Mr. Ford

Surrounding himself with newspapermen at his Wayside Inn in Sudbury, Mass., Henry Ford talked publicly for an hour last week. He mentioned Prohibition, as follows:

"The worst thing that could happen to this country would be a step backward in our fight against liquor. . . . Such a change [repeal of the 18th Amendment] would be a calamity, but there's no possibility of it. As for present enforcement conditions, we manage to get along well enough at Detroit, although we are next door to Canada. Personally I'd turn out the army and navy to stop bootlegging.

"But if the law were changed, we'd have to shut down our plants. Everything in the United States is keyed up to a new pace which started with Prohibition. The speed at which we run our motor cars, operate our intricate machinery, and generally live would be impossible with liquor. No, there is no chance even of modification."

Citizens wondered what, if any, relation or comparison there might be between Mr. Ford's reasoning processes and the processes of John Jacob Raskob, retired finance chairman of General Motors, the biggest Ford competitor. Long before his new political activities caused him to withdraw from General Motors, Mr. Raskob was, as everyone knows, active in the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment.

The "real father" of General Motors, President William Crapo Durant, of the Durant Motor Co., made a gangplank speech about national affairs before sailing for Europe last week. About Prohibition, he said:

"For the widespread disobedience to the liquor law as embodied in the Constitution, the business leaders of the country are very largely responsible. Had our business leaders frowned upon instead of encouraging bootlegging, had they raised their voices in protest of public and private violations, had they used their money and their influence to obtain a fair trial for one of the best measures ever adopted by this or any other country--in other words, if they had supported the Constitution of the United States--our public officials (including our judges), our children, our servants, our employes and the thinking public generally would without question have caught the spirit of law observance. . . .

"Business leaders, who have the largest stake in law observance, set the example of law defiance."