So many other baneful influences have affected our society as a result of the war that the gain through prohibition is not yet as obvious as it will be when social conditions become more normal. But the earlier experience of "dry" vs. "wet" States was conclusive.

(c) The liquor trade was one of the most powerful of all "interests" in the corruption of politics.1 It was fired by a grim determination to keep its business from extermination, and always maintained a powerful lobby at Washington and at the State capitals. In many places it had for years a strangle hold on legislation. It allied itself with the other vicious interests that live by exploiting human weakness, it had a vast revenue for the purchasing of votes, and, in the saloon, the easiest of channels for reaching the bribable voter. The fact that, in spite of its power, it has been destroyed in this country is one of the hopeful signs for the future of political democracy.

In sum, we can say that the evils caused by alcohol, instead of having been exaggerated, were never until recently sufficiently realized. The old "temperance" reformers, though their data were inadequate, were fundamentally right.

What should be the attitude of the individual toward alcoholic liquors?

In the light of our present knowledge, the attitude toward liquor demanded of the individual by morality admits of no debate. He may love dearly his wines or his beer, but his enjoyment is won at too dear a cost to himself and others; his support of the liquor trade is very selfish. He has no right to poison himself, to impair his health and efficiency, as even a little drinking will do. He has no right to run the 1 H. S. Warner, op. cit., chap. XI.

risk of becoming the slave of alcohol, as so many of the most promising men have become; the effect of the drug is insidious, and no man can be sure that he will be able to resist it. He has no right to spend in harmful self-indulgence money that might be spent for useful ends. He has no right to incur the, however immeasurable, moral and intellectual impairment which is effected by even rather moderate drinking. He has no right to bequeath to his children a weakened heritage of vitality. He has no right, by his example, to encourage others, who may be far more deeply harmed than he, in the use of the drug; "let no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." The influence of every man who is amenable to altruistic motives is needed against liquor, wherever it is now sold; the great advantages gained by the United States in freeing itself from this ancient curse must be shown to the world.

It is a genuine hardship to those who have been accustomed to their beer or whiskey to have to give it up. It is a pity that future generations in this country must miss the delights of rare wines and cordials, highballs and cocktails and punches, with their accompaniment of conviviality and good-fellowship. So much of the world's literature is saturated with alcohol! Our children will inevitably have their wistful moments when they will long to taste these now forbidden joys. For this reason it is highly important that, at least for a generation to come, they should be made to realize clearly the evils that made it necessary to banish alcohol.

The former Kaiser remarked, a few years before the Great War, that when it came success would belong to the army that used the least alcohol. That army was the American army. In the competition between nations that has ensued the United States has an equally great advantage, if it is to be, for some years, the one great nation of abstainers.

What should be our attitude toward the use of alcoholic liquors by others?

The consideration of this question falls properly under the head of "Public Morality." But it will be more convenient to treat it here, following the presentation of the facts concerning alcohol. The right of the community to interfere with the conduct of its members will be discussed in chapter XXVIII, and we must assume here the result therein reached, that whatever is deemed necessary for the greatest welfare of the community as a whole may legitimately be required of its individual members, however it may cross their desires or however they may consider the matter their private concern. The argument against prohibition on the ground that it interferes with individual rights would apply also to childlabor legislation, to legislation against street soliciting by prostitutes or the sale of indecent pictures, and, more obviously still, against anti-opium and anti-cocaine legislation. As a matter of fact, the older individualistic point of view has been generally abandoned now, and we are free to discuss what is desirable for the general welfare.1

We may at once say that whatever method can most quickly and thoroughly root out the evil is best to adopt. Different methods may be more or less efficacious in different places; it is a matter for legitimate opportunism. But the goal to be kept in sight can only be world-wide prohibition of the manufacture and sale of all alcoholic liquors for beverage purposes. Education on the matter, and exhortation to personal abstinence, must be continued. But education and exhortation are not alone sufficient; self-restraint cannot be counted on, constraint must be employed. "High

1 For the arguments for prohibition, see H. S. Warner, op. cit., chaps. IX, XII. Artman, The Legalized Outlaw. Fehlandt, A Century of Drink Reform. Wheeler, Prohibition.

License" and "Regulation" have been thoroughly tried and have not checked the evil; moreover, it has been a serious blunder to make the State or municipality dependent upon the liquor trade for revenue, and therefore eager to retain it. The "State Monopoly" system did not prove a success in this country in lessening the evil; it made the liquor power a more sinister influence than ever in politics. If liquor must be sold, the "Company," or Scandinavian system, which eliminates the factor of private profits, without fostering political corruption, is probably the least harmful method of selling.

But no method of selling liquor can be more than a temporary expedient. We must coöperate with reformers in other countries to extend the boundaries of "dry" territory. "Local option" is of great value at a certain stage of a people's education, and is doubtless in some countries the best attainable status for the present. But it should be regarded as a means of gradually extending "dry" territory rather than as a permanent solution. The example of the United States will be, of course, of enormous value in pushing the campaign elsewhere. Already (1920) New Zealand has come within an ace of adopting prohibition; Australia, Canada, South Africa, and some of the South American nations may be expected soon to fall in line. Russia since the early days of the war has been largely dry; but the terrible effects of the war in that unhappy country conceal the beneficent results of the banishing of vodka. China, which has waged such a gallant war against opium (thrust upon her by British financial interests), may be looked to for antialcohol legislation. Mohammedanism has always been a bitter enemy of strong drink. It is the peoples of Western Europe who will resist longest the crusade against alcohol. The average Frenchman and Italian can scarcely conceive of life without their wine; the average Britisher clings tena

ciously to his beer and ale. The average amount of alcohol consumed per capita in Great Britain is half as much again as it ever was in this country. In Italy it is between two and three times as much. In France, where the alcoholic consumption is highest, it is more than three times as much. The figures for the pre-war Germany were not much higher than for the United States.

The arguments against prohibition are not strong. That the law is poorly enforced in localities where public sentiment is against it is natural; but no law is universally obeyed, and that a law is broken is a poor reason for removing it from the statute books. No one would suggest repealing the laws against burglary or seduction because they are daily disobeyed. This pseudo-concern for the dignity of the law is simply a specious argument advanced by those who have an interest in the trade, and accepted by those who suppose liquor-drinking to be wrong only in excess and harmless in moderation. The reply is to show that alcohol, even in small doses, is harmful; a practice that is always harmful must be fought by the law as well as by moral suasion. Public sentiment must be educated up to the law; and the existence of the law is itself of educative value. Moreover, the problem of enforcement has become relatively easy with nation-wide prohibition, and will be still easier when neighboring nations are also "dry."

That prohibition involves the ruin of a great industry is true; these millions of workers are now free to give their strength to productive labor, these millions of dollars have now been invested in industries useful to mankind. Confiscation works hardship to the brewers and distillers; so it does to the opium-growers, the makers of indecent pictures, and counterfeit money. A trade so inimical to the general interest deserves no mercy. The States that unwisely used the "tainted money" drawn from the industry by license