there are seven articles in the original constitution of the united states of america.
there are nineteen amendments (to date).
the fifteenth amendment has never been taken seriously in certain of the southern states; and the eighteenth amendment has caused more dissension than any law ever placed upon our statutes. the volstead act, which is but an enforcing act of the amendment, is highly unpopular. after three years of trying to coerce the people into obeying a mandate in which millions of them do not believe, are we to continue to do so, or are we, sensibly, to wipe it out?
the money consumed by the government in attempting to have this vicious law obeyed and respected should cause every american to blush. we are gradually—nay, swiftly—getting to a point where practically every citizen will be watched and guarded by another. one’s daily habits will be observed—perhaps by one’s next-door neighbor, or the janitor in one’s basement. there is no telling63 who is a detective nowadays. and there is no telling who is a bootlegger. maybe one is the other.
how far away we have wandered from those early principles of the signers of the declaration of independence and the makers of the constitution! “o liberty! liberty! how many crimes are committed in thy name!” cried madame roland; and bertrand barère exclaimed, “the tree of liberty only grows when watered by the blood of tyrants.”
the volstead act is the most tyrannous document a people have ever had thrust upon them. i wonder how many americans have read it, studied it, pondered over it? i wish we might read the thoughts of all the men who cast their votes for this infamous piece of legislation. i wish we might search their consciences, know of their secret emotions when they assented to its restricting sections.
it would be folly to reproduce the entire document here, with its tangle of legal verbiage, its intricate twists and turns, its complicated sentences which, to the layman, mean so little, but to the law-makers mean so much! through a thick underbrush of paragraphs the legal mind wanders at will, delightfully and miraculously at home, and finally imagines that it emerges into the sunlight of knowledge and wisdom. plain folk like you and me find it difficult to follow the gypsy patteran and patter; yet somehow we get the sense of this appalling mass of words—words that seem to have handcuffs attached to them; words that hint of prison cells and donjonkeeps;64 words that mystify and frighten us. we feel so guilty as we traverse them; and remembering the violations of this sacrosanct paper which we have witnessed since its solemn passage, we marvel at the energy expended to make us all good and holy—citizens, i was going to say; but i think, with the englishman, subjects would be nearer the truth.
for a high and mighty absolute monarchy never weighed its people down with heavier bonds. no kaiser-ridden land ever knew more complete and devastating tyranny. the burdens heaped upon the shoulders of the already weary tax-payers so that the “dignity” of this act may be upheld—ah! few of us ever consider these. we have grown so used to added packs that one more dollar seems to make little difference. but it was the last straw that broke the camel’s back; and who knows how much longer we can stand these accumulating and distressing burdens?
section 7, of title 2, reads as follows:
“no one but a physician holding a permit to prescribe liquor shall issue any prescription for liquor. and no physician shall prescribe liquor unless after careful physical examination of the person for whose use such prescription is sought, or if such examination is found impracticable, then upon the best information obtainable, he in good faith believes that the use of such liquor as a medicine by such person is necessary and will afford relief to him from some known ailment. not more than a pint of spirituous liquor to be taken internally shall be prescribed for use by the same person within any period of ten days and no prescription65 shall be filled more than once. any pharmacist filling a prescription shall at the time indorse upon it over his own signature the word ‘canceled,’ together with the date when the liquor was delivered, and then make the same a part of the record that he is required to keep as herein provided.
“every physician who issues a prescription for liquor shall keep a record, alphabetically arranged in a book prescribed by the commissioner, which shall show the date of issue, amount prescribed, to whom issued, the purpose or ailment for which it is to be used and directions for use, stating the amount and frequency of the dose.”
this would be ludicrous were it not so serious. but let us pass on to section 12:
“all persons manufacturing liquor for sale under the provisions of this title shall securely and permanently attach to every container thereof, as the same is manufactured, a label stating name of manufacturer, kind and quantity of liquor contained therein, and the date of its manufacture, together with the number of the permit authorizing the manufacture thereof; and all persons possessing such liquor in wholesale quantities shall securely keep and maintain such label thereon; and all persons selling at wholesale shall attach to every package of liquor, when sold, a label setting forth the kind and quantity of liquor contained therein, by whom manufactured, the date of sale, and the person to whom sold; which label shall likewise be kept and maintained thereon until the liquor is used for the purpose for which such sale was authorized.”
