to be carried on for only six months in the year, while various other modifications were made; but the general conditions still remained such that in 1854 a Special Committee of the Diet reported:

"The comfort of the Swedish people, even their existence as an enlightened, industrious, loyal people, is at stake, unless means can be found to check the evil. Seldom, if ever, has a conviction so generally, so unequivocally, been pronounced with regard to the necessity of vigorous measures against the physical, economical, and moral ruin with which the immoderate use of spirits threatens the nation. A cry has burst forth from the hearts of the people appealing to all who have influence—a prayer for deliverance from a scourge which previous legislation has planted and nourished." ["Licensing & Temperance In Sweden, Norway and Denmark," Edwin A. Pratt.]

THE EVIL IN FRANCE

Within three generations the drink habits of France have undergone profound changes. It was one of the soberest countries of Europe, and has become the most alcoholic. According to Dr. Bertillon, the consumption of alcohol has increased about sixfold in sixty years. Various forms of distilled liquors have supplanted wine as a national beverage.

The real factor back of this extraordinary condition is the distilling interest There are more than 1,300,000 distillers in the country, says Dr. Bertillon, who estimates the number of wine-growers to be even greater. Practically there is no restriction upon the distillation of spirits from cereals and fruit. Under the law any householder may produce five gallons of spirits for home use free of taxes; but in reality thousands take advantage of lax supervision to manufacture spirits for sale. It has been asserted that there are upward of a million places throughout France more or less engaged in this fraudulent practice. Whatever the number may be, we know that over large rural areas the peasantry not only make and drink spirits, but offer it for sale at incredibly low prices.

The real temperance campaign in France is directed against dis

tilled liquors, which are held responsible for the alcoholism from which France has suffered. There is no thought of stopping the sale of beer and wine. Rather the effort is to encourage their use as the accustomed and natural beverages of the people in its temperate days. ("Alcohol & Society," Koren.)

A PROHIBITION ERA-IS IT COMING AND SHOULD WE WELCOME IT? *

By Oscar W. Ehrhorn, MA., LL.B.

Professor of Medical Jurisprudence in the New York Medical College and Hospital for Women; President of the American Association of Medical Jurisprudence; Vice-President of the Society of Medical Jurisprudence of New York.

The purpose of my paper is to consider whether or not the program of the prohibitionists is apparently to become the policy of this country, and if so, whether or not it will, from a legal, medical and social standpoint, accomplish the great good which the advocates of this system contend would ensue.

We must first start with the premises that our government is founded upon the right of personal liberty and that unless the interests of society demand otherwise, the individual may choose for himself how he shall live and even what he shall drink. In a society, however, the individual must subordinate his rights to the general welfare of his fellows in the common interest, and the courts have determined from time to time how far these rights may be limited, and the restrictions with advancing years and a more complex civilization have become greater and greater.

With respect to the regulation of the use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, the Supreme Court of the United States and the courts of the various States have from an early date recognized that by reason of some of the evils flowing from the indiscriminate use of intoxicating liquors, that the government may not only regulate but also abolish it. This is an elementary proposition now, known to all, and yet the reason for the same should not be lost sight of, for when any program is advocated by educated and reasonable men, it should be based upon reason, and where the

* Read at the fourth annual meeting of The American Association of Medical Jurisprudence at the New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C., May 6, 1916.

reason does not in the particular instance exist, the right, though recognized, should not be exercised. Conceding, therefore, the right of the citizenry to enact universal prohibition, the question then presents itself, would the evils which such an era seeks to eliminate be eliminated or would it bring in its train other evils of an equal or greater degree? . .

Assuming that we are about to enter upon a prohibition era and assuming that we shall enjoy (?) prohibition widely, generally and strictly enforced, the question will immediately suggest itself in this presence, "What will be the effect on the human organism and how will future generations be able physiologically and otherwise to withstand alcohol?" Will not the immunity to its evil effects in large quantities which we now enjoy and our physical toleration to it be lost to our offspring of the next and succeeding generations?

Most thinkers concede that the average normal man has an innate or instinctive desire for such substances as alcohol, and history teaches us that it has been indulged in by all tribes and nations with but few exceptions, from the earliest of ages. Where it has been apparently abolished among the great nations and tribes of the earth it has been so accomplished through purely mechanical and compulsory devices. It seems fair, therefore, to assume that if through coercive measures the use of alcohol should be inhibited for one or more generations, that in succeeding generations its use. would probably again be indulged in, and the human system having lost its resistance and tolerance, there would ensue a far greater destruction than would result if instead of prohibition the same efforts were directed to a rational temperance program.

The next consideration that presents itself is as to whether or not a coercive prohibition would accomplish what its advocates Their purposes are twofold. First, to stop alcoholism as such, and, second, to stop indulgence in alcoholic beverages upon the basis that any indulgence however slight is a poisoning of the human system and should therefore be abolished. They assert that by preventing absolutely indulgence in alcoholic beverages that social, economic and physiological results will ensue so that we shall more nearly approximate the perfect man.

Now, with reference to the first desired result, it is sufficient

to say that in those States and communities where legal prohibition has been in effect for a greater or less period of time, it has not been effective to stop alcoholism or even apparently to reduce it, as the figures from official sources will demonstrate.

Official hospital and police figures in all the prohibition States from Maine to Kansas and beyond, show conclusively that notwithstanding that those States have had prohibition for many years, yet inebriety, alcoholism and the psychoses resultant in whole or in part from them have not alone not been banished, but in many instances have even been increased.

With regard to the second desired result, the official figures of the government, as well national as State and local, conclusively show that even where the attempt has been made to prevent indulgence in liquor as a beverage, the individual has never had much difficulty in assuaging his thirst and of obtaining the wherewithal to enjoy that solace which to many it brings.

Where local sales of liquor have been prohibited the consumer has obtained the same through mail-order houses or otherwise. So that, although from time to time so-called prohibition territory has increased, nevertheless the Internal Revenue Department figures show that there has been a continuously increasing amount of liquors manufactured, sold and disposed of not only in gross quantities but also per capita. An apparent exception was the year 1914 to 1915, when there was a decrease, but the figures of the Treasury Department for the nine months ended March 31, 1916, show an increase tax-paid withdrawal of distilled spirits amounting to 7,658,478 taxable gallons and a decrease in fermented liquors removed from breweries for consumption or sale amounting to 1,537,779 barrels.

This would seem to add point to the contention that if obstacles are thrown into the way of some of the citizens in prohibition territory in obtaining beer and light wines which are of considerable bulk, that they take to more ardent spirits of lesser bulk.

An interesting light is also thrown on this subject by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Commissioner McChord, in the report of the Interstate Commerce Commission in the matter of the investigation and suspen