effect, and the States that decide to remain more dry than required by our bill will be protected from the importation of mild beers and wines that may be permitted in adjoining States. It is further believed that this act would restore the dignity of our Federal courts and lessen the number of cases on their dockets and render unnecessary the constant demand made on the Congress for additional judges.

Under the provisions of this bill you will notice that distilled alcoholic liquors, which include the so-called hard liquors, are emphatically prohibited, while the fermented liquors and fruit juices may be permitted by reason of the absence of definite language to the contrary. It is true that beer, ale, stout, and wine may be manufactured and sold without violating either the spirit or the wording of this act, and in this connection we follow very closely the spirit and language of the Constitution.

If this bill were to become a law and the people permitted the use of light wines and beer prohibition could be enforced, and we have the experience of the Canadian Provinces as well as several European countries to prove this statement. If, on the other hand, we try to enforce the present unpopular Volstead law, which in my judgment is impossible of enforcement, the suggestions made by the Federal district attorney Mr. Buckner, of New York, will have to be carried out. If, as Mr. Buckner states, it will require $75,000,000 to enforce the law in New York it will require upward of $500,000,000 to carry on the work throughout the United States, and instead of 85 additional judges, 500 would be required, with an army of 10,000 high-salaried dry agents to see to it that the provisions of the law were carried out. After reading very carefully the statement made by the Federal attorney, who certainly has given much thought and consideration to the subject, I believe my figures are conservative.

I would suggest, in view of the startling conditions as developed by the hearings before this committee by, those in a position to know, and also in view of the importance of this question, that the committee membership be increased and their powers extended to permit them to study the problem as it exists throughout the United States and also to visit the Provinces of Canada and other countries if necessary in order that a recommendation may be submitted at the next session of Congress which would be in keeping with the desires of the American people. I am of the opinion that the subject should be studied from all angles; the economic, moral, and health conditions should be ascertained, as the question is large enough and important enough to warrant such a thorough investigation.

Mr. CODMAN. I will call Sir William Stavert, who will tell you in regard to the workings in the Province of Quebec, and will state to the committee what official position in connection with that law has been.

(The witness was duly sworn by Senator Walsh.)

Mt. CODMAN. If you will proceed in your own way, Sir William.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. I only arrived in this country, on this continent, last Thursday afternoon, and there received the invitation at New York and did not, in consequence, have time to provide

267 * * * * * THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW * * * * *

myself with such definite information and detailed statistics as I would like to have, but I ventured to prepare a memorandum which, with the consent of the committee, I propose to read, after which I hold myself prepared to answer any questions that may be asked, as well as I can. I have done this with the object to get the different points of our law into as small a compass as possible.

An attempt at complete control of all transactions, including manufacture, import, and distribution, by the regulations of a carefully selected and responsible commission is the distinguishing feature of the alcoholic liquor law which maintains in that Province of Canada which is my home, namely, Quebec. The act was passed and became effective in March, 1921, and I had the honor of being one the first appointees and continued in office until March, 1924, when I resigned to fill another position.

In the opinion of our best and most liberal-minded citizens the law has been a success from every point of view, many holding the view that temperance as distinguished from excess has been achieved. Under it the citizen who has the inclination, instead of forcing him into a region which is objectionable to him, is gently led on a prudent path in the general direction he wishes to go and by placing mild restrictions upon the more potent descriptions of entertainment lying in the way ?is induced to avoid them and be content with the milder. Thus the tendency is to raise the traffic to a more respectable status, the lure of the forbidden fruit is removed and the citizen finding himself in the position of being able, unashamed and unafraid to satisfy his desires, he finds that his inclinations are much modified and the perversity of human nature which causes him to rebel against interference with that which he regards as liberty of action does not arise.

It would seem that other Provinces of the Dominion of Canada share our views because, no less than four of them have adopted laws somewhat similar to ours and a fifth is seriously considering doing so. Should it do so only three provinces will remain in the so-called dry column.

