiss the whole matter simply because the city is not in a position or is unwilling to undertake the support of a social centre. It is important that the enterprise, whatever it may be, should not be called a "saloon substitute." The fact that one is trying to "reform" somebody through a saloon substitute immediately makes the "some- body" resent the implied superiority. Therefore, whatever is attempted should be done in the most natural and unobtrusive fashion that is, one may give the enterprise all the publicity that one may be able to secure for it, but the publicity should be given the work itself, and not to the phrase, "saloon sub- stitute." At the risk of repetition I would emphasise two important considerations : First, is the necessity of making the work as self- supporting as possible. The average American workingman prefers to pay his way, and this is a spirit which should be encouraged and heartily com- mended. True, he may not be able to pay his just share of the expense, but he should be asked to pay 274 L Why Prohibition! all that Tie can afford for his own sake, as well as for the sake of securing a larger measure of support for the enterprise itself. Second, it is highly important that the enterprise be thoroughly democratised. Anything that is man- aged purely from above is bound to fail with the average man. So far as possible plans and ideals should be permitted to emerge from the people, themselves, for, after all, the work is conducted to supply their needs and to satisfy their desires not to give gratification to those who may be its chief supporters or promoters. There must not be too much government, too much discipline, too many rules and regulations about the kind of an enterprise that we are discussing. It has been said that married men spend more time in the saloon than single men. This is some- what startling, because married life is supposed to have a sobering effect upon a man. Can it be that in many of these cases the home has failed to func- tion? For let it be said with all the emphasis pos- sible that in the last analysis the home must be the best substitute for the saloon. It is very generally true that men do not do their part in making the home what it should be from the social standpoint; and perhaps too much has been said about wives failing to make themselves and their homes more attractive, thus "driving their poor husbands to drink." Perhaps no satisfactory solution may be found of Substitutes for the Saloon 275 this particular aspect of the problem until in some way it becomes possible to provide more cheerful homes for working people, in point of ventilation, light, space and general outlook. This condition must be met by men and women of large social con- ceptions. It may be taken up by the municipality or the State somebody must do it, for it is unfair and short-sighted to charge up to married men and women social sins and omissions for which they are only in part responsible. When one discusses the question of what is going to happen when the saloons are closed it is exceed- ingly important to have in mind the causes which impel men to go to the saloon, outside of what the saloon itself has to offer. For let it be remembered there are other social evils besides the saloon in which men may find refuge when the saloons are closed, unless the pressures of life are taken off. Will the strain of the day's work be relieved when the saloons are put out of business ? It will, for some men, undoubtedly. Will workingmen have better homes to go to? Many will, unquestionably. But for the great mass of men, the ordinary men, of whom there are so many, these blessings may be a long time coming, unless society or the State as a whole sees to it that better general social and economic conditions prevail. The strong, indepen- dent workingman will fight his own battles, and he will carry with him many others of his class, but he cannot do it all the rest of us must help. XIII How Prohibition Works in Practice UNTIL we have learned to reproduce in blue prints and statistics human joy and happiness, it will be impossible to satisfactorily tabulate the immediate and the permanent effects of prohibition. For after all, the best results of prohibition come in terms of the mind and heart. But one will never need to be a sociologist or a psychologist to determine for himself whether or not prohibition is a good thing or a bad thing for a community. The fruits of prohibition are too obvious. Liquor men have been saying rather persistently that while it may be possible to vote out the saloon, it is impossible to keep out booze but we may set it down for a fact that the wettest "dry" State is drier than the driest "wet" State. If liquor is sold against the law in any commun- ity, or in any State, the liquor men are responsible for it and they should be prosecuted to the full ex- tent of the law. The amazing thing is that they have the boldness to boast of their lawlessness and 276 How Prohibition Works 277 with unashamed faces to declare that no matter what the people say, they will continue to sell liquor. But does prohibition work in practice? Let us call the witnesses who know the facts. First of all, let us call the liquor men themselves and they can speak with some degree of authority. If prohibition is not effective, then why is it that the liquor men are fighting it so strenuously, making every sacrifice in order to keep prohibition out of their cities and states and out of the constitutional law? Why do they spend immense sums of money to oppose the prohibitionists if it does not affect their business very materially? Why is it that liquor men are rapidly changing their plans so that instead of producing u shoots and booze/' they are turning out boots and shoes? If prohibition isn't effective why does every liquor journal devote most of its space to a discussion of the "menace of prohibition"? It's because the liquor men know that prohibition prohibits. The principal of a commercial high school in Brooklyn, N. Y., has for years had a standing offer that if any man will name any one of the two thou- sand or more cities, villages or towns which have had their saloons out five years or more, that has a higher tax rate than when it had saloons, or than any neigh- bouring saloon town has, other things being equal, he 278 Why Prohibition! would pay one hundred dollars for the name of the town. He also declares that if any man will find among these towns that have been dry for five years or more any town in which the books of the merchants in reputable businesses such as groceries, clothing stores, shoe stores, real estate, manufacturing, etc., do not show that they are doing more business and better business than when they had saloons, or than any neighbouring saloon towns, other things being equal, he will pay one hundred dollars cash for the name of the town. Nobody has yet taken up this offer it's because prohibition makes good in practice. When the question of u No-License" was being voted upon in Boston, Eugene M. Foss, formerly Governor of Massachusetts, printed this challenge in the Boston daily newspapers : "I make the following proposition to the voters in Bos- ton : 'I will agree to see the city of