Page images

States consumes 1,851,000,000 gallons of beer each year, which is a hundred million gallons more than Germany's consumption. Russia leads the world in its use of distilled liquors, and the United States comes second, with its consumption of 133,000,000 gallons." In spite, however, of this tremendous consumption of liquors, malt and spirituous, Dr. Iglehart regards the traffic as doomed to extinction by statute, and he derives much comfort from the following plunge into statistics:

"The saloon has been expelled from one-half of the population and from two-thirds of the geographical area of the country. In 1868 there were 3,500,000 people living in territory where the drink traffic had been outlawed; in 1900 the number had increased to 18,000,000; in 1908, or only eight years after, the number had doubled to 36,000,000, and to-day there are 46,029,750 persons, or a fraction over one-half of the population of the country, living in no-license territory. In the last five years the no-license population has increased a little over 10,000,000, which is more than ten per cent. of the total population of the nation and 30 per cent. increase in the number of those living in "dry" districts. Since 1868 the population has doubled, while the number of inhabitants of 'dry' territory has increased over thirteenfold.”

Here is the familiar prohibition illogicality and unreason, that "phases" the average man. The country is constantly drying up by statute but the practical consumption of liquor continues to increase by leaps and bounds. Surely there can be but one explanation of this baffling contradiction, viz: the familiar one that prohibition does not prohibit.

The conclusion is, however, irresistible to persons of candid mind, who really want to find a logical escape from the difficulty. There are advocates of temperance, even of total abstinence, who admit the truth that prohibition by statute is a demonstrated failure. Prominent among these is Dr. Henry Smith Williams, author of "Alcohol and How It Affects the Individual," and other works of like character. Discussing the very point under consideration, Dr. Williams said in the Ladies' Home Journal not long ago:

"Now what are the facts of liquor production for, let us say, the past twenty years, during which time the prohibition movement had made spectacular advances? Why, briefly these: In 1890 the amount of liquor consumed in the United States aggregated less than a billion gallons, the per-capita consumption being 15.53

gallons. In 1907 the amount of liquor consumed had risen above the two-billion-gallon mark, the per-capita consumption being 23.53 gallons.

"Throughout this period there has been a steady increase both in the aggregate quantity and in the per-capita consumption. And this, be it recalled, is the very decade which the Prohibitionists point to with such enthusiasm as witnessing the rapid spread of local option."

Dr. Williams observes that in "the past twenty years, the consumption of liquor has more than doubled in the United States. In 1890 there was comparatively little territory under prohibition laws; in 1910 about half the territory of the United States is under such laws. He therefore found himself forced to conclude "either that one-half the territory of the country now consumes more than double what the entire territory consumed twenty years ago, or else to make the alternative concession that the 'dry' territories are far enough from being 'dry' in any literal sense. In point of fact, the conclusion seems forced upon us that the passing of Statewide prohibitory laws, and the great accessions to the locally 'dry' territory in the years 1908-9 did for the moment restrict the sale of liquor in these territories; but that only a few months were required in which to establish new channels of illicit distribution, after which the traffic went ahead with renewed impetus."

Dr. Williams sees no escape from the conclusion that the average net result of sixty years of temperance legislation is that "the average American of to-day consumes almost six times as much liquor as did the average American of 1850. The redeeming feature of the case is that the average man now drinks vastly more beer and relatively less spirits; but this change is not one for which prohibition can be responsible. It is obvious that in an attempt to evade prohibition laws, the more condensed spirits (being easier to handle, ship and conceal) will tend to take the place of the more bulky ones; hence in so far as prohibition has affected the relative status of distilled spirits and beer, its influence must presumably have favored the former.”

Dr. Williams's final conclusion will profoundly impress persons of plain common sense, with no axe to grind, who simply want to make up their minds right as to this troublesome question. He says:

"Briefly, then, great as I conceive the evils of the use of liquor to be, I find nothing in the evidence to lead me to believe that they

can most advantageously be combated by so drastic a procedure as the enactment of a Federal prohibitory law. I believe that here,

as elsewhere, the social organism must progress by evolution rather than by revolution. We cannot in a day or in a decade convince the eight or ten million men in the United States who consume a certain quantity of liquor each day (the vast majority of them, let it be conceded, never drinking to the point of intoxication) that they will be happier and better off for the foregoing of their indulgence." And his last word is one that restores peace and satisfaction to the perturbed average man: "To me at least it seems obvious that the only thing which has kept the prohibition movement before the people of the United States is the simple fact that prohibition does not prohibit."