When I say "dry column" I should like to remark that it is felt and believed that there is about as much alcoholic liquor consumed in the Provinces so-called dry as in the wet, but in other directions the conditions are very different. Indulgence is probably confined to fewer people in the dry Provinces, at present, but those who do indulge are victimized by poisoning, and statistics are quoted showing that the traffic grows by what it feeds on and will probably extend.

The conclusion is therefore reached by many of those who consider the subject, that if the traffic is bound to flourish under dry laws, as seems to be the case, it is better to remove it from the hands of the bootlegger and place it under wise and careful control.

It is also felt by many of our people that there is no doubt that in the smaller and more remote sections, dry laws, if and when enforced, cause a diminution in consumption of alcoholic liquors to the well being of the citizens, but it must be remembered that the comparison is made with sections of the same country in which excesses abound because of the dry laws.

Many of my associates quite agree that if people could be made dry by act of Parliament they would be better physically and mentally,

268 * * * * * THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW * * * * *

because notwithstanding what has been said to the contrary, alcohol is a poison and is in no way necessary to the human body, but we are convinced that acts of Parliament fail to function in that respect.

May I also refer to our impressions regarding the financial aspect of the question. The traffic, whether legal or illegal, takes a very large toll from the citizens of the countries which come to our minds when the subject is considered. Our experience has led us to reason that if the people insist upon contributing to that toll, as would appear to be the case, it is better that the country should have the benefit of it rather than that it should go to the bootlegger. In the one case it would be wisely used, or as wisely as other revenues of Government are; in the other are we far wrong in concluding that it is viciously used? On that principle Quebec has vanquished the bootlegger and has realized a number of millions of dollars for its treasury.

Minor features of our law provide for brewing of beer and distilling of alcohol and other strong liquors remaining in the hands of private brewers and distillers, but strictly under our control. They also provide for sale of beer by the glass in taverns, sale of wine and beer in hotels and restaurants and clubs, dining cars on railways and passenger steamboats, when with meals, and unrestricted sale of wine and beer to citizens by retail shops of the commission and established grocers, for home consumption, but restrict the sale of all strong liquors to the retail shops of the commission and to one bottle only at a time. The commission also controls the issue of tavern, hotel, restaurant, club, grocers,' and brewers' licenses, and has direct control over sales or alcohol for industrial purposes. It also controls shipments of alcoholic liquors passing through the Province to or from other provinces insisting that Such shipments be on through bills of lading and to have advice of them.

When we say that we have vanquished the bootlegger we should explain that our people will not buy from him for the good and sufficient reason that the commission sells as cheaply as he can, or practically so and the commission puts its seal on every bottle, while the articles handled by the bootlegger are open to doubt. The bootlegger, however, is believed to continue to exist in respect of those of our sister provinces which are dry, but as he does not sell in our Province entering and leaving in transit, he is the more difficult to catch.

Senator WALSH. Have you a copy of your law?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. I am sorry I have not.

Senator WALSH. We would be able to procure it from the Library, I have no doubt.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. If not I would be pleased to furnish you with a copy.

Representative HILL. Senator, I have a copy of the law that I got last summer. Also a copy of the report of the commission for last year, showing the expenditures, and the increase in drunkenness under prohibition.

Senator WALSH. We would be glad to have that, Mr. Hill. When was your law enacted, Sir William?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. In the early part of 1921. It became effective in March, 1921.

Senator HARRELD. Had you had prohibition there before that time?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes; we had for some four or five years.

269 * * * * * THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW * * * * *

Senator HARRELD. Did you say 4 or 5, or 45?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Four or five.

Senator HARRELD. That is all.

Senator WALSH. What system do they have in Ontario, Sir William?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. In Ontario they are dry. Liquor is only handled in Ontario by Government dispensaries. The Government has a commission there that imports and distributes liquors on doctors', medical officers', prescriptions.

Senator WALSH. There is none sold for beverage purposes then?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Oh, no.

Senator WALSH. Was that one of the Provinces that you thought might come to your system?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator WALSH. I have here a newspaper clipping of date––– March 25––– as follows:

TORONTO, ONTARIO, March 25.--- An amendment to the budget speech favoring the sale of liquor in Ontario under a system of Government control was defeated this morning after an all-night session of the legislature. The vote was 84 to 10.

