Prohibition and the Law

Our twelfth Article of Faith says, "We believe * * * in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." There are those who, looking upon this as a religious statement, will ridicule it. But are there any who will ridicule the words of Lincoln? "Bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible ; still, while they continue in force, they should be religiously observed." ¶

REVOLT NATURAL TO AMERICANS ¶

My purpose, this afternoon, is to appeal to you to live in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, to obey the laws of our country. ¶

The American people have a natural inclination to break the law. Our nation was cradled in revolt. Our Declaration of Independence and the oft-repeated speeches of the Revolutionary period keep fanned into a flame that old revolutionary spirit — the spirit of defiance. Our Civil War is perhaps the greatest example of the belief of Americans in the right of revolt. ¶

In early days, when our numbers were few and when these few ¶

lived on sparsely settled areas, to have laws and to obey them was not a matter of supreme importance. ¶

REVOLT NOW DISASTROUS ¶

But in this mechanical age, with our great cities, our densely populated manufacturing centers, with hitherto undreamed-of wealth — wealth unequally distributed — if there were no laws, or if the laws are disobeyed by a large portion of the community, disaster will necessarily follow. ¶

Listen again to Lincoln : ¶

"Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher of posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country, and never to tolerate their violation by others. * * * Let reverence for the law be breathed by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap. Let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges." ¶

AIDING THE CAUSE OF ANARCHY ¶

If the day has come when a majority of the citizens of the United States will ridicule Lincoln and his ideas, when a majority will disobey our laws and disregard our Constitution, the republic is doomed, its destruction sure. ¶

The American Bar Association said recently by resolution that when lawyers, bankers, manufacturers, merchants, and social leaders disobey and scoff at the prohibition law, they are aiding the cause of anarchy, they are promoting mob violence, they are encouraging robbery. ¶

Many are intentionally breaking the prohibition law. By so doing they are aiding the cause of anarchy, promoting mob violence, and encouraging robbery. ¶

SWORN DUTY OF OFFICERS ¶

It is the sworn duty of officials to obey and defend the Constitution and to discharge their duties with fidelity. Lincoln not only asks that every "American swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violate the laws of the country," but he appeals to every American "never to tolerate their violation by others." Must we tolerate public officials who themselves break the laws? ¶

I have made a solemn public pledge that I will not knowingly cast my vote for any man for any office unless I have been assured that he lives in accordance with the law. I am referring primarily to the prohibition law. ¶

TWELVE MILLION WOMEN ! ¶

The Washington Post of March 9, 1929, announced that ten national affiliated women's organizations had pledged the support of twelve million women of the United States to aid the dry drive of our country. The wife of the President was pointed to as a fine example of the way in which American women can help in the enforcement of the liquor law. That way is by refusing to participate in social or other functions where the law is broken. Are these twelve million women carrying out this pledge? ¶

It is my intention to request those candidates for whom I may cast "my vote to answer the following: ¶

(a) Do you yourself live in accordance with the prohibition law? ¶

(b) Do you pledge yourself to refuse to -participate in any social or other function where the law is broken? ¶

The Constitution of the United States prohibits the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. Our State law provides that the importing, advertising, giving away, exchanging, dispensing, or serving of liquor is "forever prohibited." It is unlawful also for any person to have intoxicating liquor in his possession. ¶

With such provisions in the statutes of our State and in the Constitution of our country, no public official can, in honor, violate the prohibition laws "in the least particular" nor can he "tolerate their violation by others." ¶

WHAT ONE HUNDRED CAN DO ¶

It has been said that if one hundred of the leading 'business men in Salt Lake City would live in accordance with the law and would not participate in social or other functions where the law is broken, soon much of our trouble with prohibition would be over. I propose to try to get the above-named pledge — ¶

(a) From at least 100 of the leading business men in Salt Lake ¶

City. ¶

(b) From at least 100 of the leading business men of the State of Utah. ¶

(c) From at least 100 of the leading business men, scientists, and statesmen of the United States. ¶

If the outstanding characters of our country can be induced not to participate in any function, social or otherwise, where the law is broken, and if our officers will do their sworn duty, then respect for the Constitution and the law will speedily be restored. ¶

