American politics so that there is not now in many of the Northern states much opportunity in political life to discuss any other question.

One wonders whether the wets and drys do not assume a little too much when neither side will concede that underlying this whole difficulty there may be a question of deeper significance to the people of this nation. Prohibitionists assume that the liquor question is settled; anti-prohibitionists very vigorously deny this. One stubborn fact stands out. Six years have passed since the passage of the Volstead Act, and today the governmental policy prescribed by that law is the most discussed question before our people.

The liquor question is not settled. No question can be regarded as finally disposed of where the law which assumes such settlement meets with so serious opposition and objection from a very larg part, perhaps a majority of the people.

During the investigation recently concluded by a sub-committee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, the wets and the drys were given a field day, and while much illuminating evidence was submitted to the sub-committee, a mere casual reading of its report would show that the extravagance of statement on either side was so marked as to render it impossible for that sub-committee on the evidence submitted to conclude anything of real value therefrom.

A reading of the evidence submitted before the sub-committee I will not fail to convince one that neither side of this national controversy can see but little wisdom in the position taken by the other side and herein lies the great difficulty. In the vehemence and even the extravagance of the position taken by proponents on either side of the question the moderate-minded intelligent citizen who is deeply concerned about the welfare of his country is almost driven to cover. Yet, I do not think it entirely impossible that the majority of the people of this country, many of whom would not care to be enlisted as drys or wets, are so anxious for domestic peace that they would be quite willing to support any well-considered and far-visioned move looking toward a permanent solution of the matter. Abraham Lincoln is credited with saying that next to human slavery the intemperate use of intoxicating liquors constituted the most serious menace

to the national morale. Movements toward temperance and total abstinence have done as much perhaps as any other agencies to bring happiness and peace and the finer things of civilization to the homes of the people. Prohibitionists in the main are wholeheartedly striving for the promotion of human happiness and the good they have accomplished in this country is quite immeasurable. One cannot withhold a sincere admiration for their main purpose nor a fervent wish that they may in the course of time succeed in completely eliminating the intemperate use of intoxicating liquor from human experience.

If it be conceded that large benefits have followed the enactment of these laws and also that great evils have followed in their train, then the work of the statesman is to determine whether the good coming from the laws may by constructive legislation be retained and the evils resulting therefrom eliminated. That, I take it, is one of the really large problems now confronting the people of this country.

Is it at all possible that the question may receive new treatment at the hands of persons whose emotions and prejudices may not be too deeply engaged in the subject one way or the other? For the fervor and vehemence of both the proponents and opponents of prohibition render many of them unfit to view the question objectively and practically. Indeed, many of them give the impression that they are actually trying not to see facts that are plainly obvious to the man who has no special feeling in the matter except the promotion of the public goodthe record of the recent investigation by the sub-committee of the Senate which I have already referred to is an exposition of this. That record is replete with truth as well as error and neither side at the hearing had a monopoly of either. It was inherent in the constitution of this committee that the hearing would result in merely a debate. The members of the committee evidently were anxious to obtain facts, but they were supplied with such a mixture of fact, theory, argument and even misrepresentation, that so far as is known not a single member of the sub-committee has indicated a modification of his preconceived opinion.

One thing may be concluded, however, from this investigation, and that is that this question is still unsettled in the public mind; that there is a wide diversity of public opinion as to the effects

of these laws and that there exists a national problem of immense consequence to the country. The question now arises, keeping in mind solely the general welfare of the nation, whether this whole intricate question should not be re-examined by some competent authority with the view to bringing about a final adjustment, if that be possible, which will retain, or even extend, the undeniable benefits of prohibition and at the same time retain and restore a general regard for and obedience to law.

I would suggest an unprejudiced, scientific investigation of the facts. That investigation should be at the direction of the Congress of the United States and should be conducted by a commission the personnel and connection of which should be a sufficient guaranty of the accuracy and honesty of its conclusions. Such a commission might consist, for instance, of representatives of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the American Federation of Labor, The American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, and perhaps other national organizations of like disinterested character. It should be given sufficient means and ample power to make a thorough survey of the entire question and should be authorized to report its findings of fact and conclusions as to how best to deal with the conditions found to exist.

I believe such an approach to the problem would appeal to the innate spirit of law observance and sense of fair play of the American people. The conclusions of such a commission, based upon the facts, would satisfy many elements at present uninformed and dissatisfied. The adoption of its recommendations would, in my opinion, go toward re-establishing that general public demand for law observance without which the most highly organized and efficient judicial machinery must function inadequately and uncertainly.

THE WORK OF THE NATIONAL CRIME COMMISSION.

BY

GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM,

OF NEW YORK, N. Y.

I think that before I attempt to say anything on this subject it is due to myself, after listening to these two beautifully prepared and carefully thought out addresses on these great fundamental subjects, to say that until Thursday last I had not the slightest idea of speaking on this theme. On that day Mr. Trubee Davison, that distinguished and able and patriotic young American who has but recently been selected by the President of the United States to fill the new office of Assistant Secretary of War, and who has been the Chairman of the National Crime Commission, came to me and said that his acceptance of that office had made it impossible for him to come here and speak today as he had intended to do in the place of Mr. Richard Washburn Child whose name is on the official program. And so, in the few hours that I had coming out on the train, with my attention constantly distracted as I approached this beautiful mountain region, and crossed this spacious western country and gazed out upon the evidences of the impending prosperity from the bounteous harvest, I looked through the records of the commission, and through the ample material Mr. Davison had been good enough to supply me with in order that I might be able to speak to you today.

Now I know Mr. Davison and Mr. Child would want me to say a word to you about the National Crime Commission, and its purposes, before I undertake to say anything else I might think of on this occasion.

In the month of August last, a group of gentlemen were invited to meet in the office of Judge Gary, in New York, and a second meeting was held a few days later, at which time an organization committee was appointed, of which I happen to be Chairman, to formulate the outlines or suggestions for the organization of the National Crime Commission.

The gentlemen who gathered there, like you, like all of us, had been increasingly concerned with, the reports in our public press of crimes, of violations of law, committed with apparent impunity all over the United States. Indeed, I seldom walk down one of our streets in New York and see the armored cars going by, armored cars manned by armored men for the protection of property in moving it from one place to another, without feeling a reproach of our institutions of government that such a thing is necessary.

And these gentlemen got together, filled with the idea that it was incumbent on men of accomplishment, successful men, thoughtful men, to face this problem, study it, and try to find some solution, perhaps not a comprehensive solution, but some solution to suggest to our fellow countrymen.

They very soon realized that it was impossible for any group of men sitting in New York or in any other one city of the country to find a solution for this problem; that the problem was peculiarly local in character; that the states themselves must deal with it; that all that they could do effectively was to get facts and distribute them, encourage organization, disseminate information, and put back of such movements as this we have heard today so eloquently described by Mr. Thompson, of St. Louis, encouragement of the duplication of such effort in every state in the union, believing that in this, as in any other great problem in life, the first essential is to ascertain the facts.

There is a great deal of talk about crime; a great deal has been directed towards improving the administration of law in our courts; a great deal of legislation has been enacted increasing the penalties for crime. Comparatively little has been done to ascertain the underlying causes of the existence of crime, and no reliable nation-wide statistics exist from which it is possible to determine what the present status and condition is of crime throughout the United States.

And I was peculiarly struck in running over this volume which Mayor Dever referred to a moment ago, and which I commend to the consideration of every one interested in this question-Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Modern Crime, Its Prevention and Punishment, published in May of this year, in which there is more