to-do of the cities should protest that they were taken by surprise.

Amid the mass of conflicting views and evidence as to the effects of Prohibition, however, the one conviction which grows more definite is that the United States will never, humanly speaking, cancel the prohibitory Amendment. The procedure would be very long and very difficult, involving the securing, first, of action by Congress, and, second, the ratification of that action by the several Legislatures of not less than thirty-six States. What might be a less hopeless undertaking, however, is the altering of the enforcing law, known as the Volstead Act. The Amendment to the Constitution merely prohibits the use, etc., of 'intoxicating liquors' without any definition of 'intoxicating.' This is supplied by the Volstead Act, which defines as 'intoxicating' all liquors containing more than one-half of 1 per cent. of alcohol. It is evident that the raising of this very rigid limitation might conceivably be attained (such an amendment would need no ratification by individual States) so as to admit, perhaps, thin beers and light wines. It is probable (though any such general statement is hazardous) that the permission to consume such beers and wines would have the approval of a majority of the people of the country, if it could be arrived at without worse consequences. But there are formidable obstacles in the way. In the first place, over a large part of the country the people of the United States are, measured by European standards, almost completely ignorant of the nature and proper use of wines. The very name 'French wines' suggests to many worthy people only visions of naughtiness and profligacy. Moreover, fanaticism has been actively at work creating misapprehension on the subject. An eminent (I believe the most eminent) leader of the Anti-Saloon League assured me not long ago that wines were just as bad as whiskey, and that practically all the criminality of the American troops in France was the work of men who were 'frenzied' by the wicked French wines. He, being equally ignorant of wines and of France and its customs, was doubtless perfectly sincere in what he said.

A still more formidable obstacle to amendment of the law in this direction, however, is the widespread fear that the selling of beer and wine could not be permitted without reintroducing the sale of whiskey and re-establishing the saloons. Strength has been given to this fear by the frequent convictions for evasion of the law of the keepers of places where' soft drinks' only are supposed to be sold. If you cannot stop whiskey from being sold at icecream parlours and soda fountains, it is argued, how much more difficult it will be to prevent it in beer-gardens and wine-taverns. And, whatever New York and the larger cities may think on the

subject, the country as a whole is entirely determined never again to tolerate the saloons.

The one benefit which does undoubtedly seem to have accrued, even from the present ridiculously imperfect enforcement of the law, is that it has materially reduced rowdyism and crimes of violence (as well as the squandering of the weekly pay) among the employees massed in factories and mines. It was my pleasure not long ago to dine with an employer of labour on a considerable scale. On that occasion there were served cocktails before dinner, three kinds of wine at the table, liqueurs to follow, and whiskey and soda before we parted. At dinner the host expatiated on the advantages of the law in the diminution of 'Saturday night crime' among his workmen.

Similarly, in one of the Southern States a very charming lady, with a cocktail in her hand, explained to me between sips how great was the benefit of having whiskey made so hard to come by among the negro labourers in the neighbouring mills and factories. And this is, of course, generally recognised: that Prohibition, so far as it operates at all at present, is much more prohibitive to the poor than to the rich; and it is the poor who have to consume the larger proportion of the poisonous substitutes for whiskey, the sale of which is facilitated by the secrecy imposed by the law.

Incidentally, it is worth remarking that one curious result of the law which appears so far to have gone unnoticed is the impetus it has given to the consumption of cocktails by women. I do not imply that this consumption is carried too far, or that it is in any way deleterious; but merely state the fact. Before the Prohibition Amendment the business man, after the close of office hours, generally went to his club for an hour or two before going home, and there he had whatever cocktail or other drink he required; or he stopped at a saloon or hotel bar on his way home. That now being difficult, he takes his cocktail at his house, where it is likely to be shared (it is commonly mixed) by the ladies of his family.

Some twenty-five years ago I remember being immensely interested in watching a Southern lady mixing mint juleps for a party of five or six. They were extremely good juleps, and it was, at that time, a quite uncommon accomplishment for a woman to know how to concoct drinks. There are not many ladies in wellto-do houses now-certainly in the Eastern States-who are not experts at the making of cocktails.

As to the effects of Prohibition, so far as it is operating, in the more important aspects, it is as yet (after four years) impossible to draw any definite conclusions, evidence on both sides being so abundant and so entirely contradictory. It is uncertain whether more whiskey is drunk in the United States now than before the

passage of the Amendment, or less. It is certain, however, that much of what is drunk is of the very worst quality.

Whether the effect on crime has on the whole been beneficial or not is equally uncertain. The United States has since the adoption of Prohibition suffered from a 'crime wave,' which, however, may be due to causes quite other than liquor. The friends of Prohibition (who are immensely better organised than their opponents) publish impressive statistics of the diminution of crime in one area and another; but on the other hand there has been no lack of dicta from the Bench to the effect that never have crimes of violence resulting from drink been so numerous or so brutal. It is claimed (but it is impossible to confirm the statement) that there are more deaths now from the drinking of the vile liquors supplied as 'whiskey' than there ever were from alcoholism in the past.