and section 13 specifies again about records—i wonder if these are carefully kept, as the law provides!—
66
“it shall be the duty of every carrier to make a record at the place of shipment of the receipt of any liquor transported, and he shall deliver liquor only to persons who present to the carrier a verified copy of a permit to purchase which shall be made a part of the carrier’s permanent record at the office from which delivery is made.
“the agent of the common carrier is hereby authorized to administer the oath to the consignee in verification of the copy of the permit presented, who, if not personally known to the agent, shall be identified before the delivery of the liquor to him. the name and address of the person identifying the consignee shall be included in the record.”
“section 14. it shall be unlawful for a person to use or induce any carrier, or any agent or employee thereof, to carry or ship any package or receptacle containing liquor without notifying the carrier of the true nature and character of the shipment. no carrier shall transport nor shall any person receive liquor from a carrier unless there appears on the outside of the package containing such liquor the following information:
“name and address of the consignor or seller, name and address of the consignee, kind and quality of liquor contained therein, and number of the permit to purchase or ship the same, together with the name and address of the person using the permit.”
how simple they make it for us! and of course free speech on the billboards has been squashed. for section 17 has this to say:
“it shall be unlawful to advertise anywhere, or by any means or method, liquor, or the manufacture, sale, keeping for sale or furnishing of the same, or where, how, from whom, or at what price the same may be obtained. no67 one shall permit any sign or billboard containing such advertisement to remain upon one’s premises.”
“section 18. it shall be unlawful to advertise, manufacture, sell, or possess for sale any utensil, contrivance, machine, preparation, compound, tablet, substance, formula, direction, or recipe advertised, designed, or intended for use in the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor.”
how the very stills themselves must tremble at these ominous words!
but i think for its far-reaching effects, section 20 takes the palm:
“any person who shall be injured in person, property, means of support, or otherwise by any intoxicated person, or by reason of the intoxication of any person” (though we thought intoxication was to be wiped out with the passage of the volstead act!) “whether resulting in his death or not, shall have a right of action against any person who shall, by unlawfully selling to or unlawfully assisting in procuring liquor for such intoxicated person, have caused or contributed to such intoxication, and in any such action such person shall have a right to recover actual and exemplary damages.” (yet it is not quite clear how a dead man can bring an action in the courts!) “in case of the death of either party, the action or right of action given by this section shall survive to or against his or her executor or administrator, and the amount so recovered by either wife or child shall be his or her sole and separate property. such action may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction. in any case where parents shall be entitled to such damages, either the father or mother may sue alone therefor, but recovery by one of such parties shall be a bar to suit brought by the other.”
68 so mr. volstead anticipates trouble for years to come—as long as it would take to settle an action for damages in our already-clogged courts. we make laws, it seems, which we expect to be broken. deep down in his heart, then, mr. volstead feared that people would go on being—just people. drunkenness is rampant in the land; and i suppose drunkenness will always be rampant in the land. even mr. volstead cannot stop it. what a pity!
but do not think for a moment i am putting in a plea for drunkenness. i am bitterly opposed to drunkenness. prohibition has not cured it. we have had it long enough now to see its terrible errors. the lions have heard the crack of the whip, but instead of being overcome, overpowered, cowering in corners, we have the spectacle of a determination to pay no attention to the lashings of the law. half of us willfully disobey this iniquitous legislation—and are proud of our disobedience. what is to be done about it? the more teeth that are put into the volstead act, the more teeth the lions show. they growl and fight. they will not be mastered.
read section 23.
