READ THIS — STUDY IT WITH AN UNBIASED MIND IT IS "FOOD FOR THOUGHT" The Prohibition Movement Lecture delivered by Dr. M. M. MANGASARIAN SUNDAY, JANUARY 24th, 1915 Majestic Theatre, Chicago What I am about to say on the subject of this morning will not please the Prohibition- ists, neither will it please the Liquor interests. Why speak at all then, if I am neither for prohibition nor for the saloons as many are conducted at present? Perhaps you will be able to answer that question after you have heard the lecture. The whole country is agi- tated over the drink question; in fact, it is not a local question — it is not even a national or an international question alone — it is a world question. Two methods of coping with it have been proposed, — regulation and prohibition. The advocates of prohibition say that the liquor traffic cannot be regulated; the champions of regulation insist that prohibition does not pro- hibit. It seems that the movements to sup- press the liquor traffic have such momentum — that like an avalanche which has started to roll down the mountain — it has to touch the bottom before it can stop. How long prohibition will last after it has swept the country is very difficult to predict, although there are thousands who predict with readiness that something in the shape of pro- hibition will soon rend this country. What is prohibition? You are familiar with what is known as the "Hobson Amendment" which was voted upon recently in Congress. It is proposed to amend the United States Consti- tution so as to make the "sale," the manufac- ture for "sale," the importation for "sale" and the transportation for "sale" of alcoholic bev- erages illegal. Observe the frequency with which the word "sale" occurs in this proposed amendment. Evidently the authors of the amendment do not intend to prevent or sup- press the use of alcoholic liquors but only its "sale," and a second clause allows even the "sale," the manufacture for "sale" of alcoholic beverages for medicinal, artistic and sacramen- tal purposes. (Laughter.) You will see that the Bill as it stands for it to become law — they only succeed in depriving the government of revenue without materially affecting the use of alcoholic beverages. The Hobson amend- ment is very lame; it is not really worth talk- ing about; it is neither one thing nor the other. The natural individual or real prohibitionist is disgusted with it. They would like to intro- duce a motion to prohibit the manufacture for sale or use forever of alcoholic beverages. That is prohibition and I shall confine my re- marks to the real thing, but in the first place I would like to comment on the uses of alcohol. If we Were to ask — is alcohol a poison — an- swers would be contradictory although coming from equally responsible authorities. The con- tention that alcohol is a poison influences a great many to favor prohibition; but a poison which takes 25 or 50 years to kill a man can- not be very serious poison, moreover even if alcohol were not a poison, it is not alcohol that is drunk and the ingredients which enter into the beverage may more than counteract the alcoholic poison. Furthermore, the purest food we partake of may poison us. The great- est manufacturer of toxins is the human body. Thousands die every year from what we might call self-poisoning with food. The next question, is alcohol a food — would bring an equal divergence of opinions and ex- pressions. Is alcohol medicinal — has it any medicinal virtue — that question has been tossed back and forth between physicians of contending schools but a much more interest- ing question is, does alcohol interfere with the THE PROHIBITION MOVEMENT. nervous apparatus; is alcohol a depressent or stimulant? Experiments have been made by competent scientists to show that alcohol de- presses the faculties while seeming to stimu- late them. It is true that after a stein of beer or a glass of spirits, the drinker is made loqua- cious and gesticulates the more frequently and is more self-confident but that is because his brain is on a vacation so to speak. You know what happens in a school-room when the teacher steps aside for a moment. The same abandon takes place in a man when his brain is partially paralyzed. A rooster when his head is cut off will jump about for a few seconds as if it were more alive than ever; that is be- cause he has lost his head. (Laughter.) If this theory be correct, alcohol instead of stimu- lating, depresses the drinker. The seeming hilarity is nothing more than the flare of a candle just before going out. Other experiments have been made to show that in a class of college students, the boys are more active in their work if they have not taken any alcohol than after taking alcohol and in a business office, the clerks will be more accurate in their additions of a set of figures if they have not alcohol in their systems than if they have taken alcohol. It has also, I think, been demonstrated that a regiment of soldiers will march further and arrive at its destination less fatigued if it has not taken any alcohol than if it started on its journey