Indianapolis Times, Volume 42, Number 53, Indianapolis, Marion County, 11 July 1930 — Page 20

PAGE 20

KILLS THREE IN MAD RIDE; GETS TEAR JN PRISON Auto Careens Through Main Streets, Drunken Driver at Wheel. By T'niteH Prrf NEWBURGH, N. Y.. July 11.— j Sentence of one year for drunken driving was imposed today on Alexander G. Duff after his automobile: careened through the main street; of the city, killing three pedestrians. Further, Duff faces three charges of manslaughter for his mad ride, which mowed down workers wai ig for a bus, and Pat O Mara was sought on a collateral charge of manslaughter charge because he allegedly sold Duff the liquor which atarted him on his deadly drive. Duff, police charged, drove swiftly down Main street Thursday aft-j ernon in his heavy automobile. Police claimed he clipped off part of a picket fence as he swerved along the street and finally darted between a building and a bus. He drove on the wrong side of the street, police say. Workers were at the bus stop when the auto swung into the path. Michael Powers, Edward White and William Gordon were struck. Gordon's body was found fifty feet away and he was dead. The other two died within an hour. Duff did not stop after striking the three men, but continued down the street, swung to the right side and then stopped Several persons had to overpower him. •

j|| j, .. NO OT*r IR ' / , ■ ' . S. A. E. No. 30—Flash 420-30 fl SM Fire 480-90, Viscosity at Jfr A'W f\4r Fire 470-80, Viscosity at 210,60-62 ■ MBM Q.| 210, 70-72 . ... i VBHb jflgffig IshSbS |H|™B gg||gg| * M*jS^ rttfvSß * MBB& jij|p. f v?l£ 8 SBSBDB 1— W. Maryland 3—N. Capitol and 22nd. 2 E. Washington 4—Greenfield, West - u. '. ' V. t ' V

•••••TAE CRIME A6AINJT TEMPERANCE JD\/ JAMEf A.REED FO RMER OX us. SENATOR FOM MISSOUR?^

ARTICLE SEVENTEEN What Price Prohibition? THE value of any legislative experiment, whether noble in mo- ! tive or otherwise, can be measured ! only by its cost and its result. Prohibition was put forth as a cure for the evils of intemperance. To determine whether it is worth i the price we are paying, let us first consider the magnitude of the problem of intemperance. Was the United States so sodden that it was necessary to enact a constitutional amendment to save ! its citizens from their own folly? Were the people killing themselves with alcohol? Were the states so debauched, that they could not deal with this, as with all other social j crimes? If we go back to the record of the ‘‘ census bureau for 1919, the last year before the effective date of the national prohibition enforcement act, we find that just 1.367 persons in the United States drank themselves to death. That was 1.6 persons per 100.000 of population. Records of the police departments of 388 principal cities of the United States show that 310,269 arrests were made for drunkenness in that year. Those figures fairly measure the magnitude of the problem as it existed immediately before the law went into effect. The federal government is spending in direct appropriations $50,000,000 for the combined enforce-

iment activities of the coast guard, j ,the customs and the prohibition j i unit to prevent manufacture, sale, j j transportation, importation and exportation of intoxicating liquor for beverage use. In addition, it is losing, on the basis of 1919 collections, $483,000,000 ia year in revenues, j It may be said, therefore, that the federal government is spending the equivalent of $535,000,000 a year on prohibition enforcement. For what purpose? To save the ; lives of the 1,367 who killed themj selves by overindulgence in alcohol • n 1919, and to prevent the 310,269 from getting enough alcohol to get drunk again? a a tt IN 1928, as t,hown by census bureau reports, there were 4.627 deaths from alcoholism, and the rate had increased to 4 per 100,000 of population. By 1927, the arrests for drunkenness in the same 388 cities had increased from 310 269 to 557,369. Since adoption of prohibition, there has been a progressive increase in both deaths from alcoholism and drunkenness. So the problem, whether great or small, is much worse than at the beginning. The comparative insignificance of the alcohol problem is reflected accurately in the 'act that while there were but 1,307 deaths from alcoholism in 1919, there were 1,096,436 deaths from all causes in the United States. The continued relative insignifi-

THE INDIANAPOLIS TIMES

cance of the problem, even under prohibition, further is shown by the fact that in 1928 while there were 4,627 deaths from alcoholism, there were 1,378,675 deaths from all causes. If you consider the fact that the government is spending and wasting $533,000,000 a year to save the lives of the 1,367 who drank themselves to death in 1919 and appropriating only $10,000,000 a year to have the lives of the 1,378.678 who died from all causes in 1928, as well as for the protection of the health of the 120,OCO.OOO living persons, you will get a I picture of the legislative folly upon which the country has embarked.

