Senator William Borah Speaks On
Prohibition==Canadian System
But it is the same old law, the
same old rule. It does not make
any difference what you do or
how you try or how small your
efforts may be, wherever the li
quor traffic can fasten its fangs
upon progress, progress dies.
Let us take one illustration.
Over in Canada they had pro
hibition in a number of prov
inces; I have forgott ejnust how
many. Then along came the
moderates, those who said that
“man has to have some liquor.
Get rid of the bootlegger. Get
rid of corruption. Get rid of de
stroying our young men and our
young women. Therefore let us
adopt government control.”
The argument in Canada was
that by this method they would
be rid of those things which my
able friend thinks we can be rid
of in this country by going back
to State rights. We will exam
ine that in a few moments.
What happened under the Ca
nadian law? Let us go first to
the official record. I have re
ferred to this elsewhere. I have
been accused of being misin
formed. I was over in Canada
last summer and the summer be
fore. I am not misinformed.
The British Columbia liquor
board reports:
Since the opening of the beer
parlors the sale of hard liquors”
has increased 50 per cent. As
much liquor is sold by bootleg
gers as is sold by the Govern
ment stores.
That is the way Canada got
rid of the bootlegger. It does
not make any difference, I re
peat, what we do; the lawbreak
er is there.
The Quebec Liquor Commis
sion said:
Sale of hard spirits increas
ed 32,275 gallons in one year.
Drunkenness among women has
increased 53 per cent.
These are official reports and
not denied, except outside of
Canada.
The Saskatchewan liquor
Board said:
The sale of hard liquor in
creased 33 per cent in the last
two years. Bootlegging increas
ed in this Province 111 per cent
in the first year.
The Alberta liquor board said
that 60,000 permits were issued
the first year; two years later,
144,000 permits. The greatest
problem is moonshine bootleg
ging. Four million gallons of
liquor were sold in the second
year without control.
During the first four months
of government control the On
tario board said that 220,440
permits were issued and people
were buying liquor at the rate of
$1,000,000 per week.
Mr. President, let us turn to
a different source than the offi
cial record, and that is to the re
preservatives of the church. I
am not going to take members of
some organization which has
for its particular purpose the ad
vocacy of prohibition of the li
quor law, but call upon those
who are interested from the
standpoint of Christian minis
ters. Father Lavergne, speaking
of government ownership in his
paper, said:
“With due respect to the head
of our government I must say
that since they have become the
advocates of beer a nd booze
and have set the seal of Govern
ment approval upon drinking,
they have almost annihilated
the work of the church through
years of preaching temperance
and sobriety.”
Cardinal Begin said:
“You know what a vigorous
battle we have fought for the
virtue of temporance in our dio
cese, our beloved coadjutor and
the group of ecclesiastical and
lay apostles who have aided him
in his efforts. After about 15
years work they had almost con
quered the enemy, we were over
joyed in foreseeing the end of
the destruction caused by' the
excesses of alcohol. But alas,
there is now spreading every
where the intolerable abuse
we denounce, and in particular
the surreptitious frabrication of
an alcohol more harmful than
any other to the health of the
body and the soul.”
Let us turn to the newspapers.
They are a source of informa
tion. The Vancouver Sun said:
“The people decided on a pol
icy of restricting alcoholic con
sumption to the lowest possible
degree. The government has
made this piling up of revenue
the chief purpose of the act.
The British Columbia liquor
system has actually failed.”
Sir Hugh McDonald, son of
the famous John A. McDonald,
said:
“There is just as much un
lawful drinking under the gov
ernment control act as there
ever was under prohibition. The
present law was in the very na
ture of things difficult of en
forcement. It was far less dif
lcult to secure convictions under
prohibition than under govern
ment control.’
The World, published at Van
couver, said:
“Rum runners, gunmen, thugs
and all the parasites which
thrive on the miasma of the un
derworld of the Pacific Coast,
are fostered by the policy now
in force. Calculations show
that bootleggers in this Prov