with a drink or two and that soldiers are more accurate and hit the mark oftener if they are free from the influence of alcohol than if they are under its influence. Now against this long line of experiments, there is the testimony of the ages and the whole world that alcohol is a spirit. Some believe that the best way to resist a great deal of sor- row is to stimulate themselves with an alcoholic beverage which all goes to show that it is largely a physiological problem ; it is a question of temperament. What will depress one per- son will excite another; what is a weight to you is a wing to your neighbor. Hygienically speaking then, my opinion (and it is only my opinion and it is not worth more than a pri- vate opinion) I would say that the man who does not drink is better off than the man who drinks and I would say the same thing about the man who smokes. I would say that the man who does not smoke, does not have to smoke, is not dependent upon his cigar, cigar- ette or pipe, is better off. I am not a compe- tent person to speak on that because I don't know what pleasure there is in smoking; I am not in a position to talk about drinking or a drunkard because I have never had the exper- ience. But I can, however, imagine how the man who enjoys his drink with his meals, smokes his cigar after his meals, would be greatly benefitted by them. That to a man who enjoys the taste — drinking would stimu- late his digestive organs and that smoking af- terwards, sitting in his chair in the act of holding his cigar between his fingers with the smoke curling up, would put him in that state of mind which I would call delicious. (Laugh- ter.) I could enter into his feelings. And upon the influence of alcohol upon the mind my position is equally clear. The student who does not drink is better off than the one who does. Nevertheless, you know that some years ago in this country nearly every preacher be- fore he entered the pulpit gulped down a good drink of whiskey, which he called the "heavenly dew." In those days it was con- sidered that the man who had whiskey in his stomach was sure to have the Holy spirit help- ing him in his work. Of Daniel Webster it is said that while de- livering his masterpieces on the floor of the Senate, brandy was served to him more than once for the purpose of provoking his mind and facilitating the flow of his language and nobody thought it was wrong but to anybody who wished to imitate Daniel Webster, I would say, leave the brandy alone. However, I am thankful that I realize the impossibility of set- ting up myself as a model for a world so big, so diverse as the one we live in. If the time ever came when everybody in the world should think as I think and do as I do, I would be the first one to want to get away from that world. I believe therein is the secret of tolerance — we must have a sense of humor; we must have the ability to criticize ourselves. When we can do that we cannot be intolerant. The trouble with fanatics is that they cannot see themselves in the wrong. They cannot leave out themselves and that is why they are so cool, so cold, so bigoted, and when it comes to the influence of alcohol on character, my position is equally clear. I would never think of advising a young man to drink for the help of his reputation or character. However, I would say further, that a man who holds a re- sponsible position — who has the lives of many people at his mercy — is better off if he leaves THE PROHIBITION MOVEMENT. alcohol alone. Nevertheless, if I went to a pri- vate house where everybody drank, or if I went to a restaurant or a saloon and saw one of the most successful business men or lawyer cr banker of reputation, a college president or even a preacher drinking at the table with his friends, or at the bar, I would not think any less of him. I would say, there is a man who can maintain the highest efficiency and com- mand the confidence and respect of the pub- lic. Indeed, I would imagine that such a man was a little stronger than the man whose char- acter and reputation is in danger by his drink- ing. However, if a young man said to me — do you think I ought to drink occasionally — I would say, you are better off if you don't and I would say the same thing about smoking. I would not think of saying to a man like Mr. Roosevelt or a man like Mr. Taft, — if you don't drink or smoke you will be a better man. I think that would be impudent; that would be impertinent; that would be fanatical. You see the man who does not drink fears that he might become the slave of drink as I intimated a moment ago — the man who can enjoy every- thing confident that he will not abuse any- thing, is perhaps a stronger man. He has at least one more pleasure which the other is afraid to touch, although in justice, I must say that the man who knows his weakness and controls himself, is also a stronger man. The advantage I would say — we want to be per- fectly fair — is on the side of the man who can enjoy everything because he is sure he is not going to abuse anything. I wish we could all have that power. There is for instance, some- thing