Boston harmless so far as the loss of revenue from liquor licenses, water rents and all other revenues connected with the saloon business of Boston is concerned, provided the city of Boston will enter into a contract with me for a term of five years to give me one-half of any savings that the city may make directly or indirectly, on account of the city going "No-License." This matter to be referred to a commission of three, the Mayor of Boston to appoint one, I to appoint one, these two to choose the third member.' How Prohibition Works 279 "I will put up a Bond of $1,000,000 to protect the city in this agreement." But the challenge was not accepted. Colorado has had a chance to try out prohibition and here is the testimony of leading labour men re- garding the results so far as they affect the workers. Chester J. Common, president of the Building Trades Council of Denver, says: "I am frank to say I voted against the prohibition move- ment, thinking it would hurt business in a general way. "Organised labour in Colorado is in better shape than it has been for years. Our members are better fed, better clothed and have more money in the banks than any time since I have been in Colorado 14 years." William C. Thornton, President of the Denver Trades and Labour Assembly, also states that he voted against prohibition. "I venture to assert," says Mr. Thornton, "outside of the old saloon interests, you couldn't muster a corporal's guard in the labour movement of Denver to-day, who would say that they were in favour of the return of the saloon." The strongest endorsement of the Prohibition law in Colorado comes from Otto F. Thum, the first President of the Colorado Federation of Labor and nationally known in trade union circles. Mr. Thum says that prohibition has strengthened 28o Why Prohibition! organised labour in that state, and that it is in better condition to-day than ever before. "Brewers and maltsters," writes Mr. Thum, "have suf- fered loss in their trade, but the other departments of the brewery workers are still intact bottlers, drivers, engine- men, and stablemen. These are all thriving. "But to the surprise of all, the cigarmakers have more members at work in Denver now than at any other time. Barbers have more members employed than ever before. "The movies are the greatest beneficiaries, and we have one of the strongest movie operators' unions in the whole country. The musicians feared that they would suffer be- cause of the loss of the cabaret. But they are more than compensated by the gain in the movies, where they are much more numerously employed under vastly better conditions than in the saloons. The milk business has grown beyond comprehension, and we expect to organise these in the near future. "In Denver we have been for many years trying to get the boys to build a Labour Temple, but were always thrown down by a sinister influence the saloons. We have 108 unions in Denver and they meet in 28 different buildings. The saloons saw to it that we were not bunched in a Labour Temple. But now that we are well rid of the saloons we are able to get together and in a very short time we will have a Labour Temple to cost about $125,000." Mr. Thum's high standing in the American la- bour movement stamps the above testimony as ab- solutely reliable. Here is some more recent testi- mony from him: How Prohibition Works 281 "Two and a half years ago Colorado went dry our State has been without the open saloon since January 1,1916. As in every other state where the temperance people are trying to oust the saloon and the traffic in liquors, the wets pre- dicted all sorts of calamity should Colorado close up the saloons. Well, we did close them, and none of the calami- ties nor disasters predicted by the wets have materialised on the contrary, many benefits have come to us. "Men and Labour men who work with their hands have been benefited in a hundred different ways, but more noticeably and chiefly in a social and financial way. It goes without saying that a sober citizen is much to be preferred to a more or less dissolute one, but we here in Colorado were really not prepared for such a wide benefit in favour of so- briety as has come to us. "If any were thrown out of work by the saloon closing they have readily found other employment and in many cases at more agreeable occupations and at better pay. "Workmen now have more money to spend in the legiti- mate lines of trade. Our workmen are healthier now than in the days of the saloon. People who go without drinks are just now learning how to eat. Our workers will never go back to the saloon regime." Mr. Clint C. Houston, editor of the Denver La- bor Bulletin, wrote as follows: "I have received many letters making inquiries in relation to the effect of prohibition upon labour. "Labour in Colorado is at least 50 per cent, better off under state-wide prohibition than before. "The people of Colorado now wonder how they tolerated 282 Why Prohibition! saloons as long as they did. Many of those who were most ardent advocates of the saloon, for the reason that they thought prohibition would ruin business, now take a dif- ferent view of the situation." And here is some testimony from Tom J. Greer, President of the Louisiana State Federation of La- bor, as to how prohibition works: "Since the influence of the liquor traffic has been removed from union politics we have been able to organise successfully in Shreveport. "The following facts show what Shreveport labour has done since the town went dry in 1908: "Membership in trade unions has increased from 1,800 to 3)700. "Home owners among union men have increased forty per cent, since Shreveport went dry. "In that town of 20,000 white people, the carpenters' union has increased its membership from 65 to 375 (about 600 per cent.) since the town went dry. "Painters, when Shreveport was wet, had 35 members. To-day the painters' union has 145 members. "Barbers have shortened their hours of labour, raised wages continuously and have a 100 per cent, organisation since Shreveport went dry. "A brewery under the wet regime employed six non- union brewery workers. In dry Shreveport this brewery has been turned into an ice factory which employs forty union ice makers. "The wage scale in Shreveport compares favourably with any city in the country. New Orleans, south of Shreve- How Prohibition Works 283 port, has 2,200 saloons and the lowest wage scale in the country. If saloons help organised labour why isn't New Orleans an organised town?" It is quite a remarkable fact that the leading la- bour men in the dry states are strong for prohibi- tion, although most of them voted for the saloon because they sincerely believed that the abolition of the liquor traffic would create a labour panic, throw- ing many unemployed workingmen onto the labour market. The Building Trades Council in San Francisco appointed a committee to investigate prohibition's effect in dry states. This committee received three letters from men whom they trusted which were submitted at a regular meeting of the Council. Here are the letters: "I have been a drinking man and voted against prohibi- tion, but since the law was enacted in the state of Washing- ton and I was afforded an opportunity to