“any person who shall, with intent to effect a sale of liquor, by himself, his employee, servant or agent, for himself or any person, company or corporation, keep or carry around on his person, or in a vehicle, or other conveyance whatever, or leave in a place for another to secure, any liquor, or who shall travel to solicit, or solicit, or take, or accept orders for the sale, shipment, or delivery of liquor in violation of this title is guilty of a nuisance and may be69 restrained by injunction, temporary and permanent, from doing or continuing to do any of said acts or things.”
have our army of bootleggers read this section? but they are worth a whole chapter to themselves, so important a part have they become of our national life.
“section 26. when the commissioner, his assistants, inspectors, or any officer of the law shall discover any person in the act of transporting in violation of the law, intoxicating liquors in any wagon, buggy, automobile, water or air craft, or other vehicle, it shall be his duty to seize any and all intoxicating liquors found therein being transported contrary to law. whenever intoxicating liquors transported or possessed illegally shall be seized by an officer he shall take possession of the vehicle and team or automobile, boat, air or water craft, or any other conveyance, and shall arrest any person in charge thereof. such officer shall at once proceed against the person arrested under the provisions of this title in any court having competent jurisdiction; but the said vehicle or conveyance shall be returned to the owner upon execution by him of a good and valid bond, with sufficient sureties, in a sum double the value of the property, which said bond shall be approved by said officer and shall be conditioned to return said property to the custody of said officer on the day of trial to abide the judgment of the court. the court upon conviction of the person so arrested shall order the liquor destroyed, and unless good cause to the contrary is shown by the owner, shall order a sale by public auction of the property seized, and the officer making the sale, after deducting the expenses of keeping the property, the fee for the seizure, and the cost of the sale, shall pay all liens, according to their priorities, which are established, by intervention or otherwise at70 said hearing or in other proceeding brought for said purpose, as being bona fide and as having been created without the lienor having any notice that the carrying vehicle was being used or was to be used for illegal transportation of liquor, and shall pay the balance of the proceeds into the treasury of the united states as miscellaneous receipts. all liens against property sold under the provisions of this section shall be transferred from the property to the proceeds of the sale of the property. if, however, no one shall be found claiming the team, vehicle, water or air craft, or automobile, the taking of the same, with a description thereof, shall be advertised in some newspaper published in the city or county where taken, or if there be no newspaper published, in said city or county, in a newspaper having circulation in the county, once a week for two weeks and by hand-bills posted in three public places near the place of seizure, and if no claimant shall appear within ten days after the last publication of the advertisement, the property shall be sold and the proceeds after deducting the expenses and costs shall be paid into the treasury of the united states as miscellaneous receipts.”
“section 27. in all cases in which intoxicating liquors may be subject to be destroyed under the provisions of this act the court shall have jurisdiction upon the application of the united states attorney to order them delivered to any department or agency of the united states government for medicinal, mechanical, or scientific uses, or to order the same sold at private sale for such purposes to any person having a permit to purchase liquor, the proceeds to be covered into the treasury of the united states to the credit of miscellaneous receipts, and all liquor heretofore seized in any suit or proceeding brought for violation of law may likewise be so disposed of, if not claimed within sixty days from the date this section takes effect.”
71 one is happy to realize that the government may, even while the volstead act is in force, receive some small emolument and revenue from john barleycorn.
section 37—or a part of it—reads as follows:
“a manufacturer of any beverage containing less than one-half of 1 per centum of alcohol by volume may, on making application and giving such bond as the commissioner shall prescribe, be given a permit to develop in the manufacture thereof, by the usual methods of fermentation and fortification or otherwise a liquid such as beer, ale, porter, or wine, containing more than one-half of 1 per centum of alcohol by volume, but before any such liquid is withdrawn from the factory or otherwise disposed of, the alcoholic contents thereof shall under such rules and regulations as the commissioner may prescribe be reduced below such one-half of 1 per centum of alcohol: provided, that such liquid may be removed and transported, under bond and under such regulations as the commissioner may prescribe, from one bonded plant or warehouse to another for the purpose of having the alcohol extracted therefrom. and such liquids may be developed, under permit, by persons other than the manufacturers of beverages containing less than one-half of 1 per centum of alcohol by volume, and sold to such manufacturers for conversion into such beverages. the alcohol removed from such liquid, if evaporated and not condensed and saved, shall not be subject to tax; if saved, it shall be subject to the same law as other alcoholic liquors. credit shall be allowed on the tax due on any alcohol so saved to the amount of any tax paid upon distilled spirits or brandy used in the fortification of the liquor from which the same is saved.”
