of the American Public Health Association, held at Washington in September, 1912. He would begin his campaign with childhood when symptoms of feeble-mindedness, insanity and criminality can be detected at the ages of three to ten years. He finds that from thirty to fifty per cent. of the drunkenness and from forty to eighty per cent. of the prostitution is caused by mental defects. Here is his slogan, "Prevent the ill-born, and you will have no use for your asylums, jails, criminal courts and police officers."

Naturally, so strong a statement as the one just quoted caused considerable opposition on the part of those who hold that insanity and alcoholism may be acquired and are not necessarily inherited troubles. Perhaps the truth as usual lies somewhere between the extremes. Meanwhile, Dr. Hutchinson in common with the modern school of investigators is turning to mental defectiveness as explaining the cause of much anti-social conduct.

Dr. Hutchinson is not one of those who hold that the race is heading for destruction. He finds the average good and believes that not more than two or three per cent. of the population are born defective.

One is happy to believe him; and there is nothing so consoling to those who are soberly concerned with social troubles as to find that competent scientists are delving at their roots and not scratching the surface merely after the manner of the professed temperance reformers. The latter have done so for years without bringing us one step more to the sources of the things complained against; but they have succeeded in troubling the waters and have taught too many men and women to see darkly and by so much have retarded their one cause, despite its intrinsic merit, so far as it aims at stopping abuse.

Conscientious Druggists.

The West Virginia Pharmaceutical Association has adopted a resolution calling upon the Legislature to pass a law prohibiting the sale of whisky in drug stores.

This is the first time such a step has been taken by an association of druggists. If the proposed law were enacted, the druggists say it would close half the drug stores in the State.

A SWISS ABSTAINER'S VIEWS.

Concedes Practical Failure of Prohibition in this Country.

FR

RITZ RUDOLF, a noted Swiss abstainer, has published in the German "International Monthly for the Investigation and Opposing of Drunkenness" an account of his studies. of prohibition in the United States, made during 1910 and 1911. What gives special importance to these articles is the fact that it was left to a representative of the principle of abstinence to supply a distinctive criticism of American prohibition and the phenomena connected with it.

The author starts from the principle that for the purpose of doing away with daily intemperance the abolition of the saloons or public houses is the chief requirement and that in order to reach that end only two roads are open to-day; on the one hand, reform of the public-house according to the Gothenburg system, and on the other, the abolition of the places for dispensing alcoholic beverages by popular vote; that is, prohibition as practiced in America for more than fifty years. Since of late years this movement has achieved some successes especially in the South (Georgia, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Mississippi and Tennessee) which apparently favor this system, the critical observations of the author on this topic deserve special attention, particularly as in reading the articles one gains the impression that the author, notwithstanding the strong emphasis on the value of total abstinence, has happily avoided becoming one-sided and narrow.

In the very first article it is pointed out that it is difficult to reconcile with the advance of the prohibition movement the fact that of the sixteen States which have tried prohibition, only three did not repeal the law absolutely. On the other hand, in Vermont and New Hampshire prohibition was abolished, although it had been in force fifty-one years in one case and forty-eight in the other. The other reaches the same observation which was made by Rowntree and Sherwell, viz., that the denser the population of a State is or becomes, the more certainly will prohibition be abandoned, and he fully agrees with this statement.

The reason which he considers as decisive for the development of prohibition, which has been great even in the North, is the fact that the national drink of the American is not wine or beer, as in most European countries, but for a century has been whiskey. For that reason the idea of abstinence emanating from the use of whisky showed its justification, so that the same social pressure which opposes the abstainers in Europe, will on the other side of the water induce those who desire to belong to the better part of society, to adopt or pretend to adopt abstinence.

The tremendous consumption of spirits and the consequent injury to the public health caused the first prohibition laws that were passed about 1850.

Moreover, the rural population in the United States is very different from that of Germany. Each farmer dwells upon his own ground, long distances removed from neighbors and saloons. The requirement to have a chat with his neighbors over a glass of beer is thus eliminated and the inn or tavern is of no consequence in social life. This also explains why it is only in Maine, which has a sparse population and is without industry worth mentioning and without considerable cities, that prohibition was able to maintain itself until today, whereas it was abolished in all the other States as the population increased.