observe the effects of its enforcement, I confess that the membership of the Longshoremen's Union has been benefited in their morale loo per cent." AUGUST F. SEITZ, Secretary Tacoma Longshoremen s Union. "I believe that prohibition has come to stay and I believe it would be a wise thing if you, representative of the build- ing trades of this city, and your colleagues and the National 284 Why Prohibition! Building Trades Council would take the advanced step for national prohibition which I believe would redound to the benefit of every workingman in the country." ALLISON STOCKER, State Treasurer of Colorado. "I have always been opposed to prohibition on the ground that such legislation interfered with personal liberty, and I voted against the measure when it was before the people for adoption two years ago. I am, however, constrained to confess that my observation of its effects has been such that were the question to come before the people again I would change my vote in favour of having the law retained, and this would be especially for the reason of the beneficial effects that it has had upon our labouring people generally." EDWARD W. OLSEN, Chairman Industrial Insurance De- partment and former State Labour Commissioner of Washington. One way to get at the effects of prohibitiorii in so far as this is possible is to take the two states which are most widely known as prohibition states, Kansas and Maine, and compare them with a typical wet state, New Jersey, the latter having about the same population as Kansas and Maine combined. Comparing some of the elements of life which in- dicate prosperity or which at least show high ideals among the people, we find the following in the states mentioned: How Prohibition Works 285 Year New Jersey Kansas and Maine Population (U. S. Census Bureau estimate) 1915 2,881,000 2,574,000 Internal revenue taxes on liquor and tobacco 1917 $13,910,000 $751,915 Assessed value property per capita.. 1915 $861 $1,287 Families owning homes (U. S. Census Bureau) 1910 34% 60% Automobiles ("The Automobile") . . . 1916 75>42O 113,250 Common schools, attendance (U. S. Bureau of Education) I9 J 7 421,000 427,000 High schools, students (U. S. Bureau of Education) 1917 52,366 59,579 College and normal schools, students (U. S. Bureau of Education) 1917 5,227 16,359 Illiterate persons ten years of age and over 1910 113,502 53,522 Illiterate males of voting age 1910 51,086 27,786 Insane, epileptics and inebriates in institutions (National Committee on Mental Hygiene) *9 1 7 7)S 12 4*650 Prison and jail population (author- ity wardens) 1918 3,365 i,534 Eleven hundred and seventy-three (1,173) convicts on parole from New Jersey State Prison March 23, 1918, not included in New Jersey total. United States Government prisoners not included. How does prohibition work in Canada? B. H. Spence of the Dominion Alliance made a comprehen- sive study of the conditions existing after prohibi- tion had been tried out for a year, and here are some of the comments received from responsible leaders throughout the Dominion : "Retail and wholesale business increased and improved; a larger proportion of cash trade; a greater demand for the better class of goods." "Increased regularity, punctuality, and efficiency of work- 286 Why Prohibition! ers, resulting in greater earnings for labour and larger re- turns for capital." "More employment at better wages; better conditions and greater safety of work; higher standard of living." "Rents and taxes more promptly paid, artisans building and buying homes for themselves." "Home life bettered; wages formerly wasted now used for family comforts and luxuries." "Savings bank deposits increased; money diverted from bar and liquor shop to channels of honourable trade, giving health, strength, and vitality to business generally." "Hotel accommodations improved now quieter, cleaner, safer, and more homelike." "Schools and colleges better attended; improvement in health and morale of pupils; better results from work of teachers." "Decrease in drunkenness and crime; fewer police cases; ability to apply prison reform methods more successfully." "Poverty and pauperism lessened; ignorance and vice di- minished ; social reform work of all kinds helped and made effective." "Many former opponents of prohibition have been con- verted to the support of that measure by the operation of the law, and public opinion is to-day pronounced in favour of this method of dealing with the evil of intemperance than when the various laws were enacted." "Prohibition has come to stay in Canada, not as a war measure, but as a permanent legislative reform." How Prohibition Works 287 Following are some opinions of Premiers: Nova Scotia "Regard prohibitive legislation in Nova Scotia as very beneficial." (Sir) G. H. MURRAY. Manitoba "Results are certainly beneficial, and the act working better than I ever expected." (Hon.) T. C. NORRIS. Saskatchewan "Crime has decreased, and one of our gaols has been closed. Money formerly spent on liquor now finds its way into more legitimate channels, and the pros- perity of the Province as a whole has been increased." (Hon.) W. M. MARTIN. Ontario "We have now had twelve months' experience of the Ontario Temperance Act, and I am thankful to be able to say that the operation of the law has come up to my greatest expectations. . . . Employers of labour are unani- mously of opinion that our people are doing more work and better work than ever before. "A patriotic purpose of the highest order has been served . . . Official figures indicate a large decrease in the number of convictions for drunkenness. The Act has been instru- mental in adding greatly to the comfort and happiness of thousands of our people." (Sir) WILLIAM HEARST. The Manitoba Government has published figures showing a reduction in drunkenness of 80 per cent., of all crime of 58 per cent. In the city of Winnipeg, during the last three months of License the police arrested 813 "drunks, " in the first three months of 288 Why Prohibition! prohibition only 161. In Brandon, Fair Week un- der License showed 71 cases of drunkenness, under prohibition five. A questionnaire was sent to the Mayors of the principal cities and towns of the Province of Ontario asking for an opinion of the effect of the first year of Prohibition. Sixty-nine telegraphic replies were received: fifty-nine were decidedly favourable, nine non-committal, and one unfavourable. Toronto is a metropolitan city of nearly 500,000 people. Letters were sent to members of the To- ronto Board of Trade asking them to give their frank opinion as to the working of prohibition in Toronto and its effect, beneficial or otherwise, par- ticularly with regard to business conditions. Over four hundred replies were received within a few days covering practically every line of business, and from the most influential firms doing business in the "Queen City" of Canada. The replies received to this inquiry represent the verdict of the Toronto business world, not in regard to the theory of pro- hibition, but the actual working of the law after one year's experience. Out of the four hundred replies received only nine expressed unfavourable opinions. Mr. Spence declares: "No amount of sophistry, academic