HAROLD T. PULSIFER, President and Managing Editor NATHAN T. PULSIFER, Vice-President

ERNEST HAMLIN ABBOTT, Editor-in-Chief and Secretary LAWRENCE F. ABBOTT, Contributing Editor

Volume 142

The Flood of Alcoholic Testimony

A

T the end of a week of hearings before a sub-committee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the wets" succeeded in putting into the recrd tremendous quantities of testimony. was by no means conclusively shown. hat better conditions would be brought bout by the legalization of "light wines nd beer."

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury incoln C. Andrews, in charge of prohiition enforcement, was placed on the tand, and gave a frank account of the ifficulties of enforcement. As a witness or the wet side he must have been a isappointment. He admitted that many dry" agents have been corrupt, that early nine hundred of them have been separated from the service," most of hem for misconduct. He told of the ifficulties of controlling denatured alcool and cereal beverages, of abuses of he permit system, of quantities of smugled liquor still escaping the Coast Guard, of the necessity for border parolmen in tremendously greater numbers han at present. But he was demanding Il the time, not repeal or modification of he existing law, but the enactment of ther and more stringent enforcement ills.

Emory R. Buckner, United States Disrict Attorney for the Southern District f New York, went on the stand and told f most of the bad features in the situaion in New York City. Violators are ■umerous beyond counting. The number of apprehensions is such that a vastly greater number of Federal judges would be necessary to try them. Without a State law, it would require $75,000,000 nd a hundred and fifty Federal judges, me said, to enforce the present Federal aw in his district. But, he insisted, the Federal Government should not have to bear the burden of local enforcement. The Federal Government should have The State Government as a partner. And ne thought that, since the State of New York had chosen not to be a partner on Federal terms, it would be well to secure t as a partner on State terms.

Officials of the American Federation of

Labor testified that American workingmen want beer and wine. They denied that American workingmen desire the return of the saloon. They did not, however, offer any conclusive proof that even a majority of the membership of the unions which compose the Federation are demanding legalization of wine and beer. Resolutions of the National body constituted the bulk of the evidence offered by them to prove that workingmen wish to see the Volstead Law repealed.

Testimony from Canada

CAN

ANADIANS were introduced as witnesses before the Senate sub-committee to testify to improvement of conditions in certain Canadian provinces following what was described as an abandonment of prohibition.

The witnesses did not show, however, that prohibition has been abandoned, but rather that one form of prohibition has been substituted for another. Canadians under the present laws are as completely prohibited from traffic in liquors as are Americans. These witnesses asserted, but did not prove, that the legalization of wine and beer has decreased the demand for spirituous liquors undoubt

edly a benefit in so far as it is true. Mr. Buckner, however, had testified that a great quantity of American denatured alcohol, redistilled, goes into Canada and is made into synthetic liquors for Canadian consumption, which testimony does not indicate that the appetite for "hard liquor" has entirely disappeared under a régime of light wines and beer.

The "drys"-whose inning is aheadwere granted two hours or so of time to place on the stand representatives of the Women's National Committee for Law Enforcement, then in session in Washington. It was planned to have eighty women testify for one minute each. The program failed, however, partly because Senator Reed, of Missouri, the one "wet" member of the sub-committee, insisted upon interrupting with what seems, to The Outlook at least, arguments rather than questions.

It will not be possible to evaluate the hearings until both sides have had their say.

The Unseating of Brookhart

N seating Daniel F. Steck, Democrat, in place of Smith W. Brookhart as Senator from Iowa, the United States

Senate was in accord with both sound policy and good conscience. The Committee on Privileges and Elections, after. a long and thorough investigation, decided, with but one dissenting vote, that a majority of the voters intended to elect Steck. The Senate confirmed the judgment of the Committee by a vote of 45 to 41.

Brookhart is a radical-one of the most extreme of those who call themselves Progressive Republicans. In the 1924 Presidential campaign he bolted Coolidge and supported La Follette. After the election he apparently made some efforts to get back on the Republican reservation, but continued a radical.

At the beginning of the contest for his seat there was much talk of certain ballots which were not counted because voters, following too literally the instructions of a notice in a newspaper, had indicated their intention to vote for Steck by drawing an arrow pointing to his name. Steck forces contended that these ballots should have been counted, as they clearly indicated the voters'. intentions; but the Brookhart forces contended, that the arrow ballots were properly thrown out as contrary to law. In the end, however, the arrow ballots proved to be not a decisive factor, for the Committee held that with the arrow ballots thrown out Steck was still elected. Nevertheless every radical in the Senate, without regard to party, voted in favor of Brookhart. The total Brook

hart vote consisted of thirty-one Republicans, of whom twelve are either regularly or sporadically radical; nine Democrats, of whom six are regularly or sporadically radical; and the one FarmLabor Senator. The Steck vote consisted of the bulk of the organization Democrats and about half of the Administration Republicans.

Political motives will, of course, be ascribed by various persons to each of the four groups in the Senate, and it is perhaps impossible to expect that political motives can be absent in a decision of this kind that ought to be purely judicial. Nevertheless differences of opinion on this case can be accounted for by the complexity of the question and the narrowness of the margin by which, according to the Committee, Steck was clearly elected. That the vote in the Committee was nearly unanimous, while the Senate vote was comparatively close, can be explained on the ground that the smaller body could examine the facts more thor

IT

food products corporations. To-day, it is stated, sixty-six per cent of the flour sold in the country goes to the baking trust, and of the remainder part is used by farmers. The result has been that by local bakeries, but far more is bought the flour-mills and the wheat growers porations. have been "squeezed" by the baking cor

cakes, which must be sold within ten It might seem strange that bread and subject to almost National corporation hours or less of the baking, should be panies has been due, it must be fairly control. The growth of the big comadmitted, to scientific methods of probakery bread is better than it was twenty duction and distribution. Undoubtedly years ago.

On the financial and business side the serted, for instance, that the "trust" in mergers have been ruthless. It is asprice of the loaf from five to six cents and New York City once suddenly raised the after a few weeks as suddenly dropped it, after a few weeks as suddenly dropped it, bakeries, and that hundreds of bakeall for the purpose of freezing out small shops were thus thrown out. bakeries, and that hundreds of bake

The combining of combinations proonly three big companies existed, and ceeded intricately and smoothly until these were intercombined in action and interest.

hand by proceeding against the mergers Then the Federal Government took a under the Sherman and Clayton Acts. It has often been said that it is easier to

prevent a proposed semi-monopoly than
to dissolve one already well established.
The Attorney-General wisely centered
the fight on a new and startling attempt
at extending the baking consolidation.
This was the incorporation of the Wa
Food Products Company (populari
called the Two Billion Dollar Trust)
This company proposed to engage in en
terprises not directly competitive with
the baking industry, such as dairy and
ice-cream companies, and to control rav
materials like salt, yeast, sugar, and milk

The result has been a complete back down by the companies. A "consen decree" has been filed which appears, for the present at least, to involve an aban donment not only of the Food Products project but of features of the other com binations objected to by the Government Thus it is reported that

The General Baking Company and the six other baking concerns named in the Government's suit have agreed to dissolve any common connection they may have. A director in one concern cannot serve as director in another.

The directors of the seven companies are enjoined from acquiring! stock in any other bakery which is engaged in inter-State commerce.

Of the Government's victory United States Attorney Woodcock says that the amicable settlement avoids expensive liti. gation and guarantees the execution of the Government's demands.

"Nothing Really Happened"

W