PROHIBITION A SUCCESS ¶

Many assert that prohibition is a failure. I propose to present a few of the reasons why I regard it a success. ¶

Commander Evangeline Booth of the Salvation Army: "Sin and poverty in the slums of New York have decreased since prohibition" (Readers' Digest, December, 1928). Before prohibition there were eight licensed saloons in every block of the bowery besides many unlicensed dance halls, brothels, and dives. Before prohibition the Salvation Army would often collect twelve hundred or thirteen hundred men and women in one night who were too drunk to care for themselves (Deseret News, Sept. 29, 1930). Only seven or eight of such characters are to be found now. ¶

In the Salvation Army Memorial Home they have 4,800 men each week. They do not find one drunken case in a thousand. Before prohibition in Jersey City, where there were 1200 saloons, 85,000 men on Saturday nights squandered their week's wages for liquor. In the gutters were to be seen many helpless men and helpless women. These ¶

were not homeless people. They were American workers and the money they had squandered "we of the Salvation Army knew was money needed for food, clothing, and shelter." In what industrial center of America does such a condition occur today? Vice has not disappeared, but it is not so bold as it was before prohibition. Then it was not uncommon in the quarters of the Salvation Army to see a newly born baby lying in the arms of a drink-soaked mother. Such conditions do not exist now. ¶

DRINKING IN EUROPE ¶

"I wish all those who question whether any change for the better has been worked in America might observe conditions in the slums abroad. One of our London homes shelters about 200 women, three-quarters of whom are so absolutely degraded by drink as to appear beyond the hope of redemption. They are in rags and tatters, blear-eyed and indecent. Drink is responsible for their condition. No such condition can be found in America. ¶

"In many European industrial cities the Salvation Army is trying to work some sort of a regeneration in a type of women who are so degraded that one shudders to think of their condition. Such a lot of women could not be recruited in this land of prohibition where the volume of drinking is amazingly, gloriously, lessened. ¶

"Under prohibition the men uncharitably called 'bums' are disappearing. No longer is the Salvation Army besieged by a clamorous swarm of broken wrecks. Because of prohibition there is less misery among the poor and tens of thousands of homes have been reestablished because some Americans have stopped drinking." ¶

CONDITIONS IN COLLEGES ¶

Dr. Ruthven, president of the University of Michigan, says that during these prohibition times the students at Ann Arbor do not drink one-tenth as much liquor as they did when he was a student in the same institution before prohibition. One of the house rules of the Michigan Union at Ann Arbor reads : ¶

"Gambling, drinking of intoxicants, entering the building in an intoxicated condition, and bringing intoxicating liquors into the building, are each and all absolutely prohibited." ¶

The effect of prohibition at Yale University has been good. Professor Charles C. Clark: ¶

"I know whereof I speak, for I have been a member of the committee of discipline for a time dating back many years before prohibition. I know conditions intimately; I do not pretend that the students are all prohibitionists or are not drinking, but the change has been simply revolutionary. * * * In the old days we rarely troubled ourselves about a case of near intoxication if it had not resulted in some kind of public disorder, whereas now, intoxication of itself is regarded as calling for the severest penalty." ¶

Who, then, interested in the welfare of youth, will say that prohibition has not been a success? ¶

Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, Secretary of the Interior, and former president of Stanford University: ¶

"There is no doubt that there has been a marked decrease in the use of alcoholic beverages among the college students with whom I come in contact. ¶

Compared with the period before the present laws were put into effect, I should say that we have only one-tenth of the problem we had at that time in connection with liquor." ¶

WORKERS BECOME CAPITALISTS ¶

The savings of the country in 1926 were five times those of 1914. They increased from $6.71 per capita to $33.00 per capita. This is 390%. The laborer is saving the money he once spent for drink. ¶

Since prohibition we have hundreds of thousands fewer arrests and jail commitments per annum for drunkenness. Our drink-caused poverty has decreased 74% and we have reached the lowest rate of pauperism known in the United States (Wayne B. Wheeler). ¶

