B

RITANNIC federalism has ceased to be an idea. It has become a fact. It became a fact last year at the first meeting of the Imperial War Cabinet, a single authority that unites the Empire's whole power and yet assumes as the condition of its existence complete local autonomy.

At last year's meeting it was an incomplete War Cabinet. At this year's meeting, which began its sessions last month, the Imperial War Cabinet is complete. It includes representatives from Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India.

Last year's meeting was productive of results. For instance, Sir Robert Borden, the Canadian Premier, returned from it convinced that nothing but conscription could bring about the required reinforcements for the Dominion army. His campaign in this direction led to the breach in the Dominion Liberal party and the triumph of conscription, supported by Canadians without regard to party in the general election.

The question of Asiatic immigration into the Dominion was also a much-discussed question at last year's meeting, not only in the Imperial War Cabinet, but in the accompanying Imperial War Conference. The result is seen in the good will established between the representatives from India and the dominions.

To this year's Conference the delegates came with special missions from their own countries. For example, Australia and New Zealand desired to impress upon the London Cabinet their anxiety lest Germany should again get a footing in the Pacific, and Canada has many military, financial, economic, and industrial problems in friendly co-operation with the United States to present.

The present Imperial War Cabinet is no mere continuance of the pre-war Imperial Council, discussing academic resolutions at length and making recommendations to the British Government on naturalization, taxation, trade-marks, patents, and other subjects. It is no cabinet in name and conference

in fact. It represents the extension of the British Empire's organization.

At the opening session there were the representatives of over four hundred million human beings. Most of the great races, most of the great faiths, were represented. The dominion Premiers and other Ministers, and the Maharaja of Patiala and Sir S. P. Sinha, delegates from India, were welcomed as "our Cab inet colleagues" by Mr. Lloyd George, British Prime Minister. While England's fleet has held at bay the enemy's fleet, and has, in the main, dealt with a deadlier peril under the waters, what Great Britain as an Empire has done on land is something new, asserted Mr. Lloyd George, not merely in the British Empire's history, but in that of any other empire. When the war began, Britain at home had a small army about the size of the Bulgarian army, he affirmed. But the dominions had no army at all. Including those under arms when war was declared, the United Kingdom has raised nearly six million men for sea and land. The dominions have raised a million, and India nearly a million, and she is about to raise another half-million. But what manner of men are these? The Premier proceeded:

Germany expected to meet raw levies; brave enough, but easily swept and scattered away by highly trained and highly disciplined legionaries. . . . Instead of that, they have encountered men who have defeated their proudest warriors in a hundred fights, and... have . . . baffled the carefully prepared plans of Prussia's greatest generals, and have hurled back the gigantic assault of her most seasoned warriors.

Thus, while the war has taught many lessons, it has taught no more striking lesson, as the speaker proudly and justly asserted, than the lesson of the British Empire's power. And why this power? Mr. Lloyd George answered in these words:

gave

Hin

The Kaiser has proclaimed to the world that God denburg and Ludendorff to him and to Germany. I wonder who gave the British Empire to his enemies. He could easily find out if he would only ask some learned divine to tell him

who planted in the heart of man wrath against injustice, abhorrence of inhumanity, and the love of freedom.

It is these divine passions that have raised the British Empire from north to south, from the far east to the far west, in one brotherhood of arms against the deeds and designs of Prussian despotism.

Not only Germans; every one has underestimated the reality and strength of the bonds that unite the British Empire-invisible bonds, if you will.

Corresponding to this invisible, informal unity there is now arising a unity both visible and formal. The rise of the Imperial War Cabinet marks a constitutional change which is working out rapidly, if instinctively, in the British Empire under the pressure of war conditions. Its assembling at this time is Lloyd George's way of cutting the Gordian knot of constitutional anomalies which deprived the outlying portions of the British Empire of any direct voice in the control and direction of the business that is common to all.

The British Empire has long been a constitutional anomaly. Nominally an empire, it is in reality a loosely knit union of free nations owing allegiance to a common sovereign, who reigns, but does not govern. There is no democracy on earth more free in reality than the Dominion of Canada. In the management of its own internal affairs the Dominion is free and unfettered. The same is true of Newfoundland, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. But in the control of foreign policy these dominions have had no voice. The motherland alone has shaped

T

the policies and determined the issues that make for war or peace. In the making of the momentous decision of the early days of August, 1914, the dominions had no share. As it happened, that decision commanded their unanimous and enthusiastic approval; but if Canada or Australia had been of dif ferent opinion neither could have remained neutral. When the motherland is at war, the whole Empire is at war.