that I am very fond of in the eating line. I am very fond of pastry; I am very fond of candy but cannot eat them and when I see a man who can eat pastry and candy I don't pity him — I envy him! (Laughter) and likewise, we might envy the man — we might say — what a strong man. He can drink his beer, he can drink his brandy and he h as regular as a clock and as respectable and clean and faithful as we could wish, from all of which it follows, that this is purely a personal matter, altogether beyond the jurisdiction of the state as far as moderate drinking is concerned. I have not yet said anything about drunken- ness but you have to agree with me that the state has the right to interfere and stop the spread of drunkenness. You have to agree with me that the state cannot be indifferent to the matter of drunkenness. It is a question of self-preservation with the State. If the State did not control and the nation became drunk, then very soon the State would be in the posi- tion of a tree whose leaves kept dropping and whose branches kept falling to the ground until finally there is nothing left but the bare trunk — stripped of all verdure and hollow like a pipe. To avoid that, the State must fight the drunkard. However, you will admit that the people who use alcoholic beverages without endang- ering their lives or the lives of others largely outnumber the drunkards. Hence, any interest in the interests of the question which narrows down to this: Has the State the right to de- prive this large number of its personal lib- erty, because the minority abuses that liberty? However, we must not make light of drunken- ness even though we have a handful of drunk- ards. It is a serious problem. One case of smallpox or cholera might well throw the whole community into a panic and I would say that one drunkard staggering in the streets of Chicago, going home to his wife and breed- ing degenerate offspring might well throw the whole nation into a panic. Then, this is a question which confronts us: How can we protect the personal rights of the American citizen and at the same time lay the axe at the roots of drunkenness? It is a matter of record that neither the interests of the saloon nor of the prohibitionists have ever tried to come together and see if a modus operandi could not be decided upon by which this object could be accomplished and protect the rights of the citizen and at the same time, fight drunkenness. As some saloons are conducted now and the liquor interests are conducted now I am not inclined to look for any solution of the problem from them. It is a pity. The liquor interests are mighty; they have tremendous funds and are using large sums of money for what? I wish they were using all their time, their money and their interest to solve this problem to see how they can diminish or stop the spread of drunkenness; that is their work. Leave the machine alone; leave the prohibi- tionists to fight ; tax your minds to invent ways and means so that the liquor interests are op- posed to drunkenness; they will not encourage it — they will check it; they will swallow them up, ruin their business as well as their repu- tation. That is not for him. That is the enemy! that is the enemy! that is the enemy! THE PROHIBITION MOVEMENT. That is the menace to the saloon — the drunk- ard. Go after him with all your money — with all your brains — with all your country-wide influence. Study the number of saloons, kind of people found there and the way they are conducted. The number of days the saloons are open — study all this and we have got to stop drunkenness or else we must go on down. I regret to say that the saloons have neglected the most important question. Now, it is the law of evolution and you cannot take excep- tion to the law of evolution, that whatever in- stitution does not adapt itself to its environ- ment, goes under. Do you know that there has been a radical change in public opinion concerning drinking? That is evident, you don't have to close your eyes to it. A great change has come over the public. Know that, know it, write it down! You know also that there is a great interest on the part of the public on the question of sani- tation. That is also something new — it is a new environment. You know there is also a more insistent demand for decency. Now then, the saloon must be able to respond to this general improvement. If it cannot, if it won't, it is doomed. Give the truth to new America or step aside. Have men of genius, men of brains, men of large hearts in your business that will see that. The Church is in the same trouble and won't adapt itself. Ev- erything progresses; everything broadens ex- cept the church and the result is, that the church is exposed like a roofless building, — to the blows which in multitudes rain down on its head — exposed to attack from every quar- ter, simply because it is an antiquated institu- tion; it is obsolete — for it is dead; it is not in tune with the ages, that is all, but the church won't see it and hence its trouble. I have spent all my life, I should say, or that is, most half my life, trying to show the