Whether more money is spent now on liquor than formerly is also unascertainable. That there is, probably, less dribbling away of weekly pay-rolls has already been explained; but against that is the fact that very large numbers of people have not materially reduced their consumption, and when an authentic bottle of any well-known brand of Scotch whiskey costs anything from 31. in New York to Iol. (and even more) in, say, Colorado, which is situated so distressingly far from any frontier, it is evident that the aggregate expenditure must be very large. The big money made in the illicit trade is proof of the same thing.

It is claimed by the advocates of Prohibition that the present opposition to the law is temporary only, and that a new generation is growing up of persons who will have no taste for liquor because it is unknown to them. Perhaps. But a professor at one of the great universities told me that the effect of the law had so far been very corrupting to the undergraduates. The mere fact that liquor was theoretically unobtainable was a temptation which youth could not resist; and much of the liquor drunk by the unsophisticated student was necessarily of a shocking quality. Also a theatrical manager told me that the effect of the law on chorus girls and the like was unquestionably bad. Girls who would not formerly have gone out with a man alone in an automobile-still less have accompanied him to his rooms-too often fell now before the inducement of getting illicit cocktails or champagne. How much importance to attach to these pieces of evidence I do not know. But they suggest that the arrival, in the near future at least, of a generation which will know nothing about liquor is less assured than the Prohibitionists appear to think.

As there has been shown to be one solid advantage from Prohibition, in the diminution of the 'Saturday night' squandering and drunkenness of the massed workers in factories and the like,

so there must be set against this an equally solid and even more obvious disadvantage which has already been referred to, namely, the encouragement of a spirit of contempt for the law as such. This is not a matter in which (though one says it with humility) the American people can well afford much retrogression. They are a singularly lawless people now. It is probably an inevitable defect of one of their best qualities—their independence and spirit of individual self-expression, the obverse to which, perhaps, could not be other than a lack of reverence for all authority, including the authority of the law. In the particular case under discussion the tendency to show contempt for the law has been much fostered by the conspicuous part taken in evading the regulations by those who have been officially charged with enforcing them.

There is yet, it would seem, a long struggle ahead of the United States, unless the Government is prepared to embark on a much more vigorous policy of enforcement than it has yet pursued, involving the expenditure of much money. Enforcement, moreover, is not going to be made any easier if other States should follow the example of New York, and leave it entirely to the Federal authorities, by withdrawing their own co-operation. Whether there will ultimately come a reign of real Prohibition, or whether, before that, a Congress will have been elected which will amend the Volstead Act in the direction indicated above, is a subject on which no wise man would prophesy with confidence.

So far as there is any lesson to be drawn from American experience for our guidance in Great Britain, it is, first of all, to be noted that, as explained above, the conditions which provoked the law in the United States are conditions which do not exist here or in any other country. Bad as many of our public-houses may be, the worst of them comes nowhere near the average badness of the saloons. Nor is there, on the other hand, in the British peoples anything like the same spirit of defiance of the law nor anything like the same ignorance, universal over the greater part of the United States, of the proper use of wines and the lighter drinks generally. When all is said, however, and after allowance has been made for all differences in the conditions and temper of the two peoples, the impression which a study of the results of the present law in the United States must, I think, make on any observer is that there could hardly be a worse way to set about making a people sober than by a general prohibitory Act, except after very slow and careful approach to it.

H. PERRY ROBINSON.

THE COTTON TRADE'S PLIGHT

THERE are many people in the industrial north, no doubt, who do not comprehend fully how it comes about that the greatest textile trade of the world continues to suffer severe losses and has remained in a moribund state for a period so inordinately long, and there must be a still greater number outside who are puzzled to know, when nearly every other industry is showing signs of revival, why the cotton trade lags behind, and why, after three years of greatly restricted production, it cannot take its former place at the head of our great exporting industries.

Having occupied voluntarily official positions in this industry for over thirty years in connection with employers' organisations, I have been compelled to study carefully all the problems of this vast and complex trade. I will give as briefly as I can the causes that have placed us in our present unenviable position, and will indicate how lethargy, misunderstanding, and prejudice at home have been more deterrent factors to recovery than even that combination of adverse circumstances which was brought about by the war.

Lancashire's staple industry being so largely an export trade, it necessarily suffered severely on account of the latter. One of the greatest mistakes made at the outbreak of the war was in not following the advice that was tendered regarding the handling of the cotton crop of the world, and another which has been equally disastrous was the disbanding of the Cotton Control Board for regulating the industry to war conditions which were absolutely necessary for an industry that imports all its raw material and exports over three quarters of its manufactures. To put it briefly, the cotton industry could only run half its machinery, but notwithstanding this, by regulating supply to demand, the employers and operatives who were compelled to stop were provided for by the payment of a levy by the sections able to carry on. As everyone knows, the upheaval created by the war still exists all over the world, and the cotton trade's difficulties and severe losses during the last three years are attributable entirely to the senseless competition at home for the restricted trade which has been possible. One thing should be understood clearly, and that is that the