That, I suppose, means that the sale of liquor under a system of Government control would practically mean your system?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Oh, yes. May I ask, what was the meeting? Under what auspices that meeting was held?

Senator WALSH. It is not a meeting. This is a dispatch from Toronto.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Of a vote taken at---

Senator WALSH. In Parliament. It says:

An amendment to the budget speech favoring the sale of liquor in Ontario under a system of Government control was defeated this morning after an allnight session of the legislature. The vote was 84 to 10.

Senator REED of Missouri. I wanted to direct your attention to the laws of Quebec at the present time. Is not the manufacture of home-grown grapes into wine permitted without any limitation in that Province now?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. There is very little known of that thing in the Province of Quebec. Grapes are not produced there.

Senator REED Of Missouri. That is what 1 am informed is the situation, although I may be in error, and I will call your attention to it by the direct question: It has been stated to me that the temperance law of the Province of Ontario permits the sale by the Ontario wineries of Ontario wine direct to the households. Do you know whether that is a fact?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. That I understand to be the case in Ontario.

Senator REED Of Missouri. You do not know how it is with reference to beer?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. In Ontario?

Senator REED of Missouri. Yes.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes; they passed an act there only last year providing for beer of the strength of 4.4, which was expected to satisfy the hotel keepers, the restaurant keepers, and the public.

270 * * * * * THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW * * * * *

Senator REED Of Missouri. I should like to ask–––

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT (continuing). But, if you will permit me to finish I will say that it has wholly failed.

Senator REED of Missouri. That is, it is 2.2 by volume and 4.2 by proof?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. 4.4.

Senator REED of Missouri. Proof ?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT, Yes.

Senator REED Of Missouri. When you say the law has failed, do you mean that the people do not like that kind of beer?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator REED of Missouri. It is not good enough ?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. No.

Senator Gorr. Is it strong enough?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. They say not, and that it is quite unpleasant to the taste and unsatisfactory generally.

Senator REED of Missouri. But they can have the wine?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator REED of Missouri. And they can have that very mild beer in the Province of Ontario?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes. They can have wine from their wineries, from the local wineries.

Senator REED of Missouri. And they can have this 2.2 beer?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. The 4.4 proof beer.

Senator REED Of Missouri. And there is no limit on that?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. No.

Senator REED of Missouri. That beer is sold of that alcoholic content but it is not palatable?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT It is not palatable.

Senator REED of Missouri. In your judgment has there been an improvement in the habits of temperance among the people in the Province of Quebec since you amended your act in 1921?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. That is the opinion of our best people, that there has been an improvement.

Senator REED of Missouri. Has there been a lessening of crime, a marked lessening of crime, by which I mean crimes other than crimes against the prohibitory law?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. I can not speak of that. I can only speak from the police court records.

Senator REED of Missouri. And what do they show?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Well, I can not give you right now definite details, but the impression among the best people is that conditions are much more favorable.

Senator REED of Missouri. As the result of this law of 1921, has there been an improvement, and has it been such that your people are generally satisfied with it?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes; I might say that the people are generally satisfied with it and all the comments we hear about it in the Province of Quebec are favorable.

Senator REED of Missouri. When the prohibitory law was adopted in Quebec––– and what year was that?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. I can not tell you definitely but it was about 1916.

271 * * * * * THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW * * * * *

Senator REED of Missouri. Was it adopted by popular vote or was it passed by a vote of the legislative body?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. By popular vote. And I might mention that it was only partially prohibitory. That is to say, that it provided for wine and beer.

Senator REED of Missouri. That is, in the Province of Quebec?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes; prohibitory with the exception of wine and beer.

Senator REED of Missouri. It was partially prohibitory.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator REED of Missouri. And in 1921 you relaxed that?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes; and if you will allow me to complete that?

Senator REED of Missouri. Certainly, go on.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. There were also sections of the Province of Quebec having local option, who had voted for and adopted the so-called Scott Act.

Senator REED of Missouri. And the so-called Scott Act was what?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. It was bone dry, and some sections of the Province of Quebec voted for that act under local option. The Scott Act was in effect in a number of sections of the Province of Quebec when the present law was enacted, and by degrees many of those sections came over by voting for the present law, leaving but a few sections at present under the Scott Act.