Church how it may preserve itself by making its peace with science and modern thought and if I had the opportunity I would say to the saloon, make your peace with Public Opinion, if you want to live! Now directing my remark to the other side — the Prohibitionists — I find they make the same mistakes and that they will never solve this problem unless they turn over a really new leaf. Let me now address myself to the Prohibition question — real prohibition. That movement is based upon the doctrine that the liquor traffic is a criminal business. If they can prove that contention, the position of the pro- hibitionists is unassailable. If they cannot prove it, the prohibition movement then col- lapses. I am not of the opinion that nearly every important business is a creature of the State. The State is the creator of the busi- ness. I would not invest my money — you would not invest yours if it were not for this protection which the State affords us. With- out such encouragement we would not go into business. The State creates the business in the next place, by issuing a license. The business is the creature of the State. Now the State licenses and is still licensing the liquor traffic and therefore the liquor traffic exists by the consent and approval of the Stat* and there- fore if it is a criminal business it involves the State just as much as the individual. Another reflection is that the State not only licenses the liquor traffic but shares with the brewer and distiller his profits. Senator Underwood said on the floor of the Senate recently, that the U. S. Government derived the enormous sum of $333,000,000 per annum from the liquor traffic. That is a billion dollars every three years or so. Now how can a business be denounced as criminal when it is yielding so large a profit to the people, for the State is the people, and the people accept their share of the profits. A third reflection that if the liquor traffic exists by permission of the State and the State shares its profits in the shape of dues and taxes, then if the liquor traffic is suppressed the govern- ment would be under obligations to compen- sate the distillers and brewers for the loss of their property. I am not a lawyer to know whether they would have any legal or tech- nical claim against the government, but I don't care about that, I am considering it from a broader point of view. I am discussing the subject along the line of principle. Do you know that in France — this is a good illustra- tion — gambling is allowed in those beautiful, handsome casinos, at the watering places and there is a government agent to watch the pro- ceedings and take the government's share of the profits. Now suppose that the French gov- ernment passes a law making gambling a crime and ordering the casinos closed, don't you think that morally speaking, if not legally, the owners of the Casinos are entitled to compen- sation, for the Casinos were built — the invest- ments were made by the permission and en- couragement of and licensing by the State be- THE PROHIBITION MOVEMENT fore the enactment of a law forbidding the existence of the Casino. You know that a law cannot be violated until it has been en- acted; a law cannot be retroactive in its pun- ishment. If I loan a man $100 at 10 per cent and the next year that is pronounced usury by a new law, I am entitled to my 10 per cent because when the investment was made it was legal and the law cannot go back, but must go forward. Therefore 1 don't want to belabour this point, the Government, the people have spent a million dollars that they have drawn from this business and they should just as much be ready to part with it as they think that the Brewer should be in opening up his invest- ment. A building put up for brewery pur- poses that cost $60,000 would not be worth $5,000 for anything else and $45,000 in my opinion should be returned to the Brewer. That would be high class. That would show the prohibitionists the country over; that would show them that the people want a re- form and they wanted to pay for it themselves. We want a reform, no mistake about that. We want a reform, but at whose expense? Pay for it, don't send the bill to the Brewer. Per- haps it would be an economical act of wisdom too as well as moral, to say we will buy you out to show our good faith. We will buy out the distillers and brewers because these went into the business under our protection by our permission and we shared with them their prof- its; we will buy them out. If, during slavery, the large hearted men had raised a fund to buy the slaves, because slavery was at one time allowed by the country, that miserable war might have been avoided. At any rate, the attempt could have been made. I say to the prohibitionist, buy out the saloon! Buy out the business! Pay for the reform out of your own pocket, but then of course, the most important point and a strong argument against prohibition is the moral argument. You know that there are certain spheres of life that should never be entered upon by the out- sider. Isn't that interesting? Now you can dictate to me in a