Prohibition is making capitalists out of our workers, according to John G. Cooper of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. "When the saloon closed, the 'poor man's club' vanished. It is being replaced by comfortable homes." The laborer of today is getting much more satisfaction out of an automobile and a decent home than he ever did out of the corner saloon. Who will say under such conditions that prohibition has not succeeded? ¶

IDEALS OF THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC ¶

"Bad as the situation is now, it is better than the pit out of which we were digged" (Harry Emerson Fosdick). In 1912 the Retail Liquor Dealers' Association met in Ohio. Here is an excerpt from one of the speeches : ¶

"We must create an appetite for liquor in the growing boys. Men who drink * * * will die, and if there is no new appetite created, our counters will be empty as well as our coffers. The open field for the creation of appetite is among the boys. Nickels expended in treats for the boys, will return in dollars to your tills after the appetite has been formed." ¶

That tells you something of conditions which prevailed before prohibition, something of the standards of those who are engaged in the liquor business. ¶

SHALL WE GO BACK? ¶

If the present situation is unsatisfactory, let us not forget conditions back in 1884, when in old New York the Board of Aldermen was composed of "12 saloon keepers, 4 saloon-controlled politicians — 16 out of 24. That same year out of 1002 Democratic and Republican primaries and conventions held in New York City, 633 were held in saloons and 96 in places next door to saloons" (Harry Emerson Fosdick). Many of the younger generation do not comprehend what conditions were in towns like Boston where before prohibition there was a saloon license for every 310 inhabitants. Do we desire to return to those conditions? ¶

Go to Great Britain and see the public houses with wire cages in front of them where little children, not allowed by law to be taken inside the public houses, are huddled "to fight like dogs and cats, while their mothers are inside getting drunk." What we have in the United States, bad as it is, is better than that condition (Fosdick). ¶

LIQUOR THE BREEDER OF CRIME ¶

Many look upon conditions today under prohibition and complain because they see everywhere bootleggers, hijackers, and lawlessness. Remember the liquor trade in the United States has always been lawless. "It always has vomited criminality across the commonwealth. It always conspired against any government that licensed it or any laws that were supposed to control it" (Fosdick). ¶

As evidence of the attitude of the liquor interests the National Liquor Dealers' Journal of September 10, 1913, said: ¶

"To us there is the handwriting on the wall and its interpretation spells doom. The liquor business is to blame. It seems incapable of learning any lesson of achievement or motive but profit. To perpetuate itself it has formed alliances with the slums. It deliberately aids the most corrupt political powers." ¶

The liquor trade has been lawless always. It will be lawless forever. Bad as conditions are there is no concession to the liquor interests that can be made in the law that will not make conditions worse. Any change in that direction will but increase the quantity of liquor consumed ; and increasing the amount of liquor used means increasing the amount of drunkenness, increasing the amount of crime, increasing the amount of poverty, increasing the amount of misery. ¶

BUSINESS DEMANDED PROHIBITION ¶

Prohibition did not come until the great economic interests of our country gave it their powerful support. Drink-befuddled brains cannot do America's work. From 1919 to 1925 the per capita productivity of the workers in the automobile business increased 100%. The productivity of all the workers in the rubber tire business increased 139% (Henry Ford). Throughout the United States, labor reports show "unbelievable increases" in the per capita production of American workmen. By making America more productive prohibition has succeeded. ¶

Over thirty years ago the United States Commissioner of Labor investigated 7,205 American business institutions employing 1,750,000 men. Three-quarters of these reported they never hired a man without investigating his drinking habits. Seven hundred reported they absolutely prohibited any drinking on the part of any employee within or outside of working hours. It was the hard-headed business men of America who furnished the driving power that brought the American people to prohibition. ¶

"rule g" ¶

Long before we had national prohibition the following "Rule G" was in operation on every first-class railroad: "The use of intoxicants by employees while on duty is prohibited ; their use or the frequenting of places where they are sold is sufficient cause for dismissal." Such prohibitory laws were not written by fanatics but by American business men. ¶

