cows of the National Milk Producers' Federation. This latter organization is an "Old Man Jim," and that is all there is to that. The National Board of Farm Organizations, with which the Federation is affiliated, may be neither-and there is a good deal more to that.

I will paint another picture, but I positively will not create another character.

IT

Farmers and the War

was the summer of 1917 in Washington, D. C., the pounding heart of a war-frenzied Nation. "Food will win the war." That was the loudest, most insistent battle-cry. But the sources of food supply were undergoing depletion of personnel. Two million workers had been drawn away from the farms into factories. The draft was running indiscriminately. Voluntary enlistment in Army and Navy seemed to be drawing more heavily from the farms than from any other source. It was a dark day for the prospect of feeding a world in arms. I should like to tell what Uncle Joe Cannon said about it, but he said it into my private ear, and his emphasis if it were written would char the paper.

The National Board of Farm Organizations came into existence-not created, but assembled out of materials long existing, out of spent efforts of Sir Horace Plunkett; of Uncle Bill Creasy, the war horse of the National Dairy Union; of John McSparren and Gifford Pinchot and Charles Barrett and McCarty and Holman. Organization plans were drawn up for a loose conference body maintaining a service staff, with which all sorts of farm organizations might affiliate.

The Board leaders went to General Crowder, then Chief of Staff, and asked that something be done to insure leaving enough men on the farms to produce the food for our population and the armies of the Allies. The General could do

nothing, and sent the committee to Secretary of War Baker. He could do nothing. The committee went to McAdoo, and McAdoo said, with emphasis only slightly less scorching than that of Uncle Joe, "You will have to see the Old Man himself."

The Board called in 130 men from all over the country, prepared a memorial, and went to see President Wilson. Within forty-eight hours General Crowder received instructions. He called in draft officers from the States and overhauled the machinery. Up to that time there had been one word on the exemption puzzle. It was horizontal, and it spelled "dependency." Now a vertical

Pennsylvania State Grange, and the Farmers' Equity Union. Some of them are "Old Man Jims," some may be Everetts-they will have to tag themselves.

Anyhow, the National Board of Farm Organizations met in Washington the other day, and did the "Old Man Jimish" stunt of asking Congress to "take appropriate action for the encouragement and assistance of co-operative marketing. ing." Then it asserted the possible other side of its nature and qualified, "without granting authority to regulate, supervise, or participate in the operation of farmers' self-help agencies."

Encouragement, But Not Control ERE, clearly, is another character

but I am not going to name him. He wants the encouragement which "Old Man Jim" wants, but he does not want the regulation which the "Old Man" thinks is necessary. He wants the encouragement which Everett disavowed, but agrees with Everett in wanting no regulation. He is backing the new Dickinson Co-operative Marketing Bill, with which it is hoped to supplant the Cap

per-Williams Bill, for some time pending in Congress. Neither bill may fit the requirements of the recommendations of the President's Commission. Mr. Dickinson has been on a Mayflower trip with the President, however.

As I said in the previous letter, "Old/ Man Jim" has never definitely made up his mind what he wants. Some of his component parts want strong encouragement and stiff regulation; some want strong encouragement and nominal or no regulation; and it sometimes seems that some want rigid regulation and practically no encouragement. Over on the other side are the Everetts, wanting nothing but to be left alone.

The relative strength of the various groups I do not know. A year as a Government statistician taught me not to lean very heavily on figures. Here are some, however, which the reader may interpret for himself. He should remember that "approximately" is a word that. the statistician packs into every sentence he utters or writes, and it is a wide word.

Four Million Odd Votes

TH

HE Sapiro organizations, which want neither encouragement nor regulation, include about 600,000 farmers.

In the conglomerate of those who want encouragement and some of whom want regulation are the American Farm Bureau Federation with probably about 750,000 members, the Grange with not less than 250,000 farm families, and the affiliated organizations of the National Board of Farm Organizations with about 800,000 members. Between this organization and the National Grange there is a duplication of 110,000 farmers, the membership of the Pennsylvania State Grange, which figures in the membership of both organizations. There are some other smaller organizations, some of which may be represented in Washington, but these constitute the bulk of the organized co-operatives which make themselves felt in Congress and the executive departments.

