OCR Text |
Show TWO YEAR DRY FIGHT TOO SHORT TO DECIDE PROHIBITION'S FUTURE : After two years of prohibition the survey by this newspaper shows conditions among the different States vary as widely ;is they did before the Volstead act. Generally speaking, the States that were dry before the Eighteenth Amendment are driest now. With some exceptions, especial espe-cial 1 in the South, the sections in which there in ribw the most widespread wide-spread violation of the prohibition law are the same sectlous in whL-b the consumption of alcoholic liquors was greatest before prohibition. At the same time it is apparent from all reports that the total on-sumption on-sumption of liquor has decreased enormously, that the number of arrests for drunkenness has decreased substantially, even though in places there mav have beer an Increase lately; that major crime has Increased In the n cent past, but that officials in a position to judge do not attrlbuto this to prohibition. The survey also haa shown clearly that prohibition has Increased crime generally by the creation of a new set of offenses, and that enforcement, enforce-ment, embracing the apprehension and punishment of those guilty of the e offeuses, is not particularly effective in improving conditions in sections ttlli lo be classed as weL Wet conditions prevail wherever conditions are propitious With the exception of Maine and Delaware, the States along the Atlantic seaboard are wet, the degree being rather noticeably dependent on the proximity of the larger cities. Foston is not so wet as Now York, not by a great deal But the larger cities in New Jersey and Philadelphia and a good part Ol Pennsylvania are wet. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Caro-lina, Georgia and Florida, the rest of the coast States, arc in wet territory, with Georgia possibly tho wettest of tho lot The States along the Gulf and the Ifexlcan bonier are wet, those to the eastward rather more no than the rest. The Pacific coast States are also wet. and along the Canudian border there is a arying degree of disobedience of th law. with conditions at their worst In the neighborhood of the Great LAKSS and at their best in Vermont and New H imi hlre. There is nothing geographical about the situation generally, however, nor Is the West giaally superior to the I East. Four of the driest States are ! in the Fast Vermont. New Hampshire. Hamp-shire. Maine and Delaware. Two very wet States California and OragOfl i arc in the Far West. And Missouri, rary wet lndeved, and centrally located, l- bordered by somo of the driest States in the Union. ( nnuiniti'ii Drrrrnalni:. But the term "wet" Is misleading at 1 beat. It cannot mean that sections to which It Is applied ire now consuming as much liquor as they did before pro- j hibitlon, because almost every report received is to ire contrary and the very marked decrease in the arrests for drunkenness shows that there has been decreased consumption. To sub- HI Btantlate this arc the figures of tho Government dealing with the releas of intoxicants from bond and the fig- ures as to Imports. -w The unknown factors are the smug- poods and the home brew. In- terested sources utilize these factors as they please. On the one hand home brewing Is classed as a fad; on the other hand It Is considered as of . PH Vital and growing Importance, and the sale of malt and hops by the package Is quoted to substantiate c conlcn- The fact is no one can accurately fM how much liquor is being WW rled into the country Burreptltlousij m nor how much Is being made illicitly. W A Correspondents' reports and Govern- j m nient figures on arrests and seizures g m Id Indicate that the smuggling ac- .Mt and the enterprise of the moon- fl shiner and the home brewer Is large', HH a question or local conditions. Moo mm shining is almost unknown in Kansas because there is no demand for Hauor, mM tho p This surve; . . shown hat aforce- Vfn men! , id In Rhod' Island I Where there IS no Stale enforcement law and no cooperation between local MM and Federal authorities. It is at us H best where the State has passed a law VW w hlch enables (be