Newspaper Page Text
FINDS LITTLE GOOD IN ALCOHOL
England Ministry of Health Issues Warning Against Alcoholic Beverages Sir George Newman, chief medical of ficer to the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education of Great Britain, re cently made public his observations on the effect of alcoholic beverages on the health and welfare of the people. He spoke out of an experience of thirty-five years as public health officer and a first hand study of the effect of excessive use of alcohol on individual and community health. The New York Times, Sunday, February 15, printed the report in full and used the report as the basis for an editorial. We quote the following excerpts from the New York Times editorial: “The testimony of Sir George Newman before the Royal Commission on Licenses, published full in yesterday's Times, fur nished added material for the use of the Anti-Saloon League and other organiza tions opposed to alcohol even if it does not specifically advocate prohibition.” “If not used to excess does alcohol not fortify and strengthen the body? The answer is, ‘I know of no scientilc evidence to support the view that alcohol in creased and fortified the natural powers of resistance of the body to infective processes or that alcohol directly strength ened the tissues of the blood.’ “Its nutritious value is ‘strictly limited and transient.’ And its habitual use as an aid to work is ‘physiologically un sound.’ Lately the people of England have been urged to drink more beer in stead of tea and Sir George, as medical officer to the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education was asked whether he approved such a campaign. Again his answer while not categorical was un equivocal. ‘I should hope it would fail.’ “Whatever value beer may have for a workman is ‘slight and transient.’ Cock tails are ‘undesirable’ from a medical point of view and whisky is not recom mended as a cure for influenza.” ; U. OF M. FACULTY FAVOR STRICTER ENFORCEMENT ! ______ According to a special story in the New York Times for March 26, a majority of the University of Michigan faculty voted against the present prohibition situation in a straw vote concluded today by the Michigan Daily, student newspaper. More of the teachers voted for strict en forcement than for any other single plan, but 56 per cent of the faculty scattered their votes among three anti-prohibition proposals. The vote was as follows: For prohibition as at present. 7 For strict enforcement .198 For Ontario control plan.117 For other modification proposals.65 For total repeal .78 WETS LOSE IN MASSACHU ' SETTS HOUSE An initiative petition for the repeal of the Massachusetts state prohibition act was defeated in the Massachusetts House of Representatives April 1 by a vote of 123 to 110. The question will be referred directly to the people if the Constitutional Liberty League, sponsors of the petition, can obtain an additional 5,000 signatures. The Constitutional Liberty League is the same body which in 1928 supported a pe tition for the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. MUST PAY DEATH CLAIM ___ Frank May and Henry Niser, soft drink parlor owners, found themselves facing $7,500 damage suit April 2, as a result of the retailing of drinks not quite so soft. The widow of a man who was run down and killed by a driver to whom they al legedly sold liquor is bringing the suit. A circuit court jury, basing its author ity on a provision of the prohibition law, ordered May and Niser to pay a part of the damages to the woman. The driver of the car to whom the soft drink parlor owners are sai dto have sold the liquor was convicted of manslaughter lor which he lias since served a term. DRYS WIN IN ILLINOIS Dr. George B. SafFord, Superintendent of Anti-Saloon League, Says Real Election Results are Decisive Answer to Wet Majorities of Straw Vote Referenda In a post-primary election statement Dr. Geo. B. Sailord. State Superintendent of the Anti-Saloon League of Illinois, says: “The drys won a big victory in the pri mary election. Despite one of the strong est campaigns the wets ever conducted in this state to defeat dry candidates for Congress, backed by the most powerful wet newspapers of the country, the drys re-nominated Illinois’ big dry delegation for Congress, and nominated a dry candi date for the United States Senate: they held the lines against the terrific wet at tack on dry legislative candidates. Prac tically all the dry members of both the State Senate and House who sought re nomination won, and other strong drys were nominated in addition. To be more specific, this means that the state of Illinois containing, as it does, the great city of Chicago with its confusing problem of law enforcement and criminal politics, has still maintained a large work ing majority of drys in Congress. Of the twenty-seven members to which the state is entitled, twenty are solidly dry and two more are casual supporters of the dry side, giving the drys practically four-fifths of the Illinois delegation. In the State Legislature the drys main tain an average majority of about ten in the State Senate with a total membership of fifty-one and continues to keep up an “Off-again, on-again” contest in the House. In view of the intense fight con stantly waged in this state, Illinois can claim to be the most conspicuous cham pion of prohibition in the country and the steadiness with which the drys maintain their position. There is additional satisfaction in these results in view of the Literary Digest's referendum now being conducted. The drys are not concerned with various non binding wind and straw referenda which are the chief stock-in-trade of the liquor interest today, but when they are con fronted with a referendum that really counts—with the nomination or election of candidates for offices which have a di rect bearing on prohibition enforcement— they register their convictions in no un certain way. In this connection it is interesting to re call that the Literary Digest took a poll of California voters in September, 1922, which according to its published returns showed a vote of about two to one against strict enforcement, but just two months later California voted dry by adopting the Wright Enforcement Act with a majority of 33,943. And in a referendum which the Digest held in Ohio in September, 1922, their figures indicated that a substantial majority of anti-prohibition enforcement votes were cast, but two months later in a real election on the question of an amend ment to the State Constitution to legalize 2.75 per cent beer, Ohio rolled up a ma jority of 189,472 against beer. The “Christian Science Monitor” Announces Prohibition Series “Is Prohibition Worth While?” will be asked and answered in a series of twenty articles to appear in the Christian Science Monitor beginning May 5. The Editorial Board of the Monitor in communicating the announcement of this series to its circulation representatives has said that this series will represent prima rily an endeavor to approach the liquor question in its most modern aspects from a