Senator REED of Missouri. Now, in order that I may be sure I understand you, I will ask my question in this way: As I understand before the war and before prohibition at all you had in the Province of Quebec a local option law by which certain sections of the Province acting for themselves, and by a local-option vote, adopted prohibition?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator REED of Missouri. And some of the subdivisions of the Province have done that?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator REED of Missouri. Then in 1916 a general law for the whole Province of Quebec was passed, which you call the prohibitory law, which nevertheless did allow the sale of wines that were manufactured there in the Province.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator REED Of Missouri. And a very mild beer.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator REED Of Missouri. Then in 1921 when you passed this last act it proved so successful that many local districts have since repealed their absolute prohibition laws, and have accepted the general law of the Province.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes, including the city of Quebec.

Senator REED of Missouri. Including the city of Quebec?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator REED Of Missouri. I am going to ask, because we might not got it otherwise, if you will not be kind enough when you return home to send us four or five copies of this law, if you have it in pamphlet form.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. With pleasure.

Senator REED of Missouri. I thank you, Sir William.

272 * * * * * THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW * * * * *

Senator GOFF. Sir William, I want to ask you one question. Were the people of your Province as compared with other Provinces of Canada as large consumers of hard liquor as they were, say, in the Province of Ontario and other Provinces?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. I think reasonably so.

Senator GOFF. You do?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator GOFF. The drinking of light wines and beer, however, was more prevalent in the Province of Quebec before prohibition than hard liquor, was it not?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes; I think I may safely say so.

Senator GOFF. That is all.

Senator REED of Missouri. I am going to ask you a further question which has been suggested to me. If you can send us the 1925 reports of the Quebec Liquor Commission on the relative conditions as to crime we would appreciate it.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator WALSH. The report will carry that information, will it?

Senator REED of Missouri. Yes, but I am just trying to describe the report.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Let me make a memorandum. You would like to receive also five copies of the law?

Senator REED of Missouri. If you can get them without expense or inconvenience.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. I think I can. And you want them in pamphlet form in English?

Senator REED of Missouri. Yes, if you please.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. I think I can. May I ask to whom you would like me to send them?

Senator REED of Missouri. Send them to Senator Walsh, the chairman of the committee.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. All right.

Senator HARRELD. Now, Sir William, if I understand prior to 1916 you had no prohibitory laws at all in Quebec, is that right?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. I think that is right, and I am speaking only from memory now. That is, except of course the Scott Act, which maintains in some sections of Quebec.

Senator WALSH. That was the local option law.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator HARRELD. It permitted light wines and beer?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. No; it did not.

Senator HARRELD. It did not?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. No; it was bone dry.

Senator HARRELD. Now, along about 1916, as I understand it, there was put in effect in several cities of Quebec this local option law, and in 1921---

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT (interposing). If you will excuse me, I will say that the local option was maintained previous to 1916.

Mr. CODMAN. Would you mind speaking a little louder, Sir William so that the newspaper men can hear you?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. The local option law, called the Scott Act, was maintained previous to 1916.

Senator HARRELD. Very well, I will get it in a different way: There are several portions of the Province of Quebec that have had

273 * * * * * THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW * * * * *

for years the right to have light wines and beer sold without restriction, is not that true?

Senator REED Of Missouri. Oh, no.

Senator HARRELD. Let the witness answer.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Previous to 1916, did you ask?

Senator HARRELD. No; I meant previous to 1921. Is it not true that a great deal of the Province of Quebec had the legal right to sell wines and beer?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes; previous to 1921; that is right.

Senator HARRELD. Notwithstanding that fact your people became dissatisfied with a law which allows them to sell light wines and beer, did they not?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Well, no--- if you will allow me to explain?

Senator HARRELD. Certainly.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Where the so-called Scott Act, the bone-dry law, existed under local option in certain sections, they have repealed that law since the enactment of the present law.

Senator HARRELD. Exactly so.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Which gives them the right to enjoy all of the privileges of the present law.