72 don marquis’s old soak must rejoice when he reads such stipulations! and, being a tax-payer, like the rest of us, section 38 must fill him with added delight:
“the commissioner of internal revenue and the attorney general of the united states are hereby respectively authorized to appoint and employ such assistants, experts, clerks, and other employees in the district of columbia or elsewhere, and purchase such supplies and equipment as they may deem necessary for the enforcement of the provisions of this act, but such assistants, experts, clerks, and other employees, except such executive officers as may be appointed by the commissioner or the attorney general to have immediate direction of the enforcement of the provisions of this act, and persons authorized to issue permits, and agents and inspectors in the field service, shall be appointed under the rules and regulations prescribed by the civil service act: provided, that the commissioner and attorney general in making such appointments shall give preference to those who have served in the military or naval service in the recent war, if otherwise qualified, and there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sum as may be required for the enforcement of this act including personal services in the district of columbia, and for the fiscal year ending june 30, 1920, there is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $2,000,000 for the use of the commissioner of internal revenue and $100,000 for the use of the department of justice for the enforcement of the provisions of this act, including personal services in the district of columbia and necessary printing and binding.”
73 and how is the law enforced?
our journals do not make pleasant reading for good americans these days. they are filled with headlines, which concern the prohibition law, morning after morning. not long ago i picked up my newspaper and found no less than seventeen columns devoted to stories of what the police in new york city alone were doing, or trying to do, to make the volstead act anything but a huge joke.
up the state, where farmers are paying good taxes, i found a delicious item in a newspaper, to prove the sincerity of the federal authorities. it seems that in a small town near utica, an italian was suspected of having some whiskey on his premises; and three stalwart officers, in plain clothes, pounced down upon his shop (it was not a rum shop) to see what they could find. the man was out; but his wife was at home, and a careful search of the pitiful premises revealed a quart of scotch, which may or may not have been on sale.
it took three husky men three hours to make this startling discovery. and how much of the taxpayers’ money, i wonder? it was all-important that an arrest should take place, but there was no evidence, and nothing further was ever heard of the matter.
and this which sounds as though it had occurred in benighted russia, greeted my eyes at breakfast one morning, in the new york times:
74
“accuse jersey police of brutal dry raid
“formed way into women’s rooms and insulted them, resort residents charge.
“the conduct of eighteen of the new jersey state police who participated with federal prohibition agents in liquor raids on hotels and other places in lake hopatcong, n. j., tuesday night, was such that indignant residents threatened yesterday to complain to governor edwards.
“at the great cove hotel at nolan’s point, the police are alleged to have gone to the room of a waiter and his wife and demanded that they show their marriage certificate. it is also charged that they went to the room of two girls, one of whom was praying, and insisted that they open the door. the police searched the belongings of the girls for whiskey.
“it is charged that at the espanol hotel, nolan’s point, the police went to the room of a mother and her three children, awakened her and charged there was a man in her room. she was compelled to open her door.
“rented cottages, it is charged, also were visited and searched. it is charged by the complainants that the state police drank the beer and whiskey they seized.”
but of course this is all right—to a prohibitionist. the law must be enforced. it makes no difference how enforcement is accomplished.
if the police were honest, if they themselves approved of the eighteenth amendment, the country could be made bone dry tomorrow. but when the politicians who voted for prohibition have no respect75 for the law they put upon our statutes, why should we expect integrity and honesty down the line?
how can there be any respect for a law which the minions of the law disobey, repeatedly? in a great city like new york, in the autumn of 1922, innumerable policemen were found drunk while on duty—so much drunkenness had occurred that it was said on reliable authority that a murder a week occurred.