thousand ways but there are certain things that you must not press upon. England at one time, used all her imperial resources to compel Ireland to go to the Episcopal Church. That was foolish as well as criminal because England had no right to enter into those privacies of a people which are sacred and of course, it failed. It failed! All the effort and all the money was wasted. The Irishman guarded his private premises and would not allow England to desecrate them. Compulsory morality is no morality at all ; that is spurious. A muzzled nation or fasten- ing the prohibition muzzle upon a nation, is not the same thing as making America tem- perate. How foolish! Such ignorance of psychology with a muzzle upon the nation, we cannot say that this is a temperate or moral country; we can only say this is a muzzled country. But do we not prohibit murder? Why can we not prohibit the sale or use of alcoholic beverages; do you think that the habit of drinking can be listed with the taking of life? But how about the prohibition of cocaine and other injurious drugs? You know as well as I do that it would be impossible for people to use cocaine for example, daily, on a general scale without contracting the habit. It is fatal. But we know as a matter of fact, that thousands and thousands of people drink every day without contracting the habit or becoming drunkards. There are the facts. It is not a question of theory. If people could use co- caine as harmlessly as they can use beer or wine, it would cease to be a menace to the country. There is a law against the carrying of con- cealed weapons but would that law make a man who carries a penknife in his pocket, a criminal? And yet, with a penknife he can take life. The difference between cocaine muz- zled and wine muzzled is greater than the dif- ference between a six-shooter and paper cut- ter. So you see that, as I said, it is not a ques- tion of theory; it is a question of fact. A man can carry a penknife in his pocket without vio- lating the law but cannot carry a revolver with- out violating the law. So a man can drink his beer or wine without being a criminal, but he cannot partake of cocaine without running counter to the laws of the State. Still another objection I find against the pro- hibition movement is that it is class legislation. The liquor men do not imperil the rights of the man who does not wish to drink but the teetotaler deprives the man who wants to drink, of his rights. You see then, that it is the rights of the man who wants to drink that should be protected since the rights of the man who does not wish to drink, are not at all menaced and it should be the aim of the government to see that the man who wants wine at his table, re- ceives the same protection that the man re- THE PROHIBITION MOVEMENT, ceives who wants to keep wine away from his table. Who would think of a government that would protect a man who does not want to drink, when it does not give any protection and will not protect a man who is a sober, temperate man, who wants to drink occasion- ally and whose rights are menaced? A gov- ernment that will do that is not a government of the whole people neither can it be called a rational government. But a still more formid- able objection, from my point of view, is that prohibition will bring back puritanism. I am neither for the church nor for the saloon. As far as I am concerned if everybody did as I do, they would starve to death and I would not wear mourning at their funeral. As stated from my point of view, then, everybody would be barred if rationalism prevailed in the coun- try, but do you think that we have the right, as long as we can control a two-thirds vote in the House, to pass a law amending the Consti- tution to forbid going to church and making going to church a crime? There are 93,000,- 000 of people in America. Suppose 90,000,- 000 were rationalists — would they have a right to say what the remaining 3,000,000 should accept as their religion? That is the point I was speaking of a minute ago. You say, why do I compare the saloon with the church? I have no hesitation in saying that if I had to choose between intoxication and superstition, 1 would choose the former. The lowest kind of a dive — I don't want to be exaggerating, but the lowest kind of a dive is preferable to super- stition. What is the worst thing that can happen in a dive? Robbery, murder, or both; under the influence of liquor — and robbery and murder on a vast scale have been committed under superstition and with deliberate intention. Do you remember the distinction I always try to make between the sense of passion and the sense of calculation? I would say again, that I make up my mind not to eat certain things because they hurt me, but I cannot re- sist them. I eat them and they hurt me. Now that is the sin of passion; it is not a sin of cal- culation. There is a vast difference between the sins of the drunkard and the sins of the bigot, for after all, the sins of the drunkard are deformities of the flesh and of the mind; are not deliberate, calculated crimes. In 161 1 , in England, when the