Newspaper Page Text
(H. E. Zimmerman, in the Mount Morris [111. 1 Index) Senator Kissinger, in his lecture last Friday night at the college, said a mouth ful when he declared that one of the chief faults of the people today is that they don’t think for themselves, but allow oth ers to think for them. We recall so much of his address, but for the life of us we were unable to guess what his subject was. Does anybody who was there know? We often hear of people “losing their heads,” and, indeed, so tar as their heads doing them any good except to keep their spinal columns from slipping into their shoes, their heads might as well remain lost. We have always been of the opin on that our heads were for individual thinking; but we have aboundant evi dence all around us that many people seem to think otherwise. They prefer to have their thinking handed out to them — through some paper, in many instances, and then appropriate it already predi gested. The wet press has hit upon what they regard as a catchy and effectual word— "snooping.” Prohibition officials arc rc fecred to, sneeringly as “snoopers,” Right in this connection would he a fine oppor tunity for some of our people who have been accustomed to accept in toto the opinion of others without examining into then, to place a proper valuation upon hundreds of wet editorials and other propaganda. Why not get out the oil :an, screw driver, monkey wrench, etc., quirt a few drops of oil into the mental machinery, tighten up the rickety parts of that gray matter and get the old men tal tin Lizzie to run true to form as was originally intended by our Creator when he surmounted our bodies with what we call heads? The writer of these words does not propose to allow either wet or dry pa pers to do our thinking for us, and for that reason we propose to ask a few ques tions about this word “snooper.” The ultimate purpose of the wets in using this word is, of course, to produce an at titude or feeling of contempt toward offi cials who arc appointed to enforce the law. And it must be admitted, in far too many instances, the plan works. If one keeps on long enough calling the most lccent citizen in our community by an lgly name, eventually the community vill begin to regard him lightly and also join in the chorus of defamation. That is human nature. The wets are now working that tendency in gullible human nature for all that is is worth, After all, is there anything in the contemptible ex pression? Let us see. Let any man engage in the business of counterfeiting the money of Uncle Sam, and he will soon see how much “snoop ing” government detectives will engage in ^to catc hhim. All kinds of plans will he laid to entrap him, and his home will not always be found to be bis “castle,” cither, as the wets love to assert, l’ostoffice in spectors send decoy letters to catch a cul prit who is robbing the mails which, of :ourse, is perfectly legitimate according o the wet press, but it is entirely wrong md most despicable for an officer to de -oy a bootlegger by buying a glass of llegal beer, wine or whisky. W here is the difference? There is absolutely none, and the wets know this. But it suits their purpose to make their usual unfair ap peals to people who don’t do their own thinking. When people return from Eu rope, for example, the government has officials at the port to go through their ^ trunks and even c' ' ; to iml out if there is any smugg ing being done. W hat Ik else is this hut "snooping?” Have you ever heard a wet say this was contempt ible or wrong, and therefore the law in reference to it should be repealed? It can readily be seen, therefore, that the government does not always wait for evidence, but proceeds to snoop into our personal affairs on grounds of suspicion alone, as, for instance, in the ways we have indicated above. To call prohibition detective work "snooping” and the other work of the government honorable and legitimate proves that the wets have no sense even of elemental logic. But if peo ple would make their brains function and do even a little bit of thinking they would at once see through the disingenuousness of all these allusions to snooping, and re gard such palpably unfair and contemptu ous efforts of the wets with that con tempt which they deserve. The wets know they must get their recruits from those dodos who do not think. Prohibi tion lias been won by people who think and who know the past history of the saloon business, the slimy trail it has left across our country, and the sorrow and destruction which have invariably fol lowed in it wake. When The Tribune, for example, contemptuously uses this ugly word for bringing the forces of law and order into contempt, it belies its title of being “the world’s greatest newspaper.” The plummet of its littleness has struck the bottom in its effort at nullification. PROHIBITION BENEFITS Why a Large Share of the General Prosperity Is Attributable to the Eighteenth Amendment “Who benefits by prohibition?” asks the Buffalo Citizens’ Committee of Five Thousand for Law Enforcement, and then the committee proceeds to give these answers: “Wage earners, whose wages were $8, 000,000,000 more in dry 1926 than in wet 1918, an increase of 25 per cent. “Employers, who* benefit by increased production, a reduced labor turn over, so ber workmen, and fewer accidents. “Farmers, who buy three times as much farm machinery, who sell 45 per cent more milk than in 1920, and who rarely have a drunken farm hand. “Bankers, who have gained 23,000,000 new depositors since 1920 and have in creased deposits in the savings banks by $9,000,000,000—an increase of 60 per cent. “Insurance men, who have sold $51, 000,000,000 worth of new insurance since 1920, an increase of 130 per