lo al i oll e authoi - ,! ties to take a hand. New York -ity mm furnishes one example of tn Ian r Ml Btate of affairs, but yet New jfork city U Is one of the wettest spots In the conn- try. Even what might be te-nied In- Mm tensive enforcement activity does not Bfll seem necessarily to result In actual WW enforcement of tho prohibition law. SgJliJ I I Cot Mn- no Staggrarlng. What enforcement may hove cost mm the States and the cities there Is no possible way of Judging. That the DA cost has been high there is no doubt. Hil The item, could it be calculated, should n m be a.ded to tho loss tn revenue which Eft many of the States have sustained as Ulm a result of prohibition, ro that an estl- Lavg mate of the co-l of the dry law by rl Stat might be approximated. The I total of BUCh costs, added to the loss In 1 MM Federal revenue, which Is more than 4m mj $360 OflO.000 a year plus the cost of . Hsl Federal enforcement, would give a IH .staggering total. H Some measure of the cost cf Fed- H eral enforcement is possible. FoMow- HH big is a table prepared by the prohl- H bition unit in Washington showing J the amounts expended in the last fi- H cal year for prohibition enforcement: LB Rant $120,817.05 I Telephone 17.409.0S Supplies and equipment. . 37,25246 H Purchase of evidence and Hf -miscellaneous 157.636-39 LLI Selture and sale 32,866.47 H irli s . 501 309 I jfegrc' Pw Office expenses 90.429.10 Total ?C.j:o,095 13 Ezpcnae Expected Uoont, This is for expenses billed to Sep- tember 27 last. The final total, after H ail auditing, will be about $7,500,000. H For the current year the approprla- - LM petted increase In cost. Evidently it LiLfl Is anticipated that the cost will con- VLfl Un.ua to crow, fur tho proposal hes .Zxiifl made in thi House oi Reproach- BHLl tatlves thai the appropriation for next i' lB en fori men! be set at $&.Z50.000. H Against this figure perhaps should H le placed ',u: results of enforcement H js expressed in dollar-. For the fiscal HLtM referred to the appraised value H or property seized was $10 906,G87. Q 'i In- !'-! i re i In'' u-iual ,-i.ures. and Lfl doss not Include property destroyed Investigatprs upon discovery, nor does it take into account property led on in distrait proceedings for the payment of taxes assessed for vlo-lationa, vlo-lationa, The tines Imposed in criminal which the L" ruled States vus a pari; in ihe same period amount D to 83.36u.29S. of which tbe :,.,., H j ment actually realized in tho fiscal It would appear therefore that the ; cash balance is In favor of the Gov-eminent, Gov-eminent, if no account is taken of thu cost of court proceedings. An Inquiry too. asking why it is necessary to have " mmm n appropriation f..r enforcement If It nets BUch large monetary returns. Th i sfl answer Is, of course, that the fines collected and the proceeds from th& LB pn " rty seized ?o Into B general fund, . 1 "el an not simpl pul In th , - m Much Gathered la Taxes, The Income incident to the enforce- men of the prohibition luw la not con- H fined to fines and the proceeds or LbH seizures. The Prohibition I'nlt has another table showing the double Mmmm taxes and additional penalties as- Mmmm In the m Double H national prohibition net .Jj8. 399,133 10 BnnB Additional penalties, sec- H national problbl- 17.943.S75.90 H $1,000 special tax. section ffH 1001, revenue act, 1918 . 37c S7 80 LaBBaV H Total amount assessed H on 1,sl3 $33.L'9C , fl Tho statement Is made that the bLbH amount collected during the year 0.1 H acce.unt of taxes assessed for viola- aBBH lions of the national prohibition act" bbbH 1 only f: 1. mm Prohibition enforcement In Smn Mmmm York State cost about 9625.000 In IS H This was one-tWeifti. of the coat for H the entire country. Salaries formed tho largest Item. They amounted to bbbbH approximately $100,000. The rental of ' fl borage warehouse, for the housing of BBBBBBfl ' - '' ' 1 1 ilr 1 UOO.060 more H authorities hope to et pennteioa o soli enough aetata liquor to balance the rental cost ffH According to the summary mado I puhllc a fen days ego by John s.T-ar ment officer for v Turk state, the total ralua of H |