No such anomalous system could endure forever. The control of the foreign policy of all could not be left forever to the exclusive control of only one of the British commonwealths. The system was simply a relic of the old colonial days when Canada, Australia, and the other dominions were in their infancy. That it remained so long unchanged was due to the fact that, anomalous as it seemed and was, it worked well enough in times of peace, and the overseas dominions were too busy with their own problems of internal development to press for constitutional change. The great war has hastened a development which was bound to come if the British Empire is to endure.

The formation of the Imperial War Cabinet is designed to give the dominions the voice in the direction of affairs which is their due by reason of their sacrifices in the war. Something more than a "War" Cabinet must succeed it. The shaping of a permanent policy of Empire government which, without. sacrifice of autonomy by any of the self-governing parts of the British Empire, will provide for joint control of common affairs is not the least of the great problems to be solved after the war.

in war

HE use of distilled liquors as a beverage has inflicted incalculable injury upon every community where they have been so used. Our almshouses and jails bear abundant witness to this fact. An enemy in times of peace, times these liquors have been doubly an enemy. Hence, where the alcoholic content of beverages is alarmingly high, as in absinthe and vodka, they have been abolished by the French and Russian Governments. In the United States the use as a beverage of distilled liquors with forty to fifty per cent of alcohol, as in brandy, gin, and rum, has been common and in its effects disastrous. We also have our wines with a far less percentage of alcohol and our beers with still less. What to do to regulate, check, or absolutely prevent the evils growing out of this ill use of liquor as a beverage has been one of the most perplexing questions of our National life. The solution of this problem has been met by a great variety of experiments. By higher licenses we have tried to reduce the number and improve the quality and character of the saloons, but we have found it impracticable to enforce any discrimination in the kind of liquor which a saloon-keeper may sell, or the conditions under which and the persons to whom he may sell liquor.

Certain States have adopted local option that is, they permit communities (in some States towns, in others counties) to decide whether liquor shall be sold within their boundaries or not. Eighteen States have local-option laws. In many of the local-option States a large proportion of the territory is really "dry." Thus in Kentucky fully three-fourths of the State is "dry," and in Delaware only one spot is not "dry."

In some States, where the majority sentiment is against liquor-selling, it has been prohibited in the entire State. Twentyeight of the forty-eight States in the Union have prohibitory laws. These States are popularly known as "dry" States, the non-prohibitory States as "wet" States. So the opposing forces have come to be called the "wets " and the "drys.'

Prohibition in these States is of many kinds, varying in the severity of the laws and the strictness of their administration. Thus in the "dry" State of Washington a [man may bring in liquor for his own use, while in Kansas the possession of liquor is prima facie evidence of guilt and subjects the possessor to severe penalties of fine and imprisonment.

In some of these "dry" States prohibition has shown itself effective; but all the "dry" States have suffered because liquor has been allowed to come in from other States contrary to the will of the people. As a result Congress enacted the so-called Webb-Kenyon Bill. It provides that liquor shall not be shipped

into a State contrary to its will. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of this law.

Out of these local and State enactments has grown a National prohibition movement. The sentiment in favor of National prohibition is due primarily to the growing belief that the evils of the liquor traffic can be overcome only by National action. But it has received a great impulse from the growing conviction that it is necessary as a war measure. Accordingly, last December Congress passed a resolution submitting to the States an amendment to the Federal Constitution prohibiting the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation, and exportation of all alcoholic beverages. This amendment limits the State to seven years in which to vote yes or no upon the question of ratification. Even with this limitation there is ample time for the accomodation of personal habits and corporate industries to the new rule of the Nation. To make this new Constitutional amendment effective thirty-six of the States must ratify it; it has now been ratified by the following thirteen States:

But this Constitutional amendment changes nothing now, and now, while all the best energies of the Nation are needed to win the war, some radical change is of the first importance. Congress has recognized this fact, for some months before it passed the resolution submitting the Constitutional amendment to the States it passed what may prove to be an epoch-making law in our history. This law prohibited (1) the importation of distilled spirits; (2) the use of foods, grains, and fruits in the manufacture of distilled liquors for the use of alcoholic beverages; (3) it authorized the President to commandeer any distilled spirits for redistillation so far as necessary to provide alcohol for munition requirements; (4) to limit, regulate, or prohibit the use of foods, grains, and fruits in the production of wine or beer whenever, in his judgment, prohibition was necessary in order to assure an adequate, continuous supply of food.

