nominated by less than thirty per cent. of their party vote at the primaries. When President Harding, in a letter to John A. Stewart, expressed the opinion that the primary system tended to make Senators and Representatives less officers of the Government than representatives of their own constituencies, he touched one of the main channels for a democracy to supplant the republic.

It is the mental attitude in all this matter which is most significant. No one thinks for a moment of disregarding the people. The rule under a republic is always with the people. But how shall the people rule-directly? "Yes," insists a democracy. "No," says a republic. Today the strong trend is away from the indirect to the direct rule of the people; that is, from the republic formed by the Constitution to the very democracy it sought to make impossible.

When one realizes that the representative principle has been challenged in twenty-two States of the Union by the initiative and referendum; that the independence of the judiciary is menaced by many provisions for the recall of both judges and judicial decisions and the final impairment of the power of the Supreme Court; when he realizes the infinitely more portentous tendency to shift the power of the Government to organized classes so that organized classes can force their will upon the Government not only through the ballot but through control over the very necessaries of life; when one realizes the many agencies for the baneful propaganda of the Third International, of the Bolshevist tenet of the rule of the majority acting directly upon public matters; when one realizes that there are published in this country five hundred and sixty-seven radical newspapers printed in twenty-six different languages, of which three hundred and fiftytwo are printed in foreign countries and the joint circulation of which in this country is not less than one million a day; that over $400,000 was sent from Moscow in one year to be devoted to aligning the Negro population with the Russian Third International; that there is every year in Moscow a Congress with a school for giving detailed instruction to the discontented from each country how to aggravate the peculiar discontent in their respective localities; when, I say, one realizes all this, one can

not but feel how potent and persistent is the determination and the effort to supplant in America the republic by a democracy. It is greatly to be regretted that so repeated and public insistency is laid upon America being a democracy. America is not, may she never be, anything but what the framers of her Constitution intended, a republic.

In his great and exhaustive work on Political and Constitutional Law, John W. Burgess, after analyzing minutely the forms of government of the four leading nations, makes the following deductions: "I do not believe it utopian to predict that the republican form will live after all others have perished. . . . It is hazardous venture to prophesy what the form of the future will be. It seems to me, however, that form will be a republic. . . . It seems to me evident that the destiny of history is clearly pointing to the United States as the great world organ for the modern solution of the problem of government as well as of liberty."

JOHN BRITTAN CLARK.

FIVE YEARS OF PROHIBITION AND ITS

RESULTS

In the June-July-August number of this REVIEW were printed ten articles of the highest authority written from the point of view of those opposed to the present system of National Prohibition. In the current number are printed corresponding articles of equal authority, written from the point of view of those who approve and support that system. Both sets of articles were written and received by THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW at the same time, so that neither was prepared with any knowledge of the contents of the other, or with any reference to it.-THE EDITORS.

IS THERE PROHIBITION? AND TO WHAT EXTENT?

BY WAYNE B. WHEELER, LL.D

General Counsel, Anti-Saloon League of America

THE fact of Prohibition-the actual forbidding-is in the Constitution and the National Prohibition Act. Its success-the observance of the law by good citizens and the enforcement of the law against bad citizens, with accompanying social resultsis evidently the question for discussion.

We determine progress by measuring distance from the starting point rather than from the goal. The extent of Prohibition's success is evidenced by the revolutions it has caused in private and public life, in social and economic fields, in the realm of crime, poverty, disease and insanity. These, with kindred social indicators, are the sole trustworthy witnesses we may summon to join the history of license days in testimony to the achievements of this new national policy.

If we had no Prohibition, conditions today would probably be as they were before the Eighteenth Amendment, with the natural increases incident to population growth and the unwholesome stimulation of immorality and crime that usually comes as the

aftermath of a war. Our memories are rather short. Prohibition has accomplished so much that we expect it to build Rome in a day. It has cleaned up so much of the moral and social wreckage of a century in which Booze was King that we are shocked today to find, hidden away furtively in the corner, some of the débris from the old Belshazzar's Feast.

Here is the situation that existed when Prohibition began to dawn and which made it imperative, and the contrasted situation today:

THEN

177,790 licensed liquor saloons, most of them selling after legal hours and to minors and drunken persons, also 100,000 speakeasies.

1247 breweries making 2,000,000,000 gallons of beer a year.

507 distilleries producing 286,085,463 tax gallons of distilled spirits in

1917.

Drinking made cheap, easy and inviting.

Alcoholic death rate of 5.8 per 100,000 yearly.

An average annual death rate of 13.92 per 1,000.

1,250,000 drunkards arrested yearly, although only 20 per cent. of public drunkards arrested.

Crowded county jails.

Rising penal ratio.

NOW

No licensed saloon. Speakeasies exist, as filthy and criminal as in license days.

483 cereal beverage plants today produce 151,606,909 gallons with less than one-half per cent. alcohol. No breweries operating lawfully. Few break the law today where courts use padlock power.

No distilleries legally operating. Total British whiskey export to Canada and West Indies, 1924, 1,429,274 gallons, a little of which was not drunk by Canadians but was smuggled into the United States.

Drinking made costly, difficult and dangerous.

An alcoholic death rate of 1.1 to 3.2 per 100,000 yearly.

An average annual death rate of 12.37 per 1,000.

Over 350,000 average annual decrease in drunkenness arrests since War Prohibition, although nearly all drunkards are now arrested.

200,000 fewer county jail commitments per year. Many jails empty or for sale.

Drop of 5.8 in penal ratio per 100,000 according to Federal Census (last criminal census) 1922.

That is only a sample of the catalogue one might continue, using the deadly parallel, comparing conditions since Prohibition with those before. They are a fair answer to the query: Does Pro