CARVER SUPPORTS HOOVER'S DRY PLEA

The following article on "President Hoover and Prohibition" was written for the Harvard Crimson by Thomas Nixon Carver, David A. Wells Professor of political economy.

Nothing which anyone could say in favor of enforcing the prohibitory law could possibly please the fanatical wets. Reasonable people, wets and drys alike, must approve some parts of President Hoover's message which refer to that subject. Wets cannot honestly deny his first statement, namely that the first duty of the President under his oath of office is to secure the enforcement of the laws, nor his second, namely that the enforcement of the laws enacted to give effect to the eighteenth amendment is far from satisfactory. Beyond that there may be honest differences of opinion between wets and drys. President Hoover leaves no doubt, however, as to where he stands. He is in favor of a greater and more comprehensive program for enforcement.

Part of Blame Falls on States

He has stated that some of the abuses which have grown up under prohibition are due to the failure of some states to accept their share of responsibility for concurrent enforcement. He has several times requested a general respect for the

law and cooperation in its enforcement. There is a movement on foot in Massachusetts to meet this request by repealing the state enforcement law. Some think that this prompt withdrawal of support in the face of his request would look life an unfriendly attitude. Others profess to think that it would not. Let everyone face the question honestly and decide for himself who are right.

Truth Scare in Press

As to the general merits of the question, there are a few things to be said for the dry side which must appeal to everyone who really wants to reach a sane conclusion. Unfortunately there are no Boston dailies except the Christian Science Monitor which will either tell the truth themselves or permit the truth to be told in their columns on this question. Harvard students at least ought to want to know the truth. Here are a few facts.

First, there is a drink evil, and, where it is not in some way curbed, it becomes more and more dangerous as our civilization becomes more and more complicated.

All Countries Seek Solution

Second, every civilized country is engaged in a struggle to curb the drink evil. Some are trying one method and some another. Some, like England, are restricting more and more the hours and reducing the number of places in which liquor may be sold. Others are placing heavy taxes on distilled liquor in order to make it too expensive for most people. Others are prohibiting the selling of liquor except in Government dispensaries. We, in this country, have tried all of these and are now engaged in an attempt to limit the sale of liquor to medicinal and sacramental purposes.

Fight Against Liquor Not New

Third, the fight against liquor in this country began more than a hundred and fifty years ago. Dr. Benjamin Rush, chief medical officers of the Continental army, witnessing the havoc wrought by liquor among the soldiers, used all his influence against it, but of course, the standards of the time was against him. Benjamin Franklin threw all the might of his influence against liquor. Washington repeatedly warned his officers to use all their influence to curb drunkenness. Shortly after the revolution several churches took up the question seriously, the Quakers and the Methodists leading the way. Other churches soon, followed, and, from that day to this there has been a constant fight. Not the churches alone, but multitudes of non-church people, following the lead of Franklin, have joined in the fight against liquor. It has been a long hard fight, but the antiliquor forces have gradually gained ground.

Liquor Forces Well Financed

Fourth, during the entire fight, and down to the present moment, the liquor forces have had one great advantage. They have been well financed. The liquor interests have always provided ample funds. No one has had a direct financial interest in fighting against liquor. The dry forces have always had to pass the hat. Gradually, however, all socially minded people have come to see the social side of the question, and they have responded to appeals for voluntary contributions more and more generously. Millions of small contributions have come in. But the dry forces have never had funds enough to carry on as vigorous a campaign as the wets. At the present moment they are under the same old handicap. They must rely, as in the past, on the merits of their cause.

Even Wets Don't Saloon Back

Fifth, very few wets will say that they want the saloon back. Why? If the present conditions are, as they say, so much worse than they were when we had saloons, why not have the saloons back? The very fact that they are unwilling to say that they want the saloon back, has a meaning. They know perfectly well that present conditions, bad as they are, are vastly better than they wore in the days of the saloon. To that extent at least prohibition is a success.

Sixth, the chief argument of the west is based on the word "can't." "Prohibition can't be enforced" is their chief stock in trade. If, even in its present state of partial enforcement, it is better that what it displaced, why not say frankly that it has done a great deal of good, but hadn't accomplished all that was expected of it. If that is not true, why are the wets so vociferous in proclaiming that they do not want the saloon back? If it is true, why not admit it frankly and then see what is next to be done.

Seventh, I have never heard a wet who was willing to discuss the question: Would prohibition be a good thing, economically and morally, for the country if it were well enforced? That, after all, is the real question. Why not consider it in an honest and scientific spirit? A good beginning may be made by reading Sir Josiah Stamp's address before the British Society for the Study of Inebriety on October 8, 1929