As a result, distillation was stopped on September 10, 1917, throughout the country, and there has been no use of foodstuffs since that date for this purpose. There proved, however, to be in stock at that time between two and three years' supply of whisky, brandy, gin, etc., and this stock is in the course of distribution, as the new law provided only for the stoppage of new

supplies. There was found to be no necessity for commandeering the distilled spirits for redistillation into munitions alcohol, as, aside from the technical difficulties in the way, commercial alcohol can be obtained, not only abundantly, but on a much cheaper basis than could be had through commandeering and redistilling potable spirits. Nor was action taken with regard to wines, as those produced here are from grapes, very few of which are available for food, so that the stoppage of wine-making would add no considerable amount of food to our National supply. The consumption of foodstuffs in the brewing of beer was limited to seventy per cent of that used during the corresponding period of the previous year. As a result, the production of beer has been reduced nearly one-half-from about 108,000,000 to about 55,500,000 gallons. At the same time the Food Administration reduced the alcoholic content in beer to 234 per cent. With this result the "drys" are not satisfied. In order to compel the President to prohibit all manufacture of wines and beers under the discretion given him by the preceding Act, the House of Representatives adopted an amendment to the Appropriation Bill providing that six million dollars of the money appropriated be not expended unless the President should first issue a proclamation prohibiting during the war the use of cereals and fruits in manufacturing beer and light wines. To this amendment Mr. Hoover and the President objected, on the ground that if brewing were stopped to-day beer would disappear from the liquor trade within one or two months, while the sale of distilled liquor would continue. The question, Mr. Hoover said, 66 arouses the very serious moral problem as to whether infinitely more damage will not result from such action than in the continuation of the use of this limited amount of foodstuffs in brewing," and he contended that if the American people wanted prohibition they should prohibit by legislation to that end and not force the Food Administration, acting under the President's order, to assume the responsibility" for an orgy of drunkenness," for, he said, "it is mighty difficult to get drunk on about two and three-quarters per cent beer; it would be easy enough if we force a substitution of distilled drinks for it."

As a result of this objection a new amendment has now been proposed, prohibiting until the conclusion of the present war the sale of alcoholic liquor after December 31, 1918, and after November 1, 1918, the use of grains, cereals, or fruits in the manufacture of wine and beer. The Fuel Administration has furnished an additional reason for prohibiting the brewing industry and an additional method for effecting this prohibition. On July 3 it curtailed the consumption of fuel for each brewery to half of the average annual amount of fuel consumed during 1915, 1916, and 1917. On July 10 it took a far more drastic step. It notified the manufacturers of beer and other malt products that they could not count on a supply of coal beyond that needed to utilize the raw materials on hand.

A further impulse has been given to the anti-brewery legislation by the practical unanimity of all the operators engaged in the mining of bituminous coal that the output of coal is very seriously interfered with by the existence of the saloons in the neighborhood of the mines and by the fact that where saloons have been abolished, as in the neighborhood of the shipyards, the industry has proved more effective and the work has been greatly expedited.

The testimony as to the injury of alcoholism to the production of coal is from the National Coal Association, composed of bituminous operators, which recommends Nation-wide prohibition during the war. It says:

In the opinion of the representative committee of operatorsit comprises in its membership delegates from virtually every large coal-producing field in the Nation-the country cannot have both "booze" and sufficient coal this winter. Nor can the country keep "booze" in the mining sections now and have enough coal later on. . . . The National Coal Association is informed that the conclusion is not only the judgment of the operators, but is concurred in by Frank Farrington, President of the United Mine Workers of America for the State of Illinois.

The Coal Association concludes, in a statement presented by its committee to the President of the United States, that "a comparison of the records of production of mines in wet and dry territories furnishes ample proof of the need of prohibition."

As to the success of prohibiting liquor in the shipyards, Sec

retary of the Navy Daniels, in testifying before the Senat Committee on Agriculture, declared:

In the yards great improvement was wrought by the introduction of prohibition. Many protested, particularly at Mare Island. There are some who are opposed to-day. But the fact remains that at the Mare Island yard a destroyer was recently completed in record time. . . . The workers in the shipyards are as patriotic as men in the Army or Navy, and they are quite as ready to make any sacrifices needed to win the war. Prohibition was opposed in the Navy by a large number of officers who feared its effect on the men, but there are mighty few to-day who would go back to the old order of things.

