^n Official ^fetp of 
 
 Hiqittor jProl)itittton 
 m tf)c ^niteb States! 
 
 By DR. JAMES M. DORAN 
 
 Commissioner of Prohibition of the United States 
 of America 
 
 THE WORLD LEAGUE AGAINST ALCOHOLISM 
 AMERICAN ISSUE PRESS 
 WESTERVILLE. OHIO. U. S. A. 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 Columbia University Libraries 
 
 https://archive.org/details/viewofliquorprohOOdora 
 
AN OFFICIAL VIEW OF LIQUOR 
 PROHIBITION IN THE 
 UNITED STATES 
 
 By Dr. James M. Doran 
 Commissioner of Prohibition of the United 
 States of America* 
 
 HE many years of effort put forth 
 in the United States in dealing 
 with the subject of alcoholism 
 finally resulted in the establish- 
 ment of a national policy through consti- 
 tutional change; and subsequent statu- 
 tory enactments by the Congress to put 
 into effect the constitutional prohibition 
 of intoxicating liquors for beverage pur- 
 poses. 
 
 The policy in brief encompasses both 
 the prohibition of intoxicating alcoholic 
 liquors for beverage purposes and the 
 control of industrial alcohol and liquors 
 used for manufacturing, medicinal, and 
 other non-beverage purposes; the policy 
 with respect to the latter being one of 
 constructive aid to industries using alco- 
 hol and liquors for legitimate manufac- 
 turing purposes. 
 
 The adoption of this national policy 
 has been the result of a slow, steady and 
 logical political development, working 
 through the small political subdivisions 
 and finally through the states and the 
 
 •Address before the International Congress 
 Against Alcoholism, Antwerp, August 20-25, 
 1928, which Dr. Doran attended as an ofiBcial 
 del^ate from the United States. 
 
 [31 
 
national Congress itself. Political action 
 has been coincident with the scientific 
 and industrial development of the past 
 forty years that has brought about such 
 radical changes in the occupations and 
 habits of the people. This scientific and 
 mechanical advance has brought into 
 sharp outline a steadily increasing con- 
 sciousness of the unsocial aspects of bev- 
 erage alcohol. 
 
 During the period in which this na- 
 tional policy was forming we witnessed 
 three distinct lines of activity. The moral 
 forces, supplemented by the social work- 
 ers, labored continuously for ameliora- 
 tion of social conditions by urging the 
 complete elimination of the manufacture 
 and sale of beverage liquors. Next, the 
 industrialist and economist, noting the 
 inefficiency and positive danger attend- 
 ant upon the use of beverage liquor by 
 the individual in industry, with the re- 
 sulting injury to the individual, and losses 
 to the worker’s associates and family, 
 the net result being a load on industry 
 with a lowering of the standard of living 
 on the part of all dependent on the par- 
 ticular industry, took aggressive steps to 
 eliminate the use of intoxicants by indi- 
 vidual employees. Common carriers, pub- 
 lic service corporations and manufactur- 
 ing corporations where fine mechanical 
 control was essential took steps to elimi- 
 nate the individual who used intoxicat- 
 ing liquor. Finally the scientist, and in 
 that category we would particularly 
 mention the pharmacologist and the 
 chemist, worked in two distinct fields. 
 The former determined that alcohol was 
 [ 4 ] 
 
distinctly a depressant and acted direct- 
 ly on the nerve centers controlling co- 
 ordination of actions. The latter found 
 that alcohol could be made useful to the 
 race in hundreds of processes and prod- 
 ucts, thereby showing the way in which 
 the compound ethyl alcohol might be 
 employed as a constructive aid to the 
 race rather than as a destructive agent. 
 
 All of these moral, social, economic and 
 scientific forces contributed to the steady 
 and logical political action by which and 
 through which the State acted and 
 brought into existence our present body 
 of constitutional and statute law com- 
 monly referred to as National Prohibi- 
 tion. 
 
 Eight and one-half years are a com- 
 paratively short time in which to survey 
 and accurately assess the good and bad 
 features resulting from the adoption of 
 such a broad national policy intimately 
 affecting all the people as it does, but the 
 general result thus far has been whole- 
 some and beneficial. The Eighteenth 
 Amendment to our Constitution con- 
 ferred concurrent power on both the 
 States and the Federal Government to 
 enforce its provisions. Under our theory 
 of government the States exercise the 
 maximum police powers and, hence, the 
 local enforcement of prohibition should 
 rest largely on the State. The Federal 
 Government has proceeded to build up a 
 national organization primarily for the 
 purpose of enforcing the criminal pro- 
 visions of the National Prohibition Act 
 through the Federal courts. The Federal 
 force directs its attention largely to vio- 
 [ 5 ] 
 
lations relating to sources of supply, in- 
 terstate violations and international vio- 
 lations. While it has jurisdiction with 
 respect to all violations, large and small, 
 it naturally directs its resources along 
 the lines of major operations. The Fed- 
 eral organization also administers the 
 sections of the law dealing with the per- 
 missible use of alcohol and liquors for 
 manufacturing, medicinal and other 
 non-beverage purposes. Federal taxes 
 are still levied on alcohol and liquors 
 when withdrawn in a pure state for me- 
 dicinal and certain commercial non-bev- 
 erage purposes. The amount of taxes 
 collected from this source last year was 
 $11,396,173.47. 
 
 We have at the present time a Federal 
 force of about 3,800 men in the various 
 branches of the Bureau of Prohibition. 
 This force is employed solely on internal 
 work. As illustrative of the volume of 
 this work I would point out that during 
 the past year 40,709 prosecutions were 
 commenced in the Federal courts, result- 
 ing in 31,717 convictions and 949 acquit- 
 tals. The fines and penalties imposed 
 were $5,716,708. The Bureau of Prohibi- 
 tion issues permits to and supervises the 
 activities of about 160,000 permit holders 
 of all classes. This includes the manu- 
 facturer of alcohol, the denaturer, the in- 
 dustrial user, the pharmacist, the hospi- 
 tal, the physician and numerous other 
 miscellaneous permit holders. 
 