arguing, specious rea- soning, appeal to prejudice, or calumniation of opponents can offset the cold, hard facts herein set out. Through all How Prohibition Works 289 the dust of discussion as to principles, controversy as to methods, the distorted imaginings of possible cataclysmic social results, this great fact stands out boldly Prohibition Works. Call it a fool method if you will. It gets results. Pipe about its impracticability. It pays financially, socially, politically, morally. When tried, it pleases, it makes friends by its operation. In a word Prohibition makes good." James Simpson is Vice-President of the Canadian Trades and Labor Congress and one of the most influential labour men in America. Here is his opinion regarding the operation of prohibition in Canada : "Convinced by the logic of results following the enactment and enforcement of Prohibition Laws, the working men of Canada are voting the liquor traffic out of existence. La- bour sees the following practical results following the adop- tion of Prohibition legislation: 1. The increased sobriety of the people. 2. The increased efficiency of the workers as employees, and their increased effectiveness in dealing with their own problems. 3. Improvement in the payment of Union dues. 4. A substantial increase in the reserves of fuel and food in thousands of working men's homes. 5. Conversion of the use of property from the production and distribution of life-destroying beverages to the produc- tion and distribution of useful and necessary commodities. 6. The improvement of hotel accommodation for the trav- elling public. 290 Why Prohibition! 7. The restoration of despondent and discouraged men to positions of usefulness and responsibility with the labour movement. 8. The complete destruction of the argument that 'the closing of licensed places reduces standards of wages in exact ratio to the amount of money withheld from the sellers of liquor/ 9. The insistence of men for higher standards of living as they enjoy the benefits of total abstinence. 10. More co-operation between members of labour or- ganisations when industrial unrest develops as the result of an unjust economic order. 11. The effecting of economies in the administration of the people's affairs. 12. A reduction in the number of violations of civil and criminal laws, and in the number of cases of insanity. 13. An improvement in the environment of children, and consequent improvement of their intellectual, social and moral condition. 14. The elimination of that degrading type of poverty which is the result of an unjust economic order, plus the result of the expenditure of money on beverages which con- tain a small number of units of food energy and a large amount of alcohol, which is destructive of life's physical setting. 15. Increased felicity in the home, and greater co-ordina- tion of effort looking to the improvement of family life." It's the same story everywhere in the United States, in Canada, in England, in Russia facts and statistics could be stacked up to convince any open- minded person that prohibition works in practice. How Prohibition Works 291 When Michigan was about to vote on the liquor question the Grand Rapids Press wanted to find out how the abolition of the saloon affected commerce and industry in Colorado, so they sent one of the cleverest men on their staff to make an impartial investigation. He wrote a series of articles for the Press which made a clear case for the opponents of the saloon. Major C. B. Blethen, editor of the Seattle Times, gave out an interview one month after prohibition was in force in the State of Washington. Here's what he said: "My paper fought against prohibition. We fought it on economic facts alone. We believed that in a great sea- port city with a population of upwards of 330,000, prohibi- tion would be destructive; it would bring on economic dis- aster. We believed that under our system of licensing sa- loons we had the liquor traffic about as well controlled as it could be, and we wanted to let it alone, and so we fought as hard as we could fight. But in spite of all we could do against it, prohibition carried and it went into effect in Washington January i. We have had a month of it now. "And how has it worked out? "We already know that it is a great benefit morally and from an economic standpoint, its moral benefit has been tre- mendous. Seattle had 336 saloons and we had about 1,600 arrests a month for crimes and misdemeanors growing out of liquor drinking. In January we had only 765 arrests and sixty of those were made January i, and were the re- sult of 'hang-overs' from the old year. The previous year there were 2,600 arrests in the same month. That in itself 292 Why Prohibition! is enough to convince any man with a conscience that pro- hibition is necessary. There can be no true economy in any- thing that is immoral. "And on top of that great moral result, we have these economic facts: In the first three weeks of January the savings accounts in the banks of Seattle increased greatly in numbers. There was not a grocery store in Seattle that did not show an increase of business in January greater than ever known in any month before in all the history of the city, except in holiday time. In all the large grocery stores the increase was immense. In addition to this every dry goods store in Seattle, except one, and that one I have no figures from, had a wonderful increase in business. Each store reported the largest business ever done in one month except in holiday time. "I wished to know in what class of goods the sales in- creased so greatly and so I sent to all the grocery and dry goods stores to find that out. And to me it is a pitiful thing, and it makes me sorry that we did not have prohibition long ago that the increase in sales in all the dry goods stores was in wearing apparel of women and children, and in the grocery stores the increase was made up chiefly of fruits and fancy groceries. This proves that it is the women and children who suffer most from the liquor business, and it is the women and children who benefit greatest from pro- hibition. Money that went formerly over the bar for whiskey is now being spent for clothing for the women and children, and in better food for the household. "It is just like this: When you close the saloons the money that formerly was spent there remains in the family of the wage earner, and his wife and children buy shoes and clothing and better food with it. Yes, sir, we have How Prohibition Works 293 found in Seattle that it is better to buy shoes than booze. The families of wage-earners in Seattle are going to have more food and clothes and everything else than they had before." Real estate men and bankers are keen judges of values and business tendencies and prospects. Here are some responses from responsible men in the cit- ies named, as to how prohibition has affected them. They are given merely as samples from typical cities. Hundreds of others might easily be added : Birmingham, Ala. "The law is actually in operation at present and appears to be one of the most complete laws of its kind. Its effect upon rents and property values has been nil in the business centre. The buildings formerly occupied by