In the light of these facts, it may be seen that there are two distinct prohibition questions before the country. One is the question of permanent prohibition; the other is the question of war-time emergency prohibition. One is the question whether prohibition should be the settled policy of the Nation in all the years to come; the other is the question whether prohibition should be adopted as a war measure to increase the resources and power of the Nation for war purposes, and to last for the duration of the war. The Constitutional amendment which has been submitted to the States for ratification deals with the que tion of prohibition as a permanent policy. The authority which has been exercised by the President and the provision now before Congress deal with prohibition as a war emergency measure.

These two questions are distinct, and can be considered sepa rately. It is possible and not inconsistent to favor one of them and to disapprove the other. It is, for example, possible and not inconsistent to advocate prohibition as a permanent policy, but at the same time to hold that the benefit of war emergency prohibition would not equal the injury it might cause. On the other hand, it is possible and not inconsistent to advocate prohibition as a war measure, and at the same time to hold that prohibition ought not to be adopted as a provision of the National Constitution.

Loyalty to the Nation and to the Nation's cause requires that every consideration of domestic policy shall be held subordinate to the winning of the war. One thing alone is paramount-victory. If we win the war, we can be free to settle questions of domestic policy, but if we lose the war we shall not be free to settle questions of domestic policy or carry out those which we undertake to settle.

At the same time the question of permanent National prohibition is before the country and cannot be ignored. It has been approved by Congress and by thirteen States. There is every indication of a rapidly growing sentiment throughout the Nation in favor of National prohibition. In order that prohibi tion be made effective it must have the support of public opinion. This has been the secret of the success of the localoption movement. By the local-option vote the question of public opinion is settled in a community before the sale of liquor is prohibited. Where local option has shown that public opinion against the sale of liquor prevails throughout a State it has almost invariably, perhaps quite invariably, proved that State prohibition is effective. Now what has happened by the spread of local option to the State is happening in the growth of public opinion against the sale of liquor throughout the Nation. The best evidence of this is the vote in favor of National prohibition in the House of Representatives and the vote ratifying the prohibition amendment by one State after another. Unless a group of contiguous populous States vote against the amendment the adoption of National prohibition by the required three-quarters of the States will be a demonstration that the Nation as a whole is ready for National prohibition and can and

will make it effective.

The form of Constitutional provision which we should have preferred to that now before the country would have been one empowering Congress to enact a prohibition law. We gave our reasons for this opinion when the subject was up for discussion. That water, however, has flowed over the dam. That question is closed. As the question now stands, a serious responsibility rests upon the most populous States of the country. The vote of each of these counts but one out of the forty-eight States, but the power to make prohibition effective or ineffective is proportionately much greater. Such States as New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Texas,

Massachusetts, and California bear a special responsibility to the Nation. If the rest of these States join Massachusetts and Texas in the ratification of the amendment, there will be no doubt as to the effectiveness of National prohibition.

But the process of making a Constitutional change is necessarily a slow one, and the war will not wait. While the process goes on not only are foodstuffs used for the making of alcoholic drink, but human energy which ought to be utilized to the full against the common enemy is being wasted and enfeebled by the evils of alcoholism. Emergency war prohibition is therefore proposed as a measure that will help us to victory. If it is such, no consideration of special interests should stand in its way. The country has already recognized the necessity of some action on this subject, and through the power of the Executive granted by Congress has prohibited the distillation of hard liquor. This has saved some foodstuffs; but the sale of hard liquor already distilled, except where prohibited by local or State law, continues.

In response to a widespread demand that not only the manufacture but also the sale of liquor be Nationally prohibited during the war the amendment to which we have referred was attached to the Agricultural Appropriation Bill. This amend ment proposed to prohibit the sale of beer and wine at once, but postponed for a year or more the prohibition of the sale of hard liquor. Such a measure would have saved some foodstuffs at the expense of manhood. It would have encouraged furtive drinking and drunkenness and replaced the lesser evils of alcoholism by the greater. Thanks to the Administration, and particularly to Mr. Hoover, that injurious provision was withdrawn. The one which has been substituted, and bears the name

W

of Senator Gore, of Oklahoma, is better, but it falls short of what Congress ought to do.