Here is another: ¶

"Any employee found using intoxicating liquor — either during or after working hours — is warned that it will not be tolerated, and he is urged to discontinue its use completely. If the promise is made, then the man is given another chance; otherwise he is discharged" (Fosdick). ¶

The locomotive, the automobile, and the flying machine are" unanswerable arguments in favor of prohibition. And now that men and women, boys and girls, are at the wheels of automobiles everywhere, wisdom dictates not only that prohibition must be continued but also that it must be enforced. ¶

WHAT PROHIBITION HAS ACCOMPLISHED ¶

Before prohibition men under the influence of liquor were tolerated. Today no intoxicated employee dare approach the flying field, the engineer's cab, or the chauffeur's seat, without being subject to dismissal. Again, prohibition is a success. ¶

Before prohibition Chicago had a saloon for every 300 inhabitants. It is said that if every speak-easy, dive, or soft drink parlor dispensing liquor in that city were counted today, the number would not be half so great. In our larger cities before prohibition, drunken men and drunken women were removed from lawns, they were seen frequently staggering along the streets. Such spectacles are unknown today. Prohibition is succeeding. ¶

Then, dives filled with drunken men were seen everywhere. Women and children, cold, naked, and hungry, congregated on the streets of our cities looking for husbands and fathers. There are no such spectacles today. By making liquor hard to get and by increasing its price, prohibition has protected these poor families so that in these days there are few mothers and children waiting in terror in a drunkard's home for the return of a drunken husband and father. Those who are using liquor now are the so-called "smart set." Fortunately, they are the non-rearing family class. Comparatively few of the children, therefore, are reared by parents who drink. Thus prohibition protects the poor and the lowly and those fine law-abiding Americans who are rearing families. ¶

"government control" ¶

Many honest, conscientious citizens stand today for the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. Most, if not all, of these favor "government control." ¶

Government control means that the people can get liquor without breaking the law; this will mean an increased consumption. In our automobiles haven't we drunken drivers enough already? The automobile alone is reason enough for the strict enforcement of our prohibition laws. ¶

"You've been drinking. With you at the wheel I will not get into this car," said a mother as she and her fourteen-year-old daughter stood at the open door of an automobile. ¶

"Get in, get in, he has only had a taste," said a group of people who were standing about. ¶

The car hadn't traveled three miles on a downhill grade before it reached a curve and by the drunken driver was capsized. The child, who had been selected to deliver the address for her class at commencement, was killed, while the mother and other occupants of the car were seriously injured. I say again the automobile alone is reason enough for the retention and the strict enforcement of the prohibition law. ¶

Prohibition means efficiency. Prohibition means prosperity. Prohibition means doing away with drink-caused poverty. Prohibition means that there will be no children in the United States who cannot get training in the public schools. Prohibition will mean that the children of the United States, even the poorest, will be well clothed, well fed, well educated. Are not these arguments strong enough to justify the retention and enforcement of prohibition? ¶

A word more about government control. It is in operation in Canada. During the past summer I spent some weeks there going as far north as Winnipeg. From personal observation I concluded that conditions there, under government control, are much worse than conditions here under prohibition. ¶

TESTIMONY OF A CANADIAN ¶

Fearing that the information secured during my brief stay might not have led to a correct conclusion, I asked a practicing attorney who has been a citizen of Canada for some twenty or thirty years to tell me what he thinks of government control. ¶

"To my personal knowledge," began my able and experienced legal friend, "drinking increased immediately in every province." Do we desire to modify our laws, if after so doing, drinking is to increase immediately in every state and in every city? ¶

In 1927 six Canadian provinces spent $147,000,000 for liquor. In that same year alcohol in the Dominion held the sixth highest place among the imports of the nation. Under government control it advanced to third place in 1928. During that time the value of alcohol imported increased beyond that for automobile parts, for raw sugar and for crude petroleum. Only two commodities, machinery and coal, exceeded in value that of imported alcohol. ¶

A FLOOD OF ALCOHOL ¶

Under government control, said the "Toronto Star" in 1927 : ¶

"A flood of alcohol continues to pour into Canada. During the fiscal year which ended in March, 1927, the Dominion imports of alcoholic beverages reached the value of $46,000,000 as compared with $19,000,000 in 1925. Including home production, the latest total would be close to $100,000,000." ¶