saloons have been rented readily, and, as far as I can ascertain at the moment, at the same rental rates. The abolition of the saloon has had a beneficial effect upon values in the business centres. Several of the buildings formerly occupied by saloons in the outlying sec- tions are still vacant, but the general effect has been bene- ficial." Portland, Oregon. "An element which enters into the situation with reference to the effect upon land values, is that it has come to be an accepted fact that locations for retail liquor establishments must bring a substantially higher figure than if leased for other purposes. That is taken into consideration in estimating value from the in- come of property, the higher revenue being discounted be- cause the property would not rent for the equal amount if used for any other purposes; that the use for this purpose 294 Why Prohibition! is more or less temporary and not to be depended upon and as a great many people who become purchasers would not consent to the use of property for saloons or liquor stores. In other words the increased revenue because of this sort of occupancy has been considered rather as a premium upon undesirable occupancy than as indicating what the permanent normal rent of the property might be expected to be and estimating the value from that." Wichita, Kansas. "Kansas has had on its books a prohi- bition law for the past thirty years or more, but the same was not rigidly enforced in Wichita until several years ago when it was made an issue in one of the campaigns and a dry ticket elected. About thirty so-called saloons on Doug- las Avenue and Main Street went out of business in one day leaving that many-' vacant buildings. It may be of in- terest for you to know that it did not lower the rents; that the business of the city was not affected thereby and that after the law had been in force for one year, a canvass of one hundred leading business men and merchants of the city had been made by the daily paper, which formerly supported the wet element, out of which ninety-seven expressed them- selves as favourable to the prohibitory law, claiming that their business had profited thereby. The greatest growth and development in the city has taken place since the law was rigidly enforced." Kansas City, Kansas. "Increased population, more build- ings, rent doubled in residence districts, doubled in three years in business districts. Great demands for small homes to be built for workingmen. Little or no vacant property and when it was vacant was in that state due to condition of the property. 209.7 P er cent, increase in new buildings. How Prohibition Works 295 Three times as many labouring men bought homes. Police force reduced from 84 to 50 first year. Time of court was frequently six and eight weeks long before; it did not last over three weeks to try criminals. One time the judge had no criminals to try." Spokane, Wash. "From January first to May first, 1915, this city arrested 501 drunks, 441 vagrants and 250 disor- derlies. From January to May first, 1916, the record was 159 drunks, 128 vagrants, 89 disorderlies. One year ago there were 130 prisoners in the county jail, now there are thirty." Denver, Colo. "Retail stores report collections as break- ing all previous records. Hundred of long overdue accounts considered no good have been paid up since the state became dry. The Denver dry goods stores report shipping more goods to out of town customers during one week in January, 1916, than during the week preceding Christmas." Phoenix, Arizona. "Savings bank deposits have been ma- terially increased since January first, 1915. As a concrete example of this take our own bank : Our total deposits from December 3ist, 1914, was $616,970.52. Prohibition became effective January ist, 1915, and on February ist our deposits were $665,314.67. On March ist, $676,242.38, and on April ist, $681,754.38, a steady monthly increase. On De- cember 3 ist, 1915, our deposits have reached $844,748.76, and on July ist, 1916, $1,122,870.22, an increase of $505,- 899.69 in one year and seven months of prohibition. These are actual figures taken from our daily statement books." A letter from an important and well-known mer- chant in Seattle reveals an interesting situation : 296 Why Prohibition! "We are in the credit clothing business, and any drain on the savings or earnings of the wage-earners is felt indirectly by us. When money is plentiful with them our cash receipts are correspondingly larger. In four months after prohibition became effective our records showed a 10 per cent, increase in receipts. The significance of this is that this increase was shown the first week in January and has been steadily upheld every week since. "Another potent fact is collections on delinquent accounts have increased 100 per cent, since January ist, not because we have a more efficient collection force, for our collectors are the same to a man. Not because delinquents have been gone after with greater persistence, as the same effort was put forth previously as now. The answer is obvious, the people have more money. "Our experience since Seattle has been dry proves con- clusively to us that the masses of the people have more money, more of the necessities of life and are consequently much happier." It is quite true that the marked results noted in these letters and in reports from dry cities and towns are not altogether due to prohibition. But if pro- hibition had come in during a period of industrial depression, no matter what the immediate cause may have been, the liquor men would have charged up to prohibition all the evils which came as the re- sult of some other cause. But these men who are on the ground, whose tes- timony we have just read, should be fairly good judges as to whether prohibition has done more harm How Prohibition Works 297 than good. Their testimony records the fact that prohibition is a good thing for a city. Here and there you will find a man who will tell you that the use of liquor or the saloon as an insti- tution does some good but we do not settle any other question upon this basis. We have a right to ask, "Does the saloon and the use of liquor do more harm than good?" and if they do, then we are justified in abolishing them. XIV How to Fight the Saloon THIS isn't a chapter for seasoned saloon- fighters the old campaigners who know all the stunts and strategies for putting booze to flight. Nor is it a presentation of detailed methods it's just a simple discussion for the benefit of the average person who wants to help. I want to say a last word to these, for it will be their spirit and their attitude which will determine the future of the problems we have been discussing. First of all, let me tell about a recent experience : It was early Sunday evening, shortly before Church time. Down the street I saw a bunch of regular boys, from 10 to 14 years old about a dozen of them. They were not particularly noisy just lively. I saw them approach a "mission." I heard one of them whisper: "They'll give us a book they'll give us a book!" The boys pushed into the front door the meet- ing hadn't begun when the person in charge roughly ordered them out. Queer, too, because the mission evidently had a pretty