OCR Text |
Show HOW ENGLAND DOES IT. How England deals with the drink traffic, and how the United States does not, is told graphically by Win- ton unurcnm, isrnisn statesman, in a current magazine article that interests inter-ests all Americans. "When I was Chancellor of the Exchequer," Ex-chequer," says Mr. Churchill, "I received re-ceived between $600,000,000 and $700,000,000 per annum from taxes on liquor. If taxation of the same ; rigor were imposed in the United j States, a yield of anything from a billion and a quarter to a billion and a half would inure to the authorities. "All the hundreds of millions of dollars, which in Great Britain afford af-ford a welcome and indispensable relief- to over-burdened taxpayers, in the United States pour out in far greater volume into the pockets not only of bootleggers, but of that hideous hi-deous underworld which thrives upon them. "I am well aware of the argument that the state must on no account profit from taxing anything so wicked wick-ed as alcohol. But bootlegging was the first-born child of prohibition. Racketeering was its second offJ spring. Kidnaping is its latest baby. "He must be a strange fellow, pure-blind, wrong-headed, ruthless in heart, who for the sake of his fads wills' obstinately that such a process shall continue." Mr. Churchill also points out what temperance training and careful regulation reg-ulation of the liquor trade have accomplished ac-complished in his country. In 1913, he says, there were 184,000 convictions for drunkenness in England. In 1930 there were 53,000. In other words, intoxication in-toxication has been reduced more than two-thirds in that period by common-sense measures. There is no tariff on common sense, but we import little of it from England or anywhere else. Perhaps in time we shall start manufacturing it here. Let us hope so. We need it more than motor cars, electric iceboxes, ice-boxes, bathtubs and congressmen. San Francisco Call-Bulletin. |