THE RACE QUESTION.

In the Southern States, on the other hand, according to the statements of the author, it was the race question that decided in favor of the prohibition laws that were introduced there of late years. They contain eight million negroes, even forming a majority in some of them, as in Mississippi. The colored people would never have voted for total abstinence, but to a greater or less extent the colored population is without civic rights in those States. The whites fear-probably not without reason-that the criminality of the negroes who are children of nature, would increase still more unless alcohol is kept from them. At present they are far more criminal than the whites. But the fact that these successes of prohibition could be obtained in the land of democracy, in free America, only by depriving the colored race in the most unscrupulous manner of their votes, makes their value appear more than questionable. At any rate it would be altogether wrong to represent this development in the Southern States as a victory of

the idea of prohibition and abstinence. It is nothing more than an effort to make the economic freedom of the negro-by abolishing the saloons-less dangerous to himself and less oppressive to society at large.

All the prohibitory laws in the Southern States are clearly, although not according to the letter but in their enforcement, directed at the suppression of the negro saloon..

NOMINAL PROHIBITION.

A third reason which, according to Rudolf's opinion, made the introduction of prohibition laws far less difficult both in the States with a sparse population and in the Southern States with their race question, without permitting the view that such introduction represents progress of the idea of abstinence, is the fact that it is an easy matter for everybody, even in States where the prohibition laws are strictly enforced, to procure alcoholic drinks for private use without violating the law. According to Federal law, while each State may forbid the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages within its own boundaries, prohibition to prevent importation from other places would be void and would be declared invalid by the highest court. It was decided by the Federal court that railroads must carry alcoholic beverages into States, as Iowa, which had prohibited such importation and prescribed penalties for it.

It goes without saying that a large part of the population does not abstain and yet votes for prohibition because it concerns only the traffic in alcoholic beverages within the State, principally having the effect of suppressing the saloons. Each individual may, as before, secure the desired amount of alcoholic drink for himself.

The author arrives at this result: There is in fact a flow of alcoholic beverages into these "dry" States and regions varying in strength according to different localities, but at all events not inconsiderable, and whose width and depth depend in many places, especially where the prohibition laws were forced through against strong opposition, particularly in the South, almost entirely upon economic laws; i. e., whether the distiller or brewer, who is located at considerable distance, can send his products so cheaply that, including freight and packing, they are not much dearer than formerly when they were bought near by or taken at the saloon.

LAWS WITHOUT EFFECT.

In the last four articles the author discusses the question, what is the actual effect of these prohibitory laws upon the habits of life and drinking customs of the common American citizen, and he arrives at the conclusion that it is very trifling indeed.

In those States where the people were living lives of abstinence anyway that is, in the country in the farming communities-there is, of course, no more drinking after the laws went into force than there was before. But in those States in which such laws were forced through only against stout opposition or by means of election frauds, or depriving a large part of the population of their votes, most of those who are not abstainers continue to drink as before, And that applies not only to the common people, but to highly respectable circles as well.

The prohibitory laws are not an effective cause of newly developing conditions of sobriety, but the public, legal expression of a sobriety that has probably long existed among the people.

A very good explanation is given by the author of the differences that appear in reports of travels in America concerning the enforcement of prohibitory laws, some representing them as good and beneficial, others as mere humbug. He concludes they are both. In those States which were sober before, they are good; in the others bad. No change in the habits of the people is observed on account of them.

He thus denies to these laws all influence in the direction of promoting sobriety. He even goes further and shows that the drinking customs increase in spite of State prohibition. As soon as the population became denser and the law was found to be inconvenient, it was abolished. For that reason there is no cause for wonder in the fact that the population living in "dry" States, which already amounts to fifty per cent. of the population, is on the increase, while there is no diminution of the consumption of alcoholic beverages per capita, as might be expected, but rather an increase. The excuse offered for this fact by European abstainers that this increase was caused by immigration from the old world, is not allowed by American experts, who ought to be better acquainted with the circumstances. The blame is rather sought, and properly so, in the unenforceability of the idea. Ch. R. Jones, chairman of the National Prohibition Committee, writes: "The abstinence legislation of the past has disturbed the liquor traffic of the nation only