Here, then, are about 2,290,000 farm families interested in what the National Government does with regard to agriculture. In the light of the Nineteenth Amendment, this represents not less than 4,600,000 votes. It probably means considerably more.

Could organized farmers have what they want? They could, if they only knew what it is they want. They will not know, however, at this session of Congress, and they will probably get what they do not want.

DIXON MERRITT.

F

Detroй

Buffalo

Elmira

NE

Cincinnati

MASS BOSTON

Jersey City

Long Branch

Easton

WEST

VIRGINIA

TRENTON

JER

WASHINGTON

It will

IVE years ago this Nation entered

upon one of the greatest social welfare experiments in the history of the world. The Constitution of the United States decreed that on and after January 16, 1920, "the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territories subject to the jurisdiction thereof, for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."

One hundred and thirteen million people were told that a custom intrenched since the beginning of history had become unlawful.

My investigation of both questions forces me to the sentence summary: Conditions at present are bad, but indications are that there will soon be a turn for the better.

Of course, it is impossible to sum up in a sentence the answers to such stupendous questions. I propose to devote a rather extended series of articles to the interesting study of these questions and their natural subdivisions.

at this time for the propagandists to prove either case, for the simple reason that the full effects, the complete conditions, are not yet known.

To get the actual facts of the whole situation is a Herculean task. It would require at least a year's time of an impartial fact-finding commission. Resources running into hundreds of thousands of dollars would have to be at its disposal in order to make an exhaustive study of the actual conditions throughout the entire Nation. This has not yet been done.

First, let me state the basis upon which all my writings on this subject rest. It is your privilege to know the background of journalistic observations which might tend to sway your opinions on a matter of such prime importance. There has been too much loose writing and careless talking about "When does prohibition begin?" "It's a farce and the greatest evil the country has ever suffered;" "It is in principle all wrong." The same applies to such statements as "The curse of whisky has gone forever;" "The saloon has gone;" "The jails have been emptied;" "The resultant conditions can be called nothing but good."

The whole world waits to see the effects of so courageous or rash-an act on the part of a first-rank nation. Five years have elapsed. The question, "What about prohibition?" is now not only in the minds of Americans, but of all intelligent mankind. What are the moral, physical, and economic results of five years of prohibition? Did the passing of a law stating that intoxicating liquors were not to be made, sold, or transported actually stop the manufacture, sale, and transportation?

It is obvious that none of these statements is wholly true. It is impossible

That a magazine, even of the highest order, could undertake such a survey is, of course, practicably an impossibility. The Outlook has, however, fulfilled as many of the conditions of this muchneeded study as lie within its power. The limitations of this survey are in the realm of the extent of the examination, and not at all in the field of prejudice. In this investigation, which was made not to buttress any theory or to get evidence to substantiate any preconceived conclusions, but simply to arrive at the truth, I have visited principal cities and studied community conditions north of

the Mason and Dixon Line and east of the Mississippi River.

It is only fair to admit at the outset that this is without doubt the wettest section of the country. The South, I am told, is much drier, and the section east of the Rockies also approaches a greater degree of aridity. So bear in mind the limitation of territory we are considering. The region under consideration is, however, the most thickly populated section of the country. It contains both dry and wet spots. It shows many an example of good enforcement and bad enforcement, difficult geographical locations for rum-running and favorable locations for smuggling. It contains industrial centers as well as farming communities. study of prohibition conditions in this important region will be of vast importance in determining the success or failure of the whole undertaking.