A writer in the International (New York) calls attention to a new scheme for getting alcoholic relief to persons living under prohibition laws. The scheme consists in marketing, through attractive advertisements, certain drink extracts. These are subject to no liquor license, for they are not liquor nor drinkable until several things are added, explicit directions for which are furnished the purchaser. It is claimed for certain extracts of this nature that they make a mild and innocuous tipple, but the same cannot be said of "Zanol," an extract to prepare, with the addition of grain alcohol, any desired whiskey or cordial, in any required strength.

In a little pamphlet on the "Secret of Making Liquor at Home," "Zanol" is advertised as "a Halt to Prohibition." "Your sideboard," reads the new gospel of strong drink, "can become the manufacturing place of any liquors or cordials you may prefer. The ease and simplicity of making delicious drinks with "Zanol" are remarkable." We have heard of late of the advance of prohibitiom in various States. In connection with the figures given out by the "Drys" it may be of interest to compare the statement of the manufacturers of "Zanol" that, in the last ten years, their business has been increasing normally 200 per cent. monthly. Of late, however, the company's gospel has spread even more rapidly-rising to 500 per cent. increase in a single month!

The manufacturers of "Zanol," strictly legal, render to Uncle

Sam what is his. They break no law.

Their conscience is at ease.

Witness the following question and answer:

Q. Can “Zanol” be sold in Prohibition territory?

A. The prohibition and local option laws prohibit the selling of liquors or any intoxicating beverage. No more so than vanilla extract or lemon extract which are used in baking. Any one is allowed to sell these extracts and for this same reason you are allowed to sell “Zanol.” In selling “Zanol” you are only selling an extract and not a liquor. You could not be prevented from selling corn or rye, although from these grains most liquors are made.

The selling of "Zanol," the Universal Import Company sssures its missionaries, will keep them busy during the entire year. "There are no dull seasons. Each month in the year there is a large demand. People use liquor in all kinds of weather." Actuated, no doubt, by purely humanitarian motives, it urges agents to win new converts to the Cause. Liquors prepared with "Zanol” ingredient, it insists, are twice as strong as ordinary liquors. Twice as strong and one-half as cheap! Agents are not permitted to sell less than six bottles at a time!

The writer in the International is not astonished to find the manufacturers of "Zanol" stanchly arrayed on the side of prohibition. He suspects that they may even contribute substantially to the funds of the Prohibition Party." Many parts of the country," they explain in their remarkable little pamphlet, “are now passing through a wave of prohibition reform, and it is a good thing, for with thousands of poisonous and adulterated decoctions which are being sold as the genuine article, the health and minds of the country at large are being menaced by an inestimable danger." The International concludes: "The manufacturers of 'Zanol' have solved the Prohibition question. They say so themselves. Arm in arm with the patent medicine manufacturer (40% alcohol) and with their common client, the Prohibitionist, they dance, metaphorically speaking, upon the grave of Temperance!"


Representative Bartholdt, of Missouri, on January 18, sought to have the House restore the army canteen, but his amendment to the Army bill making such a provision was thrown out on the point of order.

Mr. Bartholdt coupled the restoration of the canteen feature with an amendment reducing the appropriation for army post exchanges from $40,000 to $35,000, on the theory that the canteen would be cheaper to maintain than the present shops where soft drinks are dispensed.

He argued that the two measures, coupled together, constitute a reduction of expenses, and were therefore germane to the matter under discussion. .

It is too much to expect, in the opinion of the Army and Navy Register, that there will be any definite results of the recent hearing before the House military committee in favor of the enactment of the legislation proposed by Representative Bartholdt to repeal the so-called anti-canteen law and authorize the restoration of the canteen as a feature of the post exchange at army posts. The testimony offered on that occasion by prominent army officers and by "army women," who have taken an active part in the cause, would easily prove convincing to Congress were it not that the influences which originally operated to destroy the canteen are equally persistent and industrious in preventing the remedial legislation which military opinion, including that of the medical officers, believes will contribute to the contentment, morality, physical welfare, and therefore, discipline and efficiency of the army.

The same well-informed journal goes on to say: "These hearings in favor of a Congressional repeal of the anti-canteen law are held periodically and are as futile as they are frequent. There is nothing to indicate that the latest session on the subject, despite the formidable advocacy of the worthy cause, will be more effective than previous efforts in the same direction. Congress, or that part of it which consents to be in the least degree ostensibly interested in the project of restoring the canteen, is by this time thoroughly acquainted with the reasons which justify such helpful legislation. Arguments, facts and statistics in voluminous array have been furnished, appeals have been made by those who have come to support the proposition without prejudice; petitions have been submitted from such sources as the American Medical Association, representing 50,000 medical men in this country, the Association of Military Surgeons, the New York Academy of Medicine and the American Public Health Association. Direct and personal testimony, of a sort and from quarters which should not be ignored, has been given in favor of a repeal of the anti-canteen law of 1901.

« PreviousContinue »