 It is not my purpose to quote statisti- 
 cal matter, but the above figures illus- 
 trate the activity of the United States 
 [ 6 ] 
 
Government in the internal administra- 
 tion of the prohibition laws. 
 
 The United States Coast Guard, the 
 Bureau of Customs and the Bureau of 
 Prohibition are coordinate services in the 
 Department of the Treasury. The Coast 
 Guard patrols the deep waters around 
 the United States, using several hundred 
 vessels, large and small, and a personnel 
 of 11,000 men in the carrying out of their 
 function which is the saving of life and 
 property at sea and the prevention of 
 introduction of illegal merchandise and 
 aliens into the United States. The Bu- 
 reau of Customs patrols the land borders 
 and guards all ports of entry. They col- 
 lect the revenue from tariff and prevent 
 the introduction of unlawful and untax- 
 paid merchandise into the United States. 
 You will see, therefore, that the Govern- 
 ment of the United States, through the 
 Treasury Department, employs three co- 
 ordinate services in the enforcement of 
 the constitutional provisions relating to 
 the liquor traffic, namely, the Coast 
 Guard at sea, the Customs on the land 
 and water borders, and the Bureau of 
 Prohibition internally. 
 
 Many superficial observations and as- 
 sertions have been made with respect to 
 the operation of the prohibition policy in 
 the United States. In discussing the net 
 results observable thus far it is well that 
 we use great care in properly assessing 
 the available data and not generalize 
 from two or three specific facts. Very 
 few people who have written at length 
 on the effect of prohibition in the United 
 States have assembled their data in a 
 [73 
 
scientific manner where comparison ob- 
 servations can be made. Pickett of Wash- 
 ington has assembled some very good 
 material, however, on mortality, deaths 
 from alcoholism and arrests for intoxi- 
 cation and crimes attributable to the use 
 of intoxicants. Fisher, of Yale Univer- 
 sity, has compiled social and economic 
 data and has drawn his conclusions from 
 that data. Feldman, of Dartmouth Col- 
 lege, has likewise assembled economic 
 and industrial data and commented 
 thereon. The conclusions of these men, 
 who have devoted considerable study to 
 this carefully compiled data, have been 
 that the benefits of prohibition on the 
 national life are real and determinable. 
 Entirely outside of the observation of the 
 economist have been the statements of 
 the leading social workers relative to the 
 beneficial effects of prohibition on the 
 social lives of the people. That there has 
 been a substantial change in the daily 
 lives of the people is a matter of com- 
 mon observation, the final conclusion be- 
 ing that the effect of this national policy 
 has been most salutary. 
 
 The Government of the United States 
 is proceeding earnestly and in good faith 
 with all available resources to bring 
 about the maximum degree of enforce- 
 ment of the criminal law. It is likewise 
 earnestly endeavoring to aid all indus- 
 tries using alcohol for manufacturing 
 and other non-beverage purposes, and in 
 Uie latter endeavor it has the active co- 
 operation of the organized industries af- 
 fected. The Bureau of Prohibition has 
 an unofficial Industrial Advisory Council 
 [ 8 ] 
 
composed of twelve leading scientists 
 and industrialists who confer and advise 
 with us on joint problems, and the ad- 
 ministration of the law is directed along 
 cooperative and constructive lines. The 
 experience of the United States of the 
 last eight years shows that it is entirely 
 possible to have a sound and healthy 
 chemical industry in which alcohol is an 
 essential material, and prohibition of 
 beverage liquor at the same time. 
 
 The earnest effort of the Government 
 of the United States in enforcing its 
 laws makes it not inappropriate to sug- 
 gest that other nations cooperate with 
 the United States to combat the inter- 
 national illicit traffic in liquor. The need 
 for such an arrangement is becoming in- 
 creasingly apparent. We hope that the 
 future will bring about stronger coopera- 
 tive action between nations in the sup- 
 pression of this illicit traffic, in order to 
 permit prohibition countries to combat 
 alcoholism by effective action developed 
 on a wide basis, and so that those coun- 
 tries may be in a position to deal solely 
 with an internal problem, instead of be- 
 ing compelled to exert tremendous ef- 
 forts to combat an international illicit 
 liquor traffic which uses the ports of 
 many foreign nations and seeks the pro- 
 tection of the flags of those nations to 
 cover illegal acts. 
 
 At the present time there are at least 
 twenty-five ports in foreign countries 
 used almost exclusively as bases for 
 smuggling operations to the United 
 States. 
 
 I seize this opportunity to suggest a 
 [ 9 ] 
 
very simple solution to this nefarious in- 
 ternational traffic. If the appropriate 
 governments would require the produc- 
 tion of a duly authenticated landing cer- 
 tificate, showing that liquor exported was 
 actually discharged at the port for which 
 the vessel cleared, it would clearly dis- 
 tinguish legitimate trade from illicit 
 traffic, and drive the latter from the so- 
 ciety of nations. 
 
 I might say that the Government of 
 Norway has taken a noteworthy step in 
 eliminating smuggling by Norwegian ves- 
 sels, which should be followed by other 
 nations. 
 
 We all desire to promote the welfare of 
 the people, the basic purpose for which 
 government exists, and in no field can 
 greater good be accomplished than in 
 lessening the evils of alcoholism. 
 
 (PBINTBD IN THE U. 8. A.) 
 
 [ 10 ]