cent. Sixty million persons now hold life insurance. “Real estate men, who sold an average of 741 new homes for every day last .year. “Merchants, who get much of the $2, 000,000,000 formerly spent in drink, and who have thousands of buyers where they used to have hundreds. “Everybody’s wife, who shares in all this increased prosperity and rejoices in all it means to her family. Probably she has one of the 612.000 washing machines or one of the 1,000,000 vacuum cleaners, or some of the $000,000,000 worth of fur niture which has been sold each year since 1024. A million farmers' wives are enjoying the 1,000,000 bathrooms which were put into farm houses last year. "Everybody’s family, as there is now one passenger automobile to every one and one-fourth family, one radio to every five homes in the entire country, while colleges have doubled their attendance in four years and schools of every kind are full to overflowing.” The Puififalo Committee adds, "this splendid condition is, of course, not due solely to prohibition, but leading finan ciers and economists attribute to the Eighteenth Amendment a very large share of our present prosperity.” U. S. EXCELS IN RADIO More Broadcasting Stations in the United States Than in All the Rest of the World At the close of the International Ra diotelegraph Conference in Washington in November, the Department of Com merce prepared a new list of broadcasting stations around the world. The report shows that commercial broadcasting is now provided by 431 stations in 57 for eign countries as against 659 now operat ing in the United States and its territo ries. Europe has 196, North America out side the United States 128, South Ameri ca 52, Asia 18, Oceana 28, and Africa 9. United States continues to hold front rank with its high-powered broadcasting stations at Schenectady, Pittsburgh, Bounbrook, N. J. and Bellmore, Long Island. Outside the United States the most powerful broadcasting stations are those at Motala, Sweden and Moscow, Russia. In no spirit of boastfulness but as a simple statement of fact this record is re corded. It suggests that prohibition be given some credit. Radio-receiving sets are almost as numerous as pianos in the homes of America. They are in the lux ury class of house furnishings, but they are as frequently found in the working man’s home as in the homes of the wealthy. Broadcasting stations are mul tiplying to meet the demand of the peo ple who have the radio. People of mod erate means cannot buy both booze and radio. The United States must not liave a cocktail president. •’ - v--.- - —v.- ' ... • . .:; ' " A' QUEBEC ON THE TOBOGGAN Control System Is Really “Selling” System and Is Succeeding in In creasing Sales and Multiplying Selling Places (By Ben Spence, American Issue Corre spondent, Toronto, Canada) More liquor was sold and consumed in the Province of Quebec in the year 1925-26 than any preceding twelve motnhs in the history of the province. The so-called liquor “control" system, (really liquor “selling" system), is op erating smoothly but along the line of increased “sales" rather than increased “control." According to the last published report of the Quebec Liquor Commission for the year 1926, the number of Government Stores increased from 90 to 91, of beer stores from 1,238 to 1,342; hotels from 489 to 523, taverns from 573 to 589, other selling agencies from 246 to 315. The total liquor selling places in the province have increased year by year according to the following table: 1922 .*.. 1930 1923 . 2242 1924 . 2484 1925 . 2636 1926 . 2860 The sales by the Commission Stores amounted to $19,019,299.17 as compared with $17,887,588.19 in 1925. The value, at the breweries, of the beer sold was $17,274,135.67 as compared with $14,417,619.77 in 1925. A very conserva tive estimate would be that the price to the customer was double the amount re ceived by the brewers which means that the people of Quebec paid for beer last year the sum of $34,548,271. The sales of wine also increased from 4.332,132 bottles in 1925 to 5,306,364 bot tles in 1926. Fully half the wine sold by the dispensaries was sold to hotels, res taurants, etc. for re-sale. Estimating the average profit on this at $1.25 per bottle, we have an increased cost of wine to the consumer above the price received by the Government dispensaries of $3,316,477. This means that Quebec’s drink bill for the year 1925-1926 reached the enormous total of $56,883,047.51. Estimating the population of the prov ince at 2,560,000, this would give a per capita expenditure for liquor of $22.22. Estimating the population of the whole of Canada at 9,501,660, it will be seen that if the people throughout Canada were spend ing money for liquor at the same rate as obtains In Quebec, the drink bill for the Dominion would reach the stupendous sum of $211,126,885. Estimating the population of the United States at 120,000,000, and that it had a corresponding drink bill, it would reach the staggering amount of $2,666,400,000. Because the legal sale of liquor has been increased, it does not follow that bootlegginug has been lessened. On the contrary, the experience of the past has been borne out by the facts of the present, and bootlegging keeps pace with the legal sale of liquor. Hence, the com plaints for law violation registered with the police department of Quebec last year were 7,080 as compared with 6,724 the preceding year, the prosecutions en tered were 2,717 as compared with 2,534 in 1925 and the convictions secured 2,206 as compared with 1,964 the preceding year. Quebec is still on the liquor toboggan and is demonstrating each year with in creasing emphasis that the liquor system of that province is aggravating the al cohol problem, not wolving it.