Do the citizens of the United States desire to have the amount of alcoholic liquor consumed increase at this same rapid rate? If such increase comes, imagine the peril that will exist for pedestrians with the whole country filled with drunken automobile drivers. ¶

During the four years following the adoption of government control, the province of Alberta, with a population of about 600,000, spent $42,000,000 for liquor. This amount would have paid the total expense of operating the provincial government for three years, it would have paid the total cost of all gasoline used in Alberta for three years, or it would have bought more than half the automobiles that are now in use in that Province. Are the people of the United States clamoring for a condition like this? Do the people of the United States desire to have our laboring men spend proportionately large sums for liquor, thus offering inducements to our laboring men to spend for liquor that money which is now being used to feed and clothe and educate their children and to provide comfortable homes for their wives and families ? ¶

This very day one of Salt Lake City's prominent citizens said he stands strongly for the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment because it will do away with bootlegging. William R. Wood of Winnipeg says the brewers bootlegged 62% of all the beer they manufactured, and adds : "Illicit stills are found doing business on a gigantic scale after years of government control. Carloads of illicit liquor are still* intercepted on the railways." With the neighbor on our north involved in all these serious difficulties, are we going to follow in her footsteps and adopt government control? ¶

Mrs. Elizabeth Tilton says of conditions in Canada: 1. The government by putting its seal of approval upon drinking has almost annihilated the work of the church through years of teaching temperance and sobriety. 2. Bootlegging in Quebec is on the increase, and complaints of liquor law violation have almost trebled between 1922 and 1925. 3. The number of government liquor shops increased from 64 in 1922 to 90 in 1925. 4. Headlines in the Montreal Post during government control: "Montreal the Mecca for Crooks," and "A Veritable Avalanche of Outlawry, Hold-ups, and Robberies Has Descended upon the City." 5. A mayor of Winnipeg : "While conditions under prohibition were bad, the present conditions are a thousand times worse." 6. Under government control the province of Quebec consumed in 1925, 27,397 more gallons of alcohol than in 1924. ¶

"Toronto Globe" : ¶

"If by success of government control we mean increased manufacture, increased facilities for the people to secure liquor, increased sales, increased consumption, increased drunkenness — then government control is a success. ¶

"If we mean decreased consumption and decreased drunkenness, if we mean reduction in bootlegging, blind piggeries and law breaking, then government control is a failure." ¶

IS LIQUOR NECESSARY? ¶

Invitations have been extended to economists of known standing throughout the country to write on the economic value of the use of liquor. No economist has been found who will speak or write on that side of the question. All economists agree that America sober has achieved things of which America drunk never could have dreamed. ¶

Some have argued that liquor is necessary in order to produce relaxation or rest from the prosaic dullness of the average life. In modern America the motor car, the movies, and the radio produce this relaxation. These and prohibition have transformed conditions. Mass existence is no longer the narrow, rum-ridden life of a generation ago. ¶

The automobile driver who is quite drunk is usually not dangerous because he is so easily detected or incapacitated, but the really dangerous driver is the man who has had one or two drinks only, who still thinks he is in possession of his faculties but whose driving judgment has been impaired. A moderate drinker, who slightly swerves in the wrong direction, may collide with any one of the 23,000,000 motor vehicles that crowd the nation's highways (Prohibition Still At Its Worst — Fisher, p. 340). ¶

When the Pennsylvania Railroad forbids its locomotive engineers to drink a drop even when off duty, ought not the American people, through legally authorized representatives, to forbid all automobile drivers to do the same? ¶

He who drives an engine has a steel track to steer his course. But he who drives an automobile has to steer his own course. Every car or pedestrian he passes is at his mercy. Each cross road is a grade crossing. Engineers are trained professionals. Many automobile drivers are amateurs. If private prohibition, applied to the professional on a perfected track is justified, surely government prohibition applied to the amateur on an unprotected track is more than justified. Prohibition applied to the automobile driver in America means prohibition applied to everybody. ¶