good reputation with the boys. 298 How to Fight the Saloon 299 Somebody in the mission had apparently made a good impression upon them. Too bad that the mission didn't make good with the boys that Sunday night. A few minutes later I saw them on the avenue. A policeman was in their midst. "You kids better keep off Jane Street, or I'll lock you up," he was saying to them. Jane Street was on that policeman's beat, and he was not going to have any trouble with anybody if he could help it especially with boys. The ferocious way in which he glared at them was calculated not only to keep them off the po- liceman's beat, but if the cop had his way it would have kept them off the earth. The boys solemnly declared that they would keep off Jane Street. Perhaps ten minutes later they were hanging around some car barns jollying the caretaker in the little house just outside. They paraded about the car barns without doing any mischief, and then they came to the corner on which I was standing watch- ing them. "Nothing doing anywhere," the leader said to me when I asked them why they were not doing some- thing worth while. And the whole bunch crowded about me, all talking at the same time, because I appeared to be interested in them. They expected to go to the motion picture show that night, but the Mayor had ordered the picture show closed. 300 Why Prohibition! Everything else was closed, too. The police station was open I saw the green lights as I passed it going to my lecture appointment that night, and probably some of these youngsters will find it ere long. "Nothing doing anywhere." It is a good thing to talk about closing up the places which are bad in their influence, but is it not also a sensible thing to work for the opening up of places which are good in their influence? It's much harder to open up good places than it is to close down bad ones, but the job is worth while. Crime is play to hosts of city children because for many years play was counted crime, according to the city ordinances. Statistics indicate that crime is increasing in this country, and that juvenile crime is increasing more rapidly than adult crime. This does not mean that children are actually becoming more lawless in spirit nor more immoral by nature. It means simply that in our great cities we have been adding to the list of crimes or misdemeanours acts which in the open country or small town are altogether legitimate. Baseball, bonfires, shouting, snowballing, throw- ing stones these are usually permitted in the coun- try, but most children who are arrested in the city are "guilty" of these or somewhat similar acts, for which they are arrested. The inevitable result of the attitude of the courts toward offending children makes these children care- How to Fight the Saloon 301 less regarding more serious crime. The conscious- ness that they are doing wrong when playing base- ball soon makes them indifferent to the crime of stealing apples from the Italian fruit-seller's stand. Probably 90 per cent, of the children in our cities depend upon the streets 'for their playground, and, usually, street-play is unorganised and, therefore, often unprofitable. When children become too old to play upon the streets, they naturally drift into the saloon. It is almost inevitable that they should do so. Where else would they go in the average city? Their famil- iarity with the saloon is a part of their street-play training. And they often carry into the saloon the disregard for law acquired in the streets. Is it any wonder that many of them develop into pickpockets and thugs and gunmen? But the time to begin work with the city children is when they naturally seek recreation and play. Those who would decrease crime and saloon lawless- ness might well give serious thought to establishing and maintaining playgrounds and social centres for both children and adults. "The people don't want decent government, and they will not support men and measures that have a fine idealism back of them," is the snap judgment of the average saloon fighter when, year after year, the wets win out in his town. It's true that the people do not want to be re- formed. It's quite evident that high-brow views of 302 Why Prohibition! civics do not get across. It's only too apparent that "lofty stuff" makes small appeal to lowly workers. The reason that corrupt politicians are lauded and supported by the people is because they are so hu- man, not because they are so corrupt. Their cor- ruption is the weakest part of their appeal. They make good with the masses in spite of it. In making a fight on the saloon, it should be re- membered that mighty few people are interested in mere propaganda, simply because it is based upon cold-blooded statistics or upon hot-blooded invec- tive. For the most part, we are dealing with plain, every-day men, who are decidedly commonplace in their thinking, but who are, nevertheless, responsive to the human appeal. "Good government" and "reform measures" al- most always lack human contact. They are super- imposed, and the common man doesn't like that kind of treatment. The corrupt politician knows this, and he plays the game accordingly. The best kind of reform is that which emerges from among the people. It is when they discover a great social fact for themselves that they become most enthusiastic about it. The human side of the saloon business simply must be reckoned with by saloon fighters. One way to get next to the people is actually to get next to them in open forum discussions, in their own so- cial groups, in the shops, in their homes. It may be slower work to put the saloon out of How to Fight the Saloon 303 business through a process of education based upon human facts and daily fellowship, but in the long run it is a surer and a more permanent way. There are still some anti-saloon men who are in- clined to underestimate the influence of organised labour in the fight between the wets and drys. Aside from the question of the right or wrong of trade unionism itself, it must not be forgotten that the organised labour movement is a tremendously powerful machine, and that it is the only organisa- tion which speaks officially for the workingmen of -this country, both organised and unorganised. For if the trade union doesn't speak for the workers, who does? No other organisation dares make the claim to express the hopes and aspirations and wishes of the common people. Think for a moment of the resources of the labour movement in this country. It is probable that in all the branches of trade unionism there is a total membership of nearly 3,000,000. And these are un- doubtedly the choicest, most highly skilled, most intelligent workingmen in America. There are literally thousands of paid officials who give their entire time to the task of building up this movement. Most of the international unions employ men of very superior ability to direct their national policies, and to meet and deal with the best brain power that their employers can buy. Practically every international union prints an offi- cial monthly "journal"- there are over 100 inter- 304 Why Prohibition! national labour bodies some of these "journals" ranking with high grade magazines in typographical effect and subject