Churches' Report

Last week was made public a voluminous six-section report. Its subject was Prohibition. It was prepared by the Research and Education Department of the Federal Council of Churches.

The report did not read like the usual reports on Prohibition-- whether for or against--for its conclusions were fully weighed in the readers' presence. It lacked the stamp of propaganda. There was no doubt that it was prepared in a scientific effort to answer the questions: "Has Prohibition been a success or a failure? Is it going to succeed or fail?"

Some of the chief points made:

A Questionnaire was sent out to 2,700 social workers of whom 10% replied. "The results of the questionnaire are recorded here because, while they represent facts not so much as opinions concerning facts, they gain significance from the marked preponderance of one type answer."

The preponderance of answers indicated the following results since Prohibition: 1) better furnished homes; 2) a larger proportion of husband's income spent on families; 3) marital relations improved; 4) more sanitary homes; 5) "mental health" better in homes; 6) less children's delinquency; 7) fewer cases of malnutrition among children; 8) liquor less accessible to children; 9) more drinking by young people; 10) less respect for law. "It cannot be too strongly insisted in evaluating such results that they are likely to reflect the bias of the person making the replies. On the other hand, it will be noted in the above tabulation that the order of favorable and unfavorable re- plies was reversed in the questions having to do with drinking among young people and with attitude toward law. This would seem to indicate discrimination at the expense of bias."

Charities. Studies were made of the casework of charities.

"In general, the case records show a sharp drop about 1920 in the percentage of cases in which intemperance was a factor, but very decided and fairly consistent increases since that date. There is an encouraging number of cities, however, that report decreases in 1924. For the most part, the 1924 figures fall short of the level of 1916-18, and in some cases the difference is striking . . . There is some reason to think that the period 1916-18 represents the crest of a wave of intemperance as a cause of dependency, and if this is true the figures for 1924 appear more favorable than they really are.

"An incidental result of this phase of the inquiry has been to reveal the extent to which the illicit liquor traffic has become a means of comparative opulence to many families that formerly were on the records of relief agencies. In one New England industrial town a row of sombre tenements has been adorned by Stutz and Packard cars, purchased with the profits of a new-found illicit livelihood."

Workers' Savings. An analysis was attempted of the effect of Prohibition on workers' savings. "The outlawing of the liquor traffic must indeed have been an influential factor here, but the fact remains that savings deposits as reported by the American Bankers' Association show a fairly continuous movement since 1918; while, if allowance be made for wage advances in 1920 and 1921 on account of the increased cost of living, it is doubtful if any great change can be shown statistically."

Prison Records. It was declared that the prison records are more reliable than police records in studying the effect of Prohibition on crime. "The index numbers representing the proportion of State prisoners to total population of the United States (1917--100) fell to 78 in 1920, but rose to 97 in 1923.

"It must be remembered that the post-War period would be expected to be marked by an increase in crime and it is quite possible that the effect of Prohibition is really shown in the retardation of the post-War crime reaction. In any case the low level reached in 1920, considered in the light of other data presented, seems to indicate the effect of Prohibition, when first enacted, upon violations of the law. Further, the subsequent rise, by comparison with the other indices that we have examined, likewise suggests that we are dealing here with forces in which liquor is a definite factor."

Drugs. "It has been intimated many times that however successful Prohibition may be in reducing the consumption of alcoholic liquors, it has tended to increase the use of drugs. It appears, however, that statements to this effect have been chiefly on the plausible guess that a person forcibly deprived of alcohol would turn to drugs. The assumption quite overlooks the fact that it is probably everywhere at least as difficult for the addict to procure drugs as for the habitual drinker to procure liquor, and in most places more difficult; hence, there is little point in the contention that alcoholics have been driven to drugs. Another important element in the situation is the fact that the physiology of alcoholism and that of drug addiction are quite different."

New York's Shame. Tha worst conditions were found in New York; the best in Indiana. In Manhattan "it has even been known to happen that, in order to avoid forfeiture of a bail bond, the surety company would put up a fake defendant to plead guilty and pay a fine at the surety company's expense, when the real culprit had long since disappeared and was probably plying his trade elsewhere.

"This practice came to light when an irate judge departed from the precedent and exceeded the legal penalty by sending the substitute defendant to jail, only to receive a querulous letter from him protesting that he had nothing to do with the case and that a jail sentence was not in his bargain."

Cost. "The total cost of Prohibition to the Federal Government in the form of specific appropriations for the fiscal year 1926 is $19,319,817. Larger estimates have been made, but they include a considerable share of the appropriation for the Department of Justice. It is hardly possible, however, to fix any sum on this account, since there is no specific appropriation for it."

Mellon. "The Secretary of the Treasury has never been a Prohibitionist. Indeed, it is merely recording a known fact to say that he has until recently held distillery properties. They represented, of course, only a fraction of his extensive investments, and it has been authoritatively stated that he took early steps to liquidate these properties after assuming his present office. In any case, the private investments of the Secretary of the Treasury do not in themselves warrant an attack upon his administration of the Prohibition laws, but the ownership of these properties perhaps helps to explain his attitude."

Clubmen and Editors. Votes or questionnaires sent to members of the Directory of Directors in New York City, the Cleveland Rotary Club, Rochester Kiwanis and Kansas City Clubs, in all except the last, showed a majority in favor of repeal or modification of Prohibition. Similar votes among laboring men in Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Chicago, Missouri, Pennsylvania, showed only an inconsiderable minority for the continuance of Prohibition. Votes by editors of newspapers showed a considerable majority in favor of Prohibition.