Imported Views

Long have Drys been annoyed by glib references to the Canadian liquor sale system as an ideal solution of the problem of Prohibition. Again and again was the House Judiciary Committee at its hearings on null of the 18th Amendment besought by Wet witnesses to observe the virtues of what Canada has done.

Last week before the same committee the Drys sought to demolish any impression its members might have retained that the Canadian system, is a success, by importing a Canadian witness, Ernest Charles Drury, onetime (1919-23) Premier of the Province of Ontario.

As a foreigner, Mr. Drury punctiliously avoided any mention of U. S. laws, confined his remarks to his own country's handling of Prohibition. He flayed the Ontario liquor system, whereunder twelve quarts of spirits, 120 bottles of beer, or unlimited wine, may be bought at one time in any of the Province's 327 government-licensed dispensaries. Said he:

"Government control is not the remedy. Effective control is indeed impossible. All we have is government sale, with consumption in the home or hotel bedroom. . . . The home is the last place in the world where liquor should be consumed. Crime is increasing; drunkenness is increasing; violations of liquor laws are increasing; motor accidents are increasing. Whatever the solution of the drink problem may be, it is not government control.

''About the only restrictive feature of this system is that places of sale are not quite so numerous as they were under the old license system. . . . The vast majority of tourists into Canada (from the U. S.) are not attracted by liquor sale. They are orderly people, with their families along, and don't want drink. . . .-''

Mr. Drury.fairly smothered the committee with Provincial statistics to prove that, in 1922 and 1923 when Ontario had Prohibition, death and crime were on the ebb; that, since 1928 under the present system, death and crime are on the rise.

It did not take U. S. Wets two minutes to look up Mr. Drury's political record, to brand him a professional Prohibitor. As a United Farmer, he formed an Ontario Government in 1919. In 1923 his Dry Government was overwhelmingly defeated by the Wet Conservatives. In last year's Ontario election the Conservatives gained 92 out of the 112 local parliament seats.

In Toronto, Ontario's Conservative Premier George Howard Ferguson declared: "If the U. S. wants to know the truth, it can get it from responsible sources. Drury campaigned against Government control and lost. He is still keeping up the fight. He made similar charges here during the last election but Ontario knew the truth and did not listen to him. Now he goes to Washington and tells about a demoralized province. The same statements made here would be greeted with laughter."

While Francis Scott McBride, chief Anti-Saloon League lobbyist, was declaring that Mr. Drury's testimony was "a knock-out blow to the Wets' pet scheme," Wets talked of inviting Premier Ferguson to Washington to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to refute the statements of his Canadian opponent. Premier Ferguson promptly scotched this proposal as "undesirable," but offered to send all data necessary to prove the success of Ontario's liquor system.*

Neatly timed was last week's announcement by the Senate Lobby Committee that it was ready to investigate the activities of Wet and Dry organizations now working in Washington to influence legislation. These lobbies have been largely responsible for assembling witnesses and stage-managing the House Judiciary Committee hearings. The first Senate Lobby Committee witness will be Massachusetts' bearded Congressman George Holden Tinkham who has a mass of complaints to file against the Methodist Episcopal Board of Temperance, Prohibition & Public Morals.

Where the Wet-and-Dry lobby investigation will lead, how deeply below the surface it will cut, how much light or heat it will generate depends largely upon the interest, vigor and ardor of the Senate's five lobby chasers, one Wet (Wisconsin's Senator Elaine) and four Drys (Senators Caraway of Arkansas, Robinson of Indiana, Borah of Idaho, Walsh of Montana).

Last year in Ontario $55.360,569.91 worth of liquor was sold. Ontario has approximately 3.000,000 population. *The Canadian House of Commons last week passed (173 to 11) a bill to deny clearance papers to liquor shipments for the U. S. The U. S. Treasury has long contended that only by such cooperation from Canada can it cope with border liquor smuggling: (TIME. June 3, Aug. 5)

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.