matter. Besides these, nearly every big city has one or more weekly labour papers, these as a rule being the official organs of local central labour unions. There are something like 250 labour papers pub- lished in this country, which have an enormous cir- culation. John Graham Brooks once said that the average trade unionist reads his labour paper as the early Christians read their new testament. The international labour bodies hold annual con- ventions, which are of supreme importance to all men and women engaged in the various crafts, whether they are members of the union or not, for these conventions determine matters which are bound to influence all these workers. Besides the international craft or trade unions, there is the American Federation of Labor, com- posed of delegates from each of the international trade unions affiliated with it, and delegates from state labour bodies and from central labour bodies. This constitutes the most powerful group of labour men in this country. The Federation, with its various departments, each finely organised and equipped, is a splendid fighting machine. In addition to its paid organisers, it has a host of volunteer workers in every part of the country. Many of the international unions have How to Fight the Saloon 305 great office buildings of their own, and practically all have highly organised office forces. Then there are the various railroad brotherhoods, which are not affiliated with the American Federa- tion of Labor. The building trades have other unions which are still separated from the American Federation of Labor. As already noted, these com- bined trade unions are nearly 3,000,000 strong. Reference has already been made to state organi- sations. Practically every state in the Union is or- ganised as a separate unit. Then there are some- thing like 600 central labour bodies. These meet regularly to discuss local labour matters. Here is, then, a compact organised body of work- ingmen, which deals specifically with all economic and social questions which concern workingmen and working women. Isn't it worth while for the anti- saloon man to "get next" to this movement, trying to find out what these workers are driving at? It requires a sympathetic, open-minded approach, how- ever any other kind of a spirit is sure to fail. And if one can get a grip on the real power back of the labour movement its immense power for good and then try unselfishly to direct it in this fight on the saloon, which is its own greatest enemy, the saloon question will be settled. Remember, too, that it is in the territory in which organised labour is strongest the great industrial areasi that the saloon fighters will have their stiffest struggle during the next few years. 306 Why Prohibition! The liquor men are making strenuous efforts to capture the labour movement why leave the field to them ; especially when the workingman knows that his best interests lie with those who are opposing the liquor business ?! This is a task which requires the best that the anti-saloon movement possesses it can't be done in a cheap, hurried fashion. It will require large plans and big men with broad minds. When the liquor business has been abolished, you will be glad to recall that your hand helped to give it its solar plexus blow ! And the way you can best do it is to use the right kind of literature. One of the fine things about this method is that anybody can use it. Some can get better and more results than others, but all can get some results. There are several important advantages in using literature. The leaflet you give a man always sticks to the point. We don't always do so. Therefore, it never gets side-tracked by a specious argument. It never loses its temper. It will be read by people who are sometimes ashamed to talk on the subject you wish to present. Frequently it will tell the story far better than you can put it. It never gets "rattled." You should be familiar with the arguments or the appeals you are making in the printed page; first, because you should know just which leaflet is needed for a particular case; and second, because How to Fight the Saloon 307 you should know just what to use next in order to follow up your previous effort. It is helpful, sometimes, to underscore certain words or sentences. This for two reasons^ it will call attention to the most important parts of the leaflet, and it catches the eye of the casual reader who may not care to take time to read the entire leaflet. These outstanding "catch-words" may hold his attention, and possibly interest him to the extent that he may want to study the entire pamphlet. You should have a system in your plan in order to get the best results. Map out a particular dis- trict which you will determine to cover, and then work it. This may be done in various ways. A house to house canvass is always effective. This method also affords an opportunity of becoming ac- quainted with those whom you are trying to reach. If you want to win the men in a workingmen's community, first secure their names and addresses. One of the best ways to do this is to copy the names of voters from election sheets posted in polling places. Or if the city is not too large, you may se- cure their names and addresses from the city direc- tory. Possibly you can get them from interested employers. Then mail them regularly such leaflets as you think should be put out. Plan your series of leaflets so that they will have a cumulative value. If such a mailing campaign is continued for a month, sending the leaflets weekly, so that they will be received each Saturday morning, 308 Why Prohibition! for instance, it is certain to make an impression. There is value in sending them at stated periods, rather than at irregular times. It is the steady rhythmic, repeated blow in the same place that counts. The same general method may be adopted for the purpose of reaching the members of labour unions, although their names will be more difficult to se- cure. However, a little tact may get them. Perhaps you can get a trade-unionist to put out the leaflets among his associates at the regular meet- ing of his union. In some instances literature is reg- ularly read in such meetings at the period designated u the good and welfare of the order." Enlist in your cause a workingman in a particular shop who will regularly distribute the printed mat- ter. Literature distributed among men in the shop is passed from man to man and is usually thoroughly discussed at the noon hour, as their lunches are be- ing eaten. Leaflets may be used at the close of an anti-liquor sermon, or after a temperance meeting, or they may be used as advertising matter in giving publicity to the meeting. Housekeepers may give them to the men who call at their back doors to deliver grocer- ies, meat, milk, ice, etc. Workingmen who are tem- porarily employed in your home should also have your interest. Occasionally crisp, up-to-date leaflets, especially How to Fight the Saloon 309 those dealing with the economic aspects of the liquor problem, will be printed by your local paper. Every church and every individual interested in closing the saloon should put out anti-liquor litera- ture. In some instances men are spending fortunes for the