Page images
PDF
EPUB

REPORT OF THE NORWEGIAN COMMISSION ON THE ALCOHOL QUESTION

It is extremely significant that at a time when almost all Europe is convulsed in war and the alcohol question has been given the most serious consideration, the Norwegian Alcohol Commission should have reported to the Government of Norway against the introduction of prohibition and in favor of the use of light beers. This report, handed in on June 1, 1915, was prepared after the Commission had made an extensive personal study of all sides of the question, including an investigation of prohibition conditions in the United States.

The majority of the Commission-six out of nine membershold in the report that after a full consideration of the subject, they cannot recommend the introduction of prohibition either in national or local form. Notwithstanding the prevalence of drunkenness in certain quarters, the report says, conditions may be improved by other means than total prohibition, and, moreover, the immediate evidences prove, the report declares, that sobriety in Norway is unquestionably improving by reason largely of the growing education and self-respect of the people.

First of all, the Commission urges, it is advisable to fight against the misuse of alcoholic beverages instead of forbidding all use of them. Inasmuch as certain strong liquors are especially misused, the majority of the Commission propose that an obligatory "individual control" system of the sale of liquors be introduced, modelled after the "Bratt System" which, after being legally adopted in Sweden, greatly helped in increasing sobriety there. Under such a system liquor would not be sold to a person under twenty-one years of age, and different other restrictions would prevent individual excess.

Another measure proposed by the majority of the Commission is that the sale of the weaker beers should be encouraged and be given a freer position "both because these beers are to be considered harmless, and because they may come to replace the stronger drinks." A number of specified changes looking toward the restriction of particular privileges in selling liquor are also proposed. One of these changes urged is the immediate purchase by the State of a privilege granted in 1807 to an English firm of certain prac

tically perpetual rights in the sale of liquor in various ways and in particular places. The Commission enumerates a list of its recommendations relating to the mode and hours of sale of the retailing of liquor, and the means of control of liquor shops. One member of the majority goes as far as to hold that weaker beers should be free to all dealers, and that others should be allowed permission to sell these weaker beers, but that in the case of these others, the sale should be confined to a fixed selling place and attached to the dispensing of food. Having gone fully into the experience of other countries, and considered both advantages and disadvantages of all propositions, the majority of the Commission believes that the plans it recommends will be conducive toward the best results.

Respectfully submitted,

C. W. FEIGENSPAN, Chairman
AUGUST LINDEMANN

HENRY RUETER

HUGO A. KOEHLER

W. J. F. PIEL

HUGH F. FOX, Secretary

CONVENTION ADDENDA.

ADDRESS OF ALBERT JAY NOCK

MR. NOCK:-Mr. President and gentlemen: I must ask your indulgence for a bad speech, because I am suffering from the prevailing disability, I may say the universal disability, of a wretched cold; but if it makes listening any less unpleasant, I can assure you that it is not at all painful for me to speak. The results of the war are at present uncertain, for the most part, but there is one particular result that, as far as any human judgment can foresee, is inevitable; and that is that there will take place after the war a revaluation, a reassessment, of the function of alcohol in society. The physiological effect of alcohol and its resulting social values are matters, as was intimated to you yesterday, upon which there is a terrific torrent of prejudice and an encyclopedic amount of misinformation current amongst us. What most of us think about alcohol is not really what we think, but what we think we think; it is what we have gathered from some more or less loose and irresponsible reports upon the subject. I am speaking now for myself, as a simple layman. I do not feel that my own opinions about alcohol are based on adequate information; and my sources of information are probably as good as the average citizen's.

In view of the fact that there is such a tremendous field of experimentation with alcohol in the various countries concerned in the war, it is inevitable that there should be a new force of opinion in process of making; and that when the war is over, the data and the observations will be gathered together and co-ordinated and edited in a much more scientific form than has been heretofore possible. Then we laymen will have something to go on in forming an intelligent opinion.

What I myself look for and very greatly desire, is that there should be an international commission formed directly for that purpose, as soon after the war as it is possible for the observations to be properly made.

When I took my first taste of the liquor situation in England I was very much reminded of the little boy who first ate asparagus at the urgent insistence of his mother, who was one of the oldfashioned kind of mothers who believed that a child should eat what was set before it and ask no questions. They had a sharp collision of opinion about it, but he finally ate some, and then she asked him how it tasted. He replied in disgust that it tasted "Raw at one end and rotten at the other." (Laughter.)

The management of the government end of the situation was very raw; and the management of the opposition end of it-I mean the teetotal or prohibition factions in the country,-impressed me as extremely rotten. (Applause.)

I don't know that I have ever seen any publication which appeared to me to be more despicable than the British White Paper on drunkenness in the transport and munitions areas. I have a copy of it here, which I will leave. I do not want it any more, and if any of you have any curiosity to look at it as a piece of statistical work, I think you will be well repaid. Just for an example of the way that figures are handled in this paper, here is a column indicating the hours lost per week by men who are at work in the manufacture of munitions. The men are simply lumped together. There is no account taken of relative age of the workers; there is no account taken of the perfectly open and notorious fact that a great many of the best workers have gone to the front and their places have been filled by inexperienced hands. That is a sample of the kind of thing that appears in the British White Paper.

Now, the result of all that kind of management was that everybody got very mad, as they always will do under such circumstances. Labor felt outraged and the public felt swindled. I do not think I need take you through the various propositions that were made by the Government after the White Paper was published. Probably you are quite familiar with them. There were very good reports of them sent to this country. The first proposition was to nationalize the industry, to which the trade agreed but the Cabinet colleagues of Mr. Lloyd George, particularly Mr. Asquith, felt it was unwise to bind the nation with so heavy a debt as would be required in the purchase. Then came propositions to apply differ

ential taxation,-which is a very good thing when properly applied. Those fell by the wayside, you remember; and then came the proposition to do away with raw spirits, and that somehow slumped into an insignificant result.

If there are any Englishmen present I am sure that from this safe distance they will agree with me when I say it is a characteristic of the English,-in some respects a very practical one,—that they leave unusually difficult public questions to be handled by committees. They "let George do it," as we say in this country. Even in the matter of swearing off, they "let George do it," you know— King George. (Laughter.) I ought to interject that there has been a very great decrease in drunkenness in England, as a matter of fact; but it is not by any means due to any such agencies. They finally appointed a commission to deal with this matter,-according to this long habit of appointing commissions to handle things that are getting too hot to take hold of,-they appointed the Central Board of Control. That board has entire control of the distribution of liquor within the transport, munitions and encampment areas, under the Defense of the Realm Act.

To show you how broad their powers are, they can even define their own areas of operation. They can, if they like, put down the whole of England, as an area, or they can put the whole of Wales or the whole of Scotland, or all three together. Of course they have not done this, but they have power to do it. And within their areas their authority is absolute. They can control the sale and the quality and the kind of liquor that is distributed. They can close public houses peremptorily. They can open them. They can set up sales of intoxicants, free of all license and fees, thereby of course doing away with the possibility of private competition, and they can sell any kind of food or refreshments, without any license or tax. Also they have the power to prohibit treating within those areas.

The Board of Control is a very competent one; Lord d'Abernon is the chairman. They have been so late in getting to work-they have practically just begun their work, although they were appointed in midsummer-that there is no record of progress yet to amount to anything. They have dealt, up to the time of my last advice, with thirteen areas, but only to the extent of shortening

« PreviousContinue »