Newspaper Page Text
THE AMERICAN ISSUE
, AS ADVOCATE OF CHRISTIAN PATRIOTISM ILLINOIS EDITION Issued bi-weekly except (luring the month of August by THE AMERICAN ISSUE PUBLISHING CO. 130 South State Street. Wortenrille, Ohio THE ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE OF ILLINOIS 1200 Security Bldg., Chicago ERNEST H. CHERRINGTON, Editor O. G. CHRISTOAU, Illinois Editor Publication Office—WesteivUle, Ohio Illinois Office—1200 Security Bldg., Chicago Entered as second-class matter at the postoffice at Westerville, O., under Act of March 3. 1870 Price, $1.00 per Year Make subscriptions payable to the Anti-Saloon League of Illinois, 1200 Security Bldg., Chicago, 111. ANTI-SALOON i.eagle OF AMERICA National Officers Pre ldcnt—Bishop Thomas Nicholson, D.D., LL.D. Detroit, Mich. Ccneral Superintendent—Ph. F. Scott McBride, Westerville, Ohio Associate General Superintendent—E. J. Moore, Westerville, Ohio Treasurer—Foster Copeland, Columbus. Ohio ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE OF ILLINOIS ♦ Headquarters, 1200 Security Bldg., Chicago * Staii; Officers President — W. W. Bennett, Rockford. Vice Presidents—Will B. Otwell, Carlinvllle: .1. P. Metzgnr, Mo line; Alfred T. Capps, Jacksonville; F. O. Wilson, .'It. Carmel; A. J. Srrogin. Lexington. Secretary—John It. Golden, Decatur. Treasurer—Thomas J. Botger, Chicago. Headquarters Committee—Charles E. Coleman. Chairman, Chi cago; M. P. Boynton, Secretary, Chicago; John R. Golden, De i cattir; John lludlu, Chicago; John II. Maubcrg. Rook Island; George H. Wilson, Quincy; Thos. J. Bolger. .Chicago; W. Bennett, Bishop Edwin H. Hughes, Chicago; John E. George, Springfield. Plate Superintendent—Frank B. Ebbert, Chicago. As istnnt to the State Superintendent—Alice Odell. Department Superintendents—• (Headquarters. Chicago! —Legal and Law Enforcement. Jos II. Collier; Literature and Public ity, O. O. Christ gnu ; Woman’s Department, Mrs. G. M. MathcS. District Superintendents—North Side Chicago. C. E. Peterson; South Side Chicago, .1. A. Little; Northwest Side Chicago, War ren G. Jones; Southwest Sid*' Chicago, J. W. Langley; North • rn. Goo. McGinnis, Chicago; Northeastern. II. H. Hood, Chi cago; Eastern, N. R. Johnson, Springfield; Western, G. W. James, Galesburg; Central. Geo. H. Yule, Springfield; Southern, l.eo Howard, East St. Louis. Business Manager—B. W. Ewing, Chicago. Field Attorney—Jas. I?. Panskin. Field Worker—C. E. Dowdell. Scandinavian 'York—C. J. Androen. Notice to Postmasters-— AH Form notices for change of ad dress or discontinuance and ail undellverablc paper pertaining to the Illinois Edition of The American Issue should be addressed to the Illinois Editor, 1200 Security Bldg., Chicago. Illinois. FRIPjAY, JANUARY 9, 1925 The Cost of Enforcement and the Profits Recently many newspapers have taken up consider able space with material on the cost of prohibition en forcement. A news article sent out from Washington stated that federal enforcement has cost sixty million dollars in five years. This article was widely published ayd freely commented upon, especially by editors un friendly to the 18th Amendment. Practically without exception these articles and editorials mentioned only the COST and completely ignored the PROFITS of prohibition. During the past fiscal year the federal courts of Illi nois alone collected $428,077 in fines and penalties from litpior law violators. $304,590 of this amount was col lected in the Chicago district. For the entire nation the sum of $6,538,114 was collected into the treasury- in the form of taxes, tax penalties, fines and forfeitures in con nection with prohibition enforcement. The total ap praised value of property seized but not destroyed dur ing the year was $7,745,952. The cash returns alone go a long way tow.vd balancing the enforcement appro priation of ten million for the year. The above figures refer to federal enforcement only-. Vast sums over and above the cost of enforcement have been put into the public treasury as the result of local enforcement work. Here are some facts that ought to open the eyes of some editors who apparently do not realize that prohibition enforcement collections offset the costs: In 1923 Lake county collected $46,687 in liquor fines at a cost of about $10,(XXX Adams county collected $13,996 at a cost of about $1,000. I'ureau county collected $20,386 at a cost of about $3,875. Dc Kalb county collected $8,939 at a cost of about $2,000. Whiteside county collected $12,817 at a cost of about $1,500. Figures covering forty-three counties, all from which reports are available, show that in these counties a total of $294,801 was collected from liquor law break ers at an approximate cost of $46,120. In addition to enforcement returns to the county, mu nicipal ;*ovcrnments have collected large sums in con nection with enforcement. The city of Springfield, for example, collected $18,000 in the eighteen months pre ceding last September 30. Editors seeking to emphasize enforcement costs have studiously avoided mention of direct returns. They have also chosen to ignore the enormous indirect eco nomic gains made possible by enforcement expendi tures. A news report sent from Washington on De cember 24 says that postal officials believe Christmas mailings this year to be from 25 to 35 per cent, heavier than last year. Has any wet editor stopped to figure out how far these increased postal profits would go to ward the cost of prohibition enforcement? Even if enforcement had not returned one penny to the treasury it would have been worth the cost meas ured by the economic test alone. If the entire cost of enforcement so far had been spent by the commercial clubs of the country they could not have promoted a fraction of the prosperity directly attributable to prohi bition. But both direct cash returns and indirect economic benefits arc the least of what Uncle Sam gets for his en forcement appropriations. Even better health and longer life given to many dur ing the past five years are among the lesser returns on the enforcement investment. The good that will come to future generations of Americans through the gradual elimination of the alcohol evil is the most important item to be credited against the cost of enforcement. A government that spends money to protect its cattle from the hoof and mouth disease, its hogs from cholera, its cotton from boll weevil, its wheat from barberry, its poultry and potatoes from foreign diseases should not hesitate to spend money to protect its citizens of the future against the deadly alcohol disease. The Fifth Anniversary Who would turn back now? Not