sole purpose of sending broadcast printed matter that tells of something in which they are in- terested. Every political party uses it. Reformers employ it. The Socialists regard it as their most valuable propaganda method. General advertisers send out tons of it. They do it because they have found that it pays. If it pays them, it will pay in your work even though you are compelled to work on a more limited scale. Nobody can tell what a single leaflet will do if it reaches the right person. The great reform movements in history have been successful because of the enthusiasm of the person- alities who threw themselves into these movements. And let it be remembered that these men were rarely counted great before they began their work it was the work that revealed their real ability, even to themselves. What is needed in the fight against the liquor traffic is a man in each community who will make himself responsible for seeing to it that the people get the facts and who will put into the entire task the warmth and vigour that will take it out of the realm of mere routine and formality. A real man only one. 310 Why Prohibition! One who has the power to stir others, and who will say to them, "Come on let's do it," but who will do it whether anybody comes or not. One who does the thing which everybody else said couldn't be done. One who is ready to go to the first line of the trenches because he's fired with the stuff that makes martyrs and heroes but who never thinks of him- self as a hero and still less a martyr. One such man in your town can work wonders- one man! just one. Will you be the manfi FACSIMILES OF POSTERS USED IN STRENGTHEN AMERICA CAMPAIGN Using the Poster to point the truth Sometimes truth presented in a simple, graphic form strikes home with greater force than a care- fully worked out argument, elaborated by statistics and a logical array of facts. And so, to those who are engaged in popular cam- paigns against the liquor traffic, the posters in the following pages may be illuminating and suggestive. These posters were used in the Strengthen Amer- ica Campaign, conducted by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, and were repro- duced in many newspapers and magazines. The originals were 22 by 28 inches, and were printed in two colors. They made friends for the campaign because they are free from bitterness and malice just simple, appealing pictures and state- ments. If desired, these posters may be duplicated by local committees, and used in their campaigns and the author is ready to make suggestions regarding their most effective use, if those interested will cor- respond with him, addressing him care of The Fed- eral Council of the Churches of Christ in America, 105 East 22nd Street, New York. LOSE THE SALOONS I O you believe IF that the traffic in alcohol does more harm than Help stop it. Who is entitled to Compensation? -Lost by:: liquor men because Saloons were closed. Spent for taxei because saloons were open _ :: or :: Mice Department;? jail*, alms-houses, insane asylums, hospitals, etc. Instead of the state compensating liquor men, liquor men should compensate the state. " If you believe that the traffic in Alcohol .. does more harm than good- help stop it! "Personal Liberty" and Your Body You CANT do as you please in a democracy not even with the things that are most precious to you. SUPPOSE YOU TRY TO KILL YOUR BODY TO COMMIT SUICIDE. If You Succeed Billy Sunday Says You'll Go to Hell! If You Fail-the Law Says You'll Go to Jail! BUT THE STATE HAS A RIGHT TO CALL ON YOU TO GO TO WAR TO DEMAND YOUR BODY FOR SERVICE! If You Believe That the Traffic in Alcohol Does More Harm Than Good HELP STOP IT! When the OTHER Man DrinKs: It lowers YOUR wages because boozers decrease average wage paid. It increases YOUR taxes because the state cares for liquor's wreckage. It boosts YOUR grocery bill because store-keepers increase prices to make up unpaid bills of drunkards. It increases YOUR life insurance premiums because shortened lives of boozers raise average expense of life insurance. Isn't it YOUR business if OTHER men drink? If You Believe That the Traffic in Alcohol Does More Harm Than Good HELP STOP IT! Dorit Let Her Sign! *^z&- If you believe that the traffic in Alcohol does more harm than good - help stop it! "Food Will Win The War" The liquor men admit that they use one per cent of the grain. One per cent of the grain will feed one per cent of the people. THIS MEANS ONE MILLION PEOPLE BECAUSE THERE ARE ONE HUNDRED MILLION OF US IN THIS COUNTRY. We shall probably send one million soldiers to France. This Means That the Liquor Men Are Wasting Enough Foodstuffs to Feed Every Last Man Who Will Go to the Trenches! If You Believe That the Traffic in Alcohol Does More Harm Than Good HELP STOP IT! BOOZE DRINKERS "Toss or a $3800 Workingman's Home Every Minute! This Means 1440 Homes Every Day! It Means 535,600 Homes Every Year! Counting Five Persons to a Family, it Means That Nearly 3,000,000 Persons Could Be Comfortably Housed on ther Amount We Waste on Drink Every Year. THINK IT OUT IN TERMS OF THE NEEDS OF THIS TOWN. WHAT WOULD THE DRINK BILL OF THIS CITY DO FOR YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBORS? If You Believe That the Traffic in Alcohol Does More Harm Than Good HELP STOP IT! The Shadow of Danger If you believe that the traffic in Alcohol does more harm than good- help stop it!' UncleSam'sCensus Figures Say If the money now invested in the liquor industry were invested in the average American industry FOUR TIMES AS MANY WORKERS WOULD BE EMPLOYED. FOUR TIMES AS MUCH WAGES WOULD BE EARNED. FOUR TIMES AS MUCH RAW MATERIAL WOULD BE REQUIRED. How can more workers employed, more wages earned, and more raw materials required, create a labor panic? If You Believe That the Traffic in Alcohol Does More Harm Than Good HELP STOP IT! Death Rates per thousand among Workers Brewery Workers to All Workers Average death rate of brewers 50% higher than average for all workers " If you believe that the traffic in Alcohol does more harm than good help stop it. r Charge it up to Booze! Child Divorces Poverty Insanity Pauperism Desertion Crime And The Workingman pays most of the bills for taking care of this wreckage ! If you believe that the traffic in Alcohol does more harm than good - help stop it! We spend in one year: for intoxicating liquor * 2,000,000,0 00 for bread and clothing $2,000,000,000 Here's what labor gets out of each Industry Red -Bread and Clothing Industries Black- Liquor Industry Wage Earners Employed Bread and Clothing Industries employ 8 times as many as Liquor Industry. Wages Paid Bread and Clothing Industries pay5 l /2 times as much as Liquor Industry. Raw Materials Required Bread and Clothing Industries use 5 times as much as Liquor Industry. If you believe that the traffic in Alcohol does more harm than good- help stop it! THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH DAY AND TO $1.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY OVERDUE. REC'D LD NOV211S58 l5Mar54Vl 7Jan'64DC REC'D LD DEC? 6 '63 -12 M LD LD m Q Q RECCIRC MAY 1994 REC'D LD MAY 1 6 1t REtlflFFITT U.C.BERKELEY LIBRARIES UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA LIBRARY ym ffiSum