A

The Job of Digging Out the Facts

IN

N this section I made a personal investigation of conditions. I also obtained from persons with either bootleg or enforcement interests which extended all over the country an insight into the state of affairs outside my territory. I tested out the degree of Prohibition Law enforcement. I associated with bootleggers and rum-runners, and learned in this manner the extent and method of their work. I interviewed leading enforcement officials, also the heads of the AntiSaloon League and the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment. I obtained statistics and opinions from those who are in touch with the effects of prohibition—that is, lawyers, doctors, hospital heads, social workers, army officers, police officials, prison wardens, chemists, coroners, etc. As far as was within my power, I made my own observations on the effect of the law among the rich and the poor, the college student and the settled business man. Then, after a study of the multitude of reports, Congressional records, etc., and analysis of as many statistics as are available, I begin my task of reporting my findings to you.

an

Feelings and convictions on the prohibition question go deeper, I believe, than any other. Even political and religious barriers give way when the issue is between the wet and the dry. For example, the evangelical Protestant drys, for the moment, forgive all else in the Rev. John Haynes Holmes, a Modernist Modernist extremist, and Colonel Patrick Henry Callahan, a prominent Roman Catholic, when they champion the prohibition cause. And brother liberals and Knights of Columbus look with scorn on these

betrayers for the same reason. Wet and dry feeling is very deep rooted.

The partisanship and bitterness is so great that the majority of either cause seem unable to exercise impartial judgment about the matter. The wets belittle the results attained, and the ardent drys tend to overstate their accomplish

ment.

Exaggerations, unwarranted claims, blindness to existing conditions, are of no help to the dry cause.

As in most other matters, neither side is all right or all wrong. Both positions

International

Commissioner R. A. Haynes, who claims that prohibition enforcement is effective

have their faults and both their virtues. In these articles I intend, as far as I am able, to strike an even keel.

In reporting conditions as I found them, conditions that are not wholly favorable to either dry or wet propagandists, I will no doubt bring down their wrath. The extreme drys will scent sinister influences "by the liquor interests" and the wets will consider the story of the benefits that prohibition has brought and the optimism shown as a verbal kotow to the dry powers.

However, there is no progress through deception; and if we ever hope to cure a diseased condition we must first correctly diseased condition we must first correctly diagnose and then wisely prescribe. That is my sole purpose.

The sensible dry knows that the ultimate success of his cause rests with the discovery now of its serious illness, so that wise remedies may be applied. Arthur J. Davis, New York State SuperArthur J. Davis, New York State Superintendent of the Anti-Saloon League, said to me: "I favor the bringing out into the light conditions as they are. No

one who is at all aware of conditions would claim that New York or Buffalo or Massachusetts or many other places are dry. Let us have the truth, even if it is displeasing. Nothing would please me more than to have an impartial exhaustive survey made."

And I have yet to meet a prominent anti-prohibition sympathizer who would. advocate a return to the old conditions and the open saloon.

Is

Where Officials Disagree

Is the Prohibition Law being enforced? Federal Prohibition Commissioner R. A. Haynes has said: "To the average thoughtful person argument is not necessary to prove that enforcement of the Prohibition Law is effective." Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Assistant Attorney-General in charge of prohibition, said to me: "It is foolish for any one to say that the law is being efficiently enforced." Anti-saloon League heads expressed the same opinion. Somebody is wrong.

That the Eighteenth Amendment must be enforced should be admitted by all. While a part of our Constitution we can do nothing else but enforce it or receive. the guffaws of the world. If we allow it to become one of the amendments that are honored chiefly in the breach, we might as well abandon all serious effort to enforce the Constitution. If it is not repealed (and there is little doubt among those who have studied the question that prohibition is here to stay), it must be enforced.

No other criminal statute offers so many difficulties of enforcement as this one which regulates the beverage of an individual. At the present time any one of moderate intelligence who wants his favorite tipple can break the law with comparative safety. The law enforcers have the benefit of the assistance of the public in enforcing other laws. In enforcing the Volstead Act they receive little or no such assistance. Perhaps it is because there is no selfish interest involved. Even if one is taking money out of his employer's till he does not wish any one to steal from him, and is therefore inclined to help in the enforcement of the law against theft. However, there are few human beings who, upon seeing their neighbor drink an unlawful beverage, would bother to report it. What inatters it to them?

There is a great deal of hypocrisy on the matter in America to-day. Few responsible people wish to have it known that they denounce the Volstead Act. Yet there are comparatively few who, if they themselves do not have dealings