Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE LIQUOR
BUSINESS IN GREAT BRITAIN AND

THE UNITED STATES

BY

THOMAS NIXON CARVER

Professor of Political Economy, Harvard University

NEW YORK

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

AMERICAN BRANCH: 35 WEST 32ND STREET
LONDON, TORONTO, MELBOURNE AND BOMBAY

1919

COPYRIGHT 1919

BY THE

CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE
2 JACKSON PLACE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

PUBLISHERS PRINTING COMPANY, NEW YORK

EDITOR'S PREFACE

This study on the "Government Control of the Liquor Traffic" was begun by Dr. Carver with the expectation that the history of the experience of Great Britain would be useful to our own people during the war. But events have moved so rapidly that this purpose has been defeated.

The original motive for control of the liquor traffic as a war measure was the conservation of food materials. The prohibition movement had made great strides in this country for other reasons than conservation of food, but the movement was greatly accelerated by this later need. Moreover, the restriction on the consumption of liquor abroad had shown such good results in improved health, morale and economic conditions that the argument for prohibition was strengthened. It is not altogether unlikely that the adoption of our own constitutional amendment on this matter would have been more difficult, or, at any rate, longer delayed, but for the patriotic feeling that conservation was necessary.

It is of little practical advantage to discuss the causes of a movement and its underlying philosophy, after the event. However, it has been made very clear, by the experience of every country in the war, that the manufacture of malt and spirituous liquors has been a heavy drain on the national strength, not only by the divergence of food materials to this manufacture but by the demoralization of large numbers of men and women. The hastening of whatever good one believes to inhere in the prohibition of the consumption of these liquors is, therefore, to be regarded by those who hold that view as an incidental benefit of the war.

iii

Some thoughtful students of public affairs have doubts of the political wisdom of the method adopted by our own people to stop the manufacture and consumption of liquor. A constitutional amendment which is in its character virtually a piece of special legislation is a somewhat dangerous method, politically, in a democratic republic. The Constitution is a declaration of fundamental principles on the basis of which laws rest. The prohibitory amendment is not a declaration of principle, but rather itself a legislative enactment. It is not a sufficient reply to say that the purpose and result of the amendment are both good, for the point is that if the process of amending the Constitution can be utilized to enact a law that is regarded as generally good, it can be utilized also for purposes that are sinister; and if those purposes are accomplished their evil influence will be prolonged because of the slowness of the process of amending the Constitution. But the mass of men pay little attention to political principles involved in a movement whose purposes they are determined to attain. In other words, we seldom think about, and still more seldom perceive, the unintended consequences involved in particular legislation. In this case, such experience as the world has had goes very clearly to show that human efficiency is increased by the curtailment of liquor consumption and that the wiping out of the evils of liquor traffic means a tremendous social improvement in many directions. As to the political consequences of our own method of securing this gain only experience can satisfy us.

Needless to say, Professor Carver has handled this subject with his usual skill and lucidity.

Urbana, Illinois,

April 30, 1919.

DAVID KINLEY,

Editor.

« PreviousContinue »