Some of the opposition to this provision is not to its substance, but to the way it has been introduced. It is hard for the ordinary citizen to understand how parliamentary procedure may involve a moral question. One of the ways by which tricky politicians attempt, sometimes successfully, to "put over" bad legislation is to attach it as a rider to an appropriation bill. In this way they make it impossible for the legislative body to defeat their measure without cutting off the necessary money for a department of the Government. This sort of trick is no better when it is adopted for a good purpose. Our readers know that we are strongly opposed to the zone system of postage. It was suggested that this system be abolished by a rider to the Postal Appropriation Bill. If such a rider were to be seriously proposed, we should protest. There are few evils as great as tricky legislative practices. Emergency war prohibition ought not to be put over by a trick. It ought to be adopted on its merits.

Such a law ought to specify the alcoholic content of potable liquor, and prohibit, not only the manufacture, but also the sale, of all that exceeds that percentage, including whatever may be sold under the guise of medicine. People who consume quantities of alcohol when they pretend to be, or think they are, taking medicine are alcoholized as truly as if their alcohol was otherwise flavored. Such emergency war prohibition, if enacted, would not have left hundreds of thousands of gallons of whisky, gin, and brandy in bond, free to be sold, and would have prevented abuses that have interfered with the prosecution of the war. We repeat what we have said before, that Congress ought promptly to enact emergency war prohibition.

HILE I have not always, by any means, concurred in the views expressed by The Outlook, I have entertained a good opinion of it because of its character in general and of its apparent desire to get the facts and to interpret them impartially. I was therefore surprised to read certain statements in The Outlook of June 19. Some of these statements fill me with concern because of their inaccuracy and the injustice they do to the Department and to the Secretary of Agriculture. I refer to the statements made in the article under the heading "The Administration: An Appraisal," by an anonymous writer who is referred to as one on the inside," and to a statement in the editorial comment, under the heading "Food and Water," to the effect that the increased crop production "is due mainly of course to patriotic response of our farmers to the Food Administration's appeal."

66

I have no disposition to discuss any one's estimate of an officer of the Government or to combat mere expressions of opinion. I do, however, seriously object to misstatements of fact. It is difficult to be patient with such criticism of the Secretary of Agriculture as is contained in the article by "one on the inside." It is the more provoking when it comes from one of whom the editors affirm "it is sufficient to say that the writer of this article is in a position of responsibility in one of the branches of the Government's service." Considering merely the statement of facts, it seems clear that the "insider" has no real knowledge of the work of the Secretary and of the Department of Agriculture. It seems equally clear that he knows nothing of the great allies of the Department of Agriculture who share with it the responsibility for production. I refer to the great State agricultural colleges. So far as the references to the Secretary are concerned, an hour's honest investigation would have disclosed outstanding facts in refutation of the assertion of grave failures of omission." The "insider" asserts that there are "grave failures of omission," but he neglects to state what they are. I would challenge him to indicate any helpful, constructive action which should have been taken in reference to

66

food production which the Department and its allies, the agricultural colleges, have not engaged in.

It would take a volume to indicate all the things they have done. Only a brief summary of the plans, action, and achievements of the Department under the Secretary's direction can be attempted here.

A few days before the United States entered the war the Secretary called a conference at St. Louis, Missouri, of agricultural leaders from all sections of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains. At this conference all phases of the agricultural situation were thoroughly discussed, and a comprehensive programme for further organization, legislation, and action with reference to production, conservation, and marketing was drawn up, the principal features of which have been put into effect or enacted into law without substantial change. As farmers had already made their plans for the season, it was necessary that prompt action be taken to carry out the suggestions made in the programme. The Department and the agricultural colleges in the various States immediately proceeded to redirect their activities and to devote all their energies along the most promising lines with the funds and forces at their command. Every effort was made to stimulate production, to encourage the adoption of improved methods and practices, to combat animal and plant diseases, insect pests, predatory animals and rodents, and to promote better marketing. Farm help specialists were promptly stationed in nearly every State of the Union to co-operate with the State officials, and especially with the Department of Labor, in assisting farmers to secure adequate supplies of labor, particularly for the planting and harvesting seasons. During the summer an intensive campaign was conducted to insure the conservation of surplus fruits and vegetables. As a result, many millions of dollars' worth of materials were saved for future use, and, although the production of perishables increased more than fifty per cent, the difficulties of marketing were relatively no greater than in normal times. On August 10, 1917, Congress passed the Food Produc