IF we turned the picture the other way around and spent for the protection of the health and happiness of all the people against the ravages of diseases which, unlike the folly of drunkenness, are not selfinflicted, but afflict myriads who are in no way responsible for their condition, these enormous sums frittered away oon prohibition enforcement, the investment would be worth while. Diseases most destructive to human life are heart disease, pneumonia, nephritis, cancer, tuberculosis and influenza. These scourges took a toll of 710,527 lives in 1928. Suppose the $5,000,000,000 or $lO,000,000,000 frittered away on worse than useless prohibition in the last ; ten years had been spent in medical research to save the lives of the people who die from diseases really destructive of human life. Who can say what might have been accomplished! Would $lO,000,000,000 be too much to pay for another Louis Pasteur, who might produce a cure or preventive remedy for cancer? For tuberculosis? For influenza, or for any of the other major diseases? Certainly not. The United States has dealt hysterically with the prohibition ques-

tion. W'e have seen arrests for drunkenness nearly doubled and deaths from alcoholism trebled under the prohibition system. U O tt What might have been the result if we had dealt sanely with the problem, as in England? England, by limiting the hours of sale, by strict supervision of licenses, and by high taxation, has made marvelous strides toward pro- ( hibition, while the United States has piled intemperance upon intemperance under prohibition. Under the English system, convictions for drunkenness in England and Wales were cut from 188,887 in 1913 to 55,642 in 1928. The revenues on spirits, beer and wines were increased from £38,782.347 in 1913 to £136,792.965 in 1928. During the same period the consumption of spirits was reduced from 32,596.426 gallons t0'i4,500,882 gallons, or from .71 of a gallon per capita to .32. Consumption of beer was reduced from 37,558,767 barrels to 26,734,825 barrels. There has been a slight increase in the consumption of wine. A comparison of the results of an asinine prohibition policy in the United States with a sensible regulation policy in England will make all sane people blush with shame.

THERE are other costs of prohibition in addition to the expense of the federal government. It is estimated that it is costing the state governments, including loss of revenues, something like $400,000,000 a year. That is an estimate, and I do not pretend to say that it is accurate. As an illustration of some of the things that counties and states are asked to pay for in the name of prohibition, i submit a record disclosed a few years ago in Steuben county, New York, which is the home of the distinguished assistant

secretary of the treasury, who, until their recent transfer to the department of justice, was in charge of the combined enforcement activities of the) federal government. In thi3 matter of local enforcement, the sheriff was forced to take a hand. When the sheriff turned in the itemized expense accounts of his two prohibition enforcers the honorable board of supervisors of the county was shocked greatly. Here are some of the items they found, as printed in the Bath (N. Y.) Plaindealer. June 12, 1926: “For drinks and playing pianos in eighteen places in Elmira, in which we tried to get women to go to Coming with us to get into different disorderly houses, $15.20.” “Room at 42 West Market street for vice purposes, $1.50.” “Upper hallway for vice purposes at 183 East Market street, sl.” The nobility of the experiment is exemplified sufficiently by the morality of the methods employed to enforce it. (Copyright. 1930. bv James A. Reed, Distributed by Current News Features. Inc.) Former Senator Reed next will discuss “Uncle Sam—Bootlegger and Spy.” BATTLE FOR COP JOB Ravenswood Tangle Before Municipal Court July 22. Trial of charges of impersonating an officer against Robert Magill and John Solar, each of whom claims to be the marshal of Ravenswood, was continued today until July 22, in municipal court three. Magill arrested Solar on the charge after the latter appeared wearing a shiny badge and displaying authority awarded him by one faction of the town board. Solar then filed an affidavit on the same charge against Magill.

SHOTS ROUT THIEVES Chicken Prowlers Flee, Leaving Loot Collected Elsewhere. Three men who were stealing chickens early today from the farm of James E. Stumph, R. R. 8, Box 151, were the targets for buckshot Stumph fired at them as they fled. In their panic, the thieves not only dropped sacks containing chickens from the Stumph henhouse. but also ten chickens stolen elsewhere.

Sinking (anari Love Birds. Parrots. Goldfish. We give tt written guarantee with Canaries I Bird cages and stands. Bird feea.X Remedies. Supplies. Philadelphia Bird Food Co.’s., Spratt’s. Johnson's. Haller's Burnett's French's AND OUR OWN PREPARATIONS. Special—Our Mixed Bird 1 n Seea Fresh From Bulk.. Lb..IUC 32 So. ni.rV/CDITT'C SN. Ala. Rl. 1539. t-VC.nl 1 I O u, 49,vs

*7— Deep Curved Glasses f Examination Your F Dr. F. T. Lee, Optometrist in Charge w SPECIAL SATURDAY AND MONDAY n Deep curved single vision lenses fitted in shell frames. Our X J.irD prices are lowest. We use only high quality materials and j—■ " you get a thorough examination Included. optical mmi'lflftwTrrSU T h.c. -.11 ho Dept., Street fi , J "281 J ■ I ' I and fit glasses. Floor 81 BI I fj | B but Ido that, Balcony • Easy Terms!

.JULY 11, 1930

Thirteen Guinea Pig* Stolen Thirteen guinea pigs, valued at $25. were stolen from C. W. Shanks. 1423 Kenyon street, he told police today.

I VARIETIES HJ3S^Q9| B3OXEZEEH3