even tbe most dis satisfied wets dare to openly advocate the return of the saloon outlawed by the 18th Amendment. Who would go back to the days when the liquor industry was run ning the government? Only those selfish enough to seek personal profit from the destruction and death of others. Has it been worth while? No one has been able to calculate the benefits that have come through prohibi tion even during the most difficult first five years. Is it here to stay? After five years there are no signs that America will turn back. Tbe wets have re ceived no encouragement from the White House. Con gress is dryer than ever in both branches. The courts have sustained the 18th Amendment, and every impor tant feature of enforcement legislation including the one-half of 1 per cent limit. More enforcement officials are in sympathy with the law. More courts arc really pun ishing violators. And sustaining all departments of government in the war to uphold the Constitution is a public opinion that grows stronger for law enforcement every day. On January 16th it will be fitting to celebrate Amer ica’s freedom from liquor domination, America’s in creased sobriety and prosperity under prohibition, and America’s promise of great good to come in the future when the wounds of the old liquor traffic have healed and the wickedness of the present day law-breakers has been overcome by a country that never surrenders. Who is Complaining? It is not the friends of prohibition that are criticizing the law. It is the newspapers that were wet before pro hibition, that said prohibition would never work, and that do not want prohibition to be a success. It is the politicians who wrere wet before prohibition. It is the men who made money' out of alcoholic poisons before America went dry. It is those who wanted their booze before prohibition and want their booze now. Practi cally every enemy of prohibition now was opposed to dry laws five years ago. Friends of the Eighteenth Amendment are still in favor of prohibition and their number lias been greatly' added to by honest opponents who have changed their minds. This is proven by in creasing dry' majorities in elections that have been held in recent years. From Gompers to Green The passing of Gompers and the succession of Green to the presidency of the American Federation of Labor is much more significant than the mere change from a wet to a dry leader. For years Gompers used the in fluence of his leadership to keep his organization lined up for booze. He practically silenced scores of labor leaders who favored prohibition. He formed a political partnership with the brewers before the country went dry and joined political forces with the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment after prohibition came. The loss of Gompers in itself was a great blow to the beer and wine cause. But even so Gompers’ go ing and Green’s coming to the front is but an illustrative incident in the progress of humanity. Old prejudices, old customs, old alliances, old habits, old associations will give way to new ideas and new principles as the old generation gives way to the new. One Wet Neatly Silenced Mr. B. W. Ewing, business manager of the Anti-Sa loon League, was mailing some packages at the Chicago postoffice just before Christmas. A parcel post clerk, evidently wet, noticed the League’s return address on the packages, and sneeringly asked, “When do we get prohibition, anyhow?” Mr. Ewing waited a moment while his packages were beng weighed then replied, “You ask me that with clerks standing shoulder to shoulder the whole length of this counter and with packages piled up to the ceiling behind you? If you would wake up and look around you would realize that this whole room is packed with the best proof on earth that prohibition is here.” So saying our business manager departed making way for the next in a long line waiting to con tribute their packages to the greatest volume of Christ mas business ever handled by the Chicago postofficc. The Futility of Fines The Rockford Star of December 25 tells about the capture of two booze runners in that city. Judge Fred E. Carpenter fined one $750 and the other $100. Costs were added. The Star article states that the amount paid established a record in the county court and fea tured the severity of the penalties imposed in its news article. But three little items in the story make it quite plain that these violators were not punished at all. 1. The men had the money and paid it in court. 2. Their load of confiscated booze would have brought twice the amount of their fines had they reached their destination. 3. The men declared that they would give Rockford a .wide berth in the future. There is nothing in this situation to indicate that these poison transporters intend to obey the law in the future. Past profits easily paid their fine. Another load by an other route would recoup their loss in Rockford. Booze runners will not be stopped by penalties which leave them their freedom and their means of transportation. As well try to save chickens by shooting a few feathers out of the tail of a predatory hawk. DON’T WANT MOONSHINE RISKS (New York American Issue) The big insurance companies which deal in a large measure with people of the working and middle salary class are taking great precaution against insuring the man or woman who is likely to drink bootleg liquor. The would-be policy bolder is grilled on the subject of drinking home-brew and other alcoholic concoctions. The insurance companies have always steered clear of the alcoholic risk, even the so-called moderate drinker was looked upon askance and the habitual drinker was turned down cold before prohibition. BIG BUSINESS AND THE BOOTLEGGERS (Union Signal) There arc many indications that America is not going to tolerate the lawless attitude of an impudent minority of the people who seem to think that they own the United States and can conduct themselves as they please, law or no law. One of these signs is the straight-from-thc-shoulder stand taken by some of the big industries of the country. It has been made very plain to the employes of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, in a warning recently issued, that the man agement of that concern and its allied interests are going to get along without the services of men who are en gaged in any form of illicit liquor traffic, and that im mediate discharge will follow detection of men employed by them who are engaged in bootlegging. A Pennsyl vania coal company has threatened with eviction the workmen in their mines who arc found to be operating stills.