Senator HARRELD. Exactly so; but they have come in since the act of 1921 was passed?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes; but they did not have the right to wine and beer until they took this law of 1921.

Senator HARRELD. I understand that, but now they have come around to the view of the present law and have accepted it since.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator HARRELD. That is all right, but the movement to put into effect your existing law originated and began with those portions of the Province of Quebec which already had the right to sell light wines and beer.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator HARRELD. So then the people were not satisfied with light wines and beer, they wanted more than that, is not that true?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. They had light wines and beers with certain privileges regarding strong liquor, which privileges were abused. I should have mentioned that before, perhaps. They had the privilege of free sale of light wines and beers, but in speaking of stronger liquors, I will say, that certain wholesale firms had the privilege of handling strong liquors under certain restrictions, which they abused, and the abuse was so great that the change was necessary.

Senator HARRELD. Now, they abused that notwithstanding the fact that they had the right to sell light wines and beers.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator HARRELD. And the fact that they did abuse this law in communities where they had the right to sell light wines and beers led to the latest reform that you speak of?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator HARRELD. Then, have you any right to expect that if we allowed light wines and beers to be sold in this country the people would be satisfied with it?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. If you have control by a lot of provisions which exist in Quebec at the present time, I think so; yes.

Senator HARRELD. It would be, then, a matter of the control?

274 * * * * * THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW * * * * *

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator WALSH. But you do sell hard liquors in Quebec?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Well, there is the sale of hard liquors in Quebec by the commission.

Senator WALSH. So that notwithstanding the fact that the people can get light wines and beers they still want hard liquors?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator HARRELD. That is the point.

Senator REED of Missouri. Let me follow that a moment further: You had a law which permitted the sale of light wines and beers, but the beers were of this very inferior quality; that was the condition of the law prior to 1921?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Are you speaking now of Quebec?

Senator REED of Missouri. Yes.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. I did not say that the beers there were unsatisfactory in quality. I stated that of the Ontario beers.

Senator REED of Missouri. Oh, of the Ontario beers?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator REED of Missouri. Very well; in order to get it right, because I want the facts, let me ask: In Quebec you had a law that permitted the sale of light wines and beers, and what was the provision with reference to the sale of hard liquors? I am speaking now as of a time prior to the enactment of the 1921 law, what was the provision with reference to the sale of hard liquors ?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. The provision was that some 8 or 10 firms calling themselves wholesalers–––

Senator WALSH (interposing). Pardon me, one moment, Sir William. Mr. Codman, perhaps you do not need to follow this inquiry. Might you not go out now, as it is about 10 minutes of the adjourning time, and have the conference with your people that you spoke of ?

Mr. CODMAN. I have had the conference.

Senator WALSH. Go right ahead, Sir William.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Previous to 1921, there were some 8 or 10 so-called wholesale firms who had a license to deal in liquors on a wholesale basis, and also to fill prescriptions by medical men––– that being the source for obtaining hard liquors which the people required. Those firms so far abused their privilege under their license as to make the regulation a laughing stock, and for that reason it was felt necessary to adopt better control in the sale of hard liquors, and hence the enactment of the present law.

Senator HARRELD. That is to say, now, in order to get hard liquors in Quebec instead of doing as they could have done before, buy it from distillers or from their distributing agents, and buying it in unlimited quantities, now you substitute Government control of the hard liquors, so that anybody desiring to got them must go to the regular public governmental places to secure it.

Sir, WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator HARRELD. So that adding the two together, the sale of light wines and beers and regulation by the Government through the Government selling hard liquors, that being the case, what has been the result? I Has it been satisfactory, and has it tended to reduce the consumption of hard liquors and to promote temperance, or has it been otherwise?

275 * * * * * THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW * * * * *

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. We think it has been entirely successful, and we think that it has reduced the sale of hard liquors, and that it has induced the people to drink light wines instead of hard liquors,

Senator HARRELD. But notwithstanding the fact that the people had the right before to drink light wines and beers without restriction, or there was the sale of it without restriction, you have found it necessary to curb the sale of hard liquors?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator GOFF. Does light wine and beer satisfy the appetite of the man who wants hard liquor?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. We think it does. We find that it does.