country was under the Puritan regime, one morning they dragged a man out of jail and hanged him and then they took him down and cut his heart out and threw it into the fire where it roasted in the presence of a mob, then they cut his body into four parts, then nailed them on a cross, then they took his head and fastened it on top of a pole and set it before his house, at White Chapel. What was his crime, what was his crime? He had spoken against the observa- tion of Sunday. Tell me, tell me, has the vilest drunkard ever committed a more insane, a more cruel act, can that be surpassed, by the fanaticism of intoxication, and yet I am not drawing upon the calendar of horrors of the church. I have given you only one illustration to justify my choice of intoxication against superstitution. Green, one of the historians of England says, that under Puritanism, the whole nation was a church and the most minute regulations were imposed in the interests of their creed upon private actions. There was no privacy left; it was desecrated. Everybody pushed your door open and walked in. Is there any danger of Puritanism coming back? My friend, I want to tell you that the past died hard; that the past is at the door, waiting for a nod to come in. What is the motive, do you think of the churches in going into the reform work — in taking hold of social questions? It is to be ready to come into power again. If the church cannot come back through the door of reform it will sneak back by way of the saloon. The saloon is a great advertiser of the preacher today. Puritanism will come back — is ready to come back and when it comes back, we will have another New England. What is my objection to Puritanism? I can put it in one sentence — "Too much Government!" and the best government is that which governs the least. The ideal is the maximum of service combined with the minimum of coercion. But I have to hurry on and tell you of still another objection, that is, that extreme measures do more harm than good. A good surgeon never resorts to the knife except as a last resort and it has to be shown that everything has been done to regulate the liquor traffic and keep it within bounds before it is cut out. In the State of New York when there were 6,000,000 people, there were 346 saloons. Today there are 1 0,000,000 in the State of New York and 23,475 saloons. More- over extreme measures, instead of restricting the evil, spread it. There is nothing to prevent, THE PROHIBITION MOVEMENT. under Prohibition, a man making his own whiskey in his own kitchen. All he has to do is to have a pot, a number of pounds of molasses, a rubber tube, a pitcher and he makes his own whiskey. Instead of one man smelling of whiskey the whole house will smell of it. (Ap- plause). Children will be eyewitnesses of it. The government agent will not be there to inspect it. Isn't it foolish? Do you want a dog to become vicious — all you have to do is to chain him. Farmers chain their dogs that they may become vicious. You chain a people and you make them more vicious. You give them that feeling that they have been injured or wronged and you will make hypocrites of them. Where there is freedom you will preserve their mental equilibrium. I say to the Prohibitionist you admit that freedom of faith, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of action is the inalienable right of every citizen? Yes! I say to the Li- quor Interests do you not agree with me that drunkenness is a great peril and must be stop- ped at any cost? Yes! My position becomes clear. Let the prohibitionists agree that they will support the individual in fighting drunk- enness without violating the personal rights of the sober, temperate citizen and I will say to the saloon, you will have all the protection that this great nation can offer if you will pre- vent, practically prevent, drunkenness and if you have an honest, sincere desire to save the nation from the curse of drunkenness. Go after the saloons as long as they make drunk- ards of the American people. Go after the Prohibitionists as long as they menace the rights of the individual to pursue life, liberty and proper happiness as his own conscience shall dictate to him — this inviolable, inalienable right, this privacy of the individual, the na- tion cannot desecrate. I trust that some way will be found to bring the two factions together that are now inpoverishing one another and wasting their money to get together and agree, one to fight drunkenness, the other to protect the rights of the American citizen and we our- selves will lend our help against any attempt to diminish the privileges and the liberties of the American citizen against any attempt to make this country another Puritan land. Schiller, in one of his essays, describes the evil effects of repressive government by saying that it makes creatures of men. Now we have our slogan "COME WHAT MAY, WE SHALL BE MEN, NOT CREATURES!" (Applause.) Issued by Educational Publicity Department Manufacturers and Dealers Association of America Chicago, U. S. A. Copy of this will be mailed free by enclosing 2c for postage. ';(£>