standpoint of calm, open-minded but searching rationality. The Monitor is will ing to have all pertinent facts considered, whether apparently favorable or unfavor able to the dry law, and to this end will in clude in early articles of the series the strongest statements it can obtain from wets in ciriticism of national prohibition, accompanying them with replies by drys. The Monitor then proposes to analyze prohibition as it is affecting the home, the workshop, the highway, the business world, the school, the churches, the social welfare institutions, the government and the indi vidual. In each field the emphasis will be upon the clear facts and a logical, common sense interpretation of them, not upon any appeal to prejudice, emotion or denuncia tion. The Monitor expects this treatment will result in a well-rounded digest of “the why of prohibition,” in which a dry may learn much about how to defend his con victions or a wet may find reasonable ma terial for consideration. CURRAN QUESTIONED BY LOBBY COMMITTEE President of Leading Wet Organization Admits $25,000 Year Salary; Says $275,000 a Year Would Cover All Salaries Henry H. Curran, president of the As sociation Against the Prohibition Amend ment, testifying April 16, before the Sen ate Lobby Committee, said that his organ ization had spent $427,213 last year in ad vocating the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. Curran also stated that 100 persons are employed in the twelve offices of the As sociation. He places his salary at $25,000 a year and expenses. William H. Stayton, chairman of the Eoard of Directors of the Association re ceives $10,000. Asked if $275,000 a year would cover all salaries, Curran replied in the affirmative. Other expenses included $23,789 a year for rent and $33,050 for traveling expenses. Recent testimony of John J. Raskob, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, prompted the investigation of Curran’s organization. Raskob testified that he was a director of the Association and had contributed $65,000. According to Curran, one of the prin cipal purposes of the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment is the support of Congressional candidates favoring re peal. Chairman Caraway, of the Commit tee, asked if the Association made direct contribution to candidates for public of fice. Mr. Curran said that it did and added that the Association had given $15, 000 to the Liberal Civic League of Massa chusetts in support of a wet candidate in a western Massachusetts election recently. An item of $32,059 listed under political expenditures and taken from a financial statement of the Association was cited by Caraway. In reply to a statement of Curran’s that the Association was fighting to restore to the states their rights, Senator Walsh (Dem.) Montana, called attention to the fact that the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments also had been attacked as violating states rights and asked why the Association did not campaign against them. “The Eighteenth Amendment is the most outrageous,” answered Curran, but added that the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, “had no business in the Constitution.” The investigation continued on the 17th at which time Curran testified that more than one million dollars would be required for the Association’s work this year. In 1928 the Association appropriated $10,000 for the prohibition referendum, he said. “We try to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” he de clared, which in the opinion of the wit ness is not true of the Anti-Saloon League and the Methodist Board of Temperance, Prohibition and Public Morals. Can any person explain in what way Clarence Darrow is helping the booze cause by his tirade against the church and the drys? TIMELY TOPICS (By F. G. McCauley) It is asserted that there arc more ar rests for drunkenness now tlian in pre prohibition days. More drunks are ar rested. Then they were protected. The saloonkeeper did not want that kind of advertising. I am opposed to making stalking horses of our school boys. I have no statistics at hand, but I have the right to my opin ions and I do not believe our youth are breaking the law as much or more than boys did when I was their age. I am one of the favored few to receive more than one ballot from the Literary Digest in the prohibition contest. Some people in Wooster arc reported to have received from two to five ballots. Is the Literary Digest taking to Tammany tac tics in its old age? Did you ever hear of a boomerang? It is a crooked stick that if thrown unskill fully returns to the thrower and hits him cn the head. Anti-prohibitionists are practicing with boomerangs in the wide open spaces and they are rubbing their heads and wondering what hit them. God was the first prohibitionist. He said “Thou shalt not.” But man was a modificationist and said, “where is the harm in tasting in moderation?” And so all our woes came upon us. If a law is a good law but it is not en forced, is that any fault of the law? Then enforce the enforcer. I wonder if these women who are so opposed to prohibition of the liquor traf fic are mothers or wives? I wonder if they want their sons or husbands to drink? I wonder if they want to drink? I wonder if a loyal citizen will counsel vio lation of law? If we break the barriers of law, what is to restrain lawlessness? DINTY MOORE IN TROUBLE Dinty Moore’s restaurant, one of the brightest lights on New York’s Great White Way, was raided by Federal officers, March 27, at the height of the pre-theater rush. Thirty-five cases of assorted liq uors were confiscated, and William Moore, manager and son of the proprietor, was arrested along with the cashier, the bar tender and two waiters. WILL NEVER BE REPEALED The prohibition issue was brought be fore the annual congress of the Daughters of the American Revolution at Washing ton the other day by Mrs. Anthony Wayne Cook, of Pennsylvania, an honorary pres ident general, with the assertion that the Eighteenth Amendment never will be re pealed. In an address at the opening session of the congress, Mrs. Cook said: “there are at stake in our national life today certain Issues which are so far-reaching that they are not matters alone of politics or of par tisanship. One of them is of the utmost impoi'tance to the men and women of America, to the mothers and fathers of the men and women of tomorrow. The Is sue to which I refer is whether or not we shall as individuals stand back of the en forcement of the Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.” MORE “DIGEST” NEWS In its publication of April 19, the Christian Herald printed tabulated returns from 33 churches in 13 states. These returns indicate, it says, that only 10.3 per cent of the total attendance, including both men and women, in these 33 church es, had received the Literary Digest ballot on prohibition. The figures indicate that three times as many men as women were given the op portunity to vote. In fact, of the 23,686 people counted in these 33 churches, 1,761 men and only 688 women had received ballots.