Senator GOFF. It does under legislative restriction.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. No; we have evidence that it really satisfies.

Senator GOFF. You do?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes.

Senator GOFF. But the beer must be strong enough beer to be intoxicating?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Well that, if you will excuse me, is an open QUESTION. Our beer is very little stronger than the beer in the Province of Ontario but it is acceptable. For instance, it is not nearly as strong as the English beer.

Senator GOFF. Do you find that there is much intoxication among those who drink light wines?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Very little intoxication.

Senator GOFF. Well, is it not a fact that it a man desires to become intoxicated and can not obtain hard liquor he will satisfy that appetite with the next best thing, to wit, in this case, light wines and beer?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Yes; but he undertakes something that is objectionable to his tastes in trying to absorb sufficient of light wine and beer to cause intoxication. At least that is our impression, and it applies to the most of the people.

Senator GOFF. Do you think that the taste ever prevents a man from becoming intoxicated who desires to reach that stage?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. I do. When I speak of "taste" I speak of the condition of his stomach, for instance. A man is not thoroughly–––

Senator WALSH (interposing). That reminds me of the statement of an old friend of mine, who said, "No man ever becomes deliberately intoxicated; it is always a mistake."

Senator REED of Missouri. It is the case in 99 times out of 100.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. We think that a man would not deliberately overload his stomach for the sake of becoming drunk.

Senator REED of Missouri. Since the question has been raised, let me ask: Is it not your observation that very few men ever start drinking with the idea in advance of getting drunk?

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Quite true.

Senator REED of Missouri. They want a drink, and they get two or three drinks, and then they keep on until they get drunk nowadays.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. As Senator Walsh just remarked "When it occurs it is a mistake."

Senator REED of Missouri, But if they had light wines or beer and they are drinking along they would have to drink such an enormous quantity if it was mild, that they would be able to keep their head and would not go crazy and would not try to get drunk?

276 * * * * * THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW * * * * *

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. Certainly.

Senator GOFF. Then it comes back to the proposition that intoxication is rather mental than physical.

Senator REED of Missouri. Oh, no.

Sir WILLIAM STAVERT. I think so, Senator.

Senator REED of Missouri. I do not know what you mean by that. I was never mentally drunk in my life.

Senator WALSH (presiding). That is all, Sir William, and we thank you.

Mr. CODMAN. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as there is only an interval of about 10 minutes before 12 o'clock, and I suppose the subcommittee will adjourn, I should like to say--- well, first, I will make my statement with regard to what we should like to do.

Senator WALSH. We have not determined as yet.

(There was a brief conference by the members of the committee.)

Senator WALSH. We should like to hear what you have to say, first.

Mr. CODMAN. We should be very glad, if. I understood the chairman correctly this morning, to give up our right or privilege of going on on Monday in order to satisfy the convenience of the committee. We should like, however, to be assured, as I believe the chairman proposed this morning, that this suspension of our side of the hearing is to continue during Monday alone, and we wish to know that in order that we may make arrangements to have our witnesses here in Tuesday morning, and in order to have plenty of time to make such arrangements.

Senator WALSH. That was my suggestion.

Mr. CODMAN. That, I wish to state, is entirely satisfactory to us. Now, inasmuch as we have a few moments left, may I say that Mr. Matthew Woll, one of the vice presidents of the American Federation of Labor, wishes to have a moment merely to present a statement to be filed with the committee.

Senator WALSH. The committee will hear Mr. Woll for that purpose.

Mr. CODMAN. And it is understood that we can go on with our witnesses at 10 o'clock on Tuesday morning next?

Senator WALSH. Yes.

Mr. CODMAN. I thank you.

Senator WALSH. You will be sworn, Mr. Woll. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you are about to give in the hearing pow being held by the subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Mr. WOLL. I do.

Senator WALSH (presiding). You may proceed.

Mr. WOLL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee I want to present this statement in order to conserve the time of the committee, and may I add to that–––

Senator REED of Missouri (interposing). The statement you present here you make to us under oath