“police must tell how they got rum”
was the heading in the new york times on october 16th. “drastic regulations for dealing with policemen who drink” have been framed, and have been circulated in the police department. this is the text of the orders. think of their being necessary!
“1. to the commanding officers:
“the following memorandum from the police commissioner is for your information and guidance.
“in mount vernon any person found publicly intoxicated is arrested and required to make an affidavit stating where he obtained the liquor causing the intoxication. this affidavit is made the basis of a search warrant, directing a search of the place selling the liquor.
“this is but one of the many means which might be employed to put an end to violation of the prohibition law. the plan seems to work out successfully in mount vernon.
“2. intoxicated members of the force:
76 “hereafter when members of the force are found to be suffering from alcoholism to such an extent as to warrant charges signifying the liquor has been obtained from persons who are violating the state prohibition law, request the officers to make an affidavit stating where they obtained this liquor. take appropriate action in the premises. if it is found that the officers have failed to take proper action where the law has been violated additional charges should be preferred against them and if the case is a serious one they should be suspended from duty.
“3. cabarets and dance halls:
“cabarets and dance halls having resumed business for the fall and winter season will be carefully inspected from time to time and properly regulated. the majority of these places disregard provisions of the prohibition law and should be given rigid supervision.
“commanding officers will see that music and dancing at these places is stopped at 1 a.m., and that these places do not harbor an undesirable element after that hour.”
i have spoken of uniformed men standing guard over a roomful of citizens in new york restaurants and cabarets. alas! it is shockingly true. it is as though no other law existed, as i have said. to one who loves his country, his city, it is disgusting. the people writhe under the presence of the officer—but do nothing about it. what can they do? could they not request the mayor, or the police commissioner to stop such nonsense? and if the thing occurs in one restaurant, why not in all of them?
with my own eyes i have seen this petty exhibition. it is outrageous. only one officer was in the77 place i visited. yet i could not believe i was in free america.
the room was filled with beautifully dressed men and women. the dance floor was crowded. upon every table, directly under the eye of the officer, was a drink. i am not saying that in each tumbler there was an alcoholic beverage—and probably the man in uniform did not wish to think so, either. but i wonder how any intelligent being could imagine that a lot of sophisticated manhattanites would go out of an evening to a gay cabaret, and order lime-juice—unless they intended to mix something with it? such folk are not plain ginger-ale consumers, as a rule—they purchase it to mingle with gin. white rock is not their favorite beverage; neither is clysmic. yet bottles of these were evident everywhere. anyone save a moron would have known why.
yet solemnly up and down that room the officer walked, glancing here and there, hobnobbing now and again with a friendly waiter—who seemed to be on excellent terms with him. his journeys were rhythmically conceived and executed. for a moment or two he would stand glaring about him, his arms folded, after the manner of a soldier in the late war standing guard over military prisoners. then he would amble, almost to the time of the music, to the farther side of the room. instantly two hundred hands would slip under the tables, and flasks would be drawn forth, and a liquid that was certainly not78 water would be poured swiftly and deftly into various goblets. then, when the officer swung back again on his rounds, the folk at the other side of the room would go through the same unbelievable performance. the man in uniform had eyes, but he saw not.
you see, the authorities had come out with a statement not long before, to the effect that it was not the man with the hip-flask whom they were after—only the citizen foolish and daring enough to slam his flask down openly upon a cabaret table. in other words, so delicate are the nuances of the law, that it is not an offense to drink behind your napkin, or behind a closed door; but it is a very terrible crime to reveal the fact that you have a container of alcohol on your person. think of seriously pronouncing such a ukase, with the mullan-gage law still upon the records. i do not understand how city magistrates, in new york, know how to interpret the law.
i was told that almost every evening an arrest or two is made in these hitherto happy cabarets; but generally the case is dismissed. the proprietor bails his patron out, and then the merry-go-round starts again next evening. since this was written, the police have been withdrawn from new york cabarets—another confession of the failure to enforce the law.
but new york is full of insincerities. conventions take place there, and we read a sanctimonious79 announcement in the papers that of course nothing alcoholic will be served at the banquets—that goes without saying. but up in eddie’s room, on the eighteenth floor, a lot of grown-up men, in the city to discuss solemn business problems, find that sustenance which they desire and demand. the authorities, alarmed at the influx of so many virtuous men, give out the statement that it is well that they are so virtuous, and not the kind of fellows who crave a drink; for the hootch in new york is notoriously foul (of course it isn’t, but that makes no difference to a prohibition officer) and it would be unsafe to consume any of it. many of these safe and sound business men, from all parts of the country, came out strong for the eighteenth amendment. they were puritans—when it came to the other fellow’s habits. the little clerk would never rise to a position of importance—like theirs—if he took so much as a glass of beer. they forgot that they, in their youth—and ever since—had taken a daily nip. i am not saying that they are any the worse for it. i do know, however, that they are none the better, judging by their public utterances and their private behavior.
if there is one kind of human animal i have a supreme contempt for it is the so-called man who believes in prohibition for you and me—but not for himself. i have heard bankers and wall street potentates hold forth with fervor on the salutary effects of the volstead act, since it has forced the poor laboring man to give up his ale and beer. he80 gets to work early now—there’s no need to worry about monday morning in the factories throughout the land. there is no saturday-night debauchery; and the bulging pay-envelope is taken home to the wife and children, with no extractions on the way at the corner saloon. happiness reigns where penury and travail abided before. production is mounting; there are no strikes to speak of, the prisons are emptying, crime has diminished, wife-beating is unheard of, and so on, ad infinitum.
which would be delightful if it were true. home brew goes rapturously on; and if tim doesn’t bother to make it himself, he has a pal who does, and he purchases all the gin and beer he needs.
i am not saying this with any intention of approval. i am merely stating conditions as i have observed them. those who shut their eyes to the facts and go blandly on their way, announcing that the country is bone dry when it is nothing of the sort, do immeasurable damage.
i remember when the volstead act first went into effect that i had a serious talk with myself. i came to the conclusion that nothing was more dangerous to this land of ours than a state of things which made it possible for the rich to drink continuously and the poor to be able to obtain nothing. i felt that i could not, with a clear conscience, go on having an occasional cocktail, if the laboring man down the street was deprived of his grog. for a month i absolutely followed the whisperings of that81 inner voice. then i happened to go to a manufacturing town near boston, and the work i was doing brought me into contact with the men in the shops there. somehow the subject came up—i forget in just what way; and when my plan became known, a laugh greeted my ears.
“don’t be such a jackass!” one of the fellows cried. “why, we’re getting all we want, in spite of mr. volstead—we’re making it ourselves!”
my self-inflicted martyrdom ceased from that moment; and i must confess that i felt a bit foolish.
more people are drinking heavily now than in the old days—and, drinking inferior stuff, they are suffering more in consequence. the results of this have been put into a delightful rhyme by the clever james j. montague who, in his way, is a genius. he turns out happy and technically fine verses every day for a syndicate, until one is amazed at his cleverness and seemingly endless chain of ideas. listen to him:
the elusive moral
before there was a volstead law
the village gossips used to mutter
in pitying accents when they saw
a friend and neighbor in the gutter:
“how dreadful was the fellow’s fall!
how terrible is his condition!
he wouldn’t be that way at all
if only we had prohibition!”
82
they knew the drunkards all by name,
and when they came around with edges
some elderly and kindly dame
would get their signatures to pledges.
and if they all appeared next day
still far too merry and seraphic,
the troubled townsfolk used to say
hard things about the liquor traffic.
to-day, when some good man goes wrong,
the villagers with whom he’s mingled
observe his frequent bursts of song
and thus discover he is jingled.
“too bad about that chap,” they cry,
“he might have kept his high position
if volstead hadn’t made us dry—
what ruined him is prohibition!”
there is some moral in this tale—
i fancied so when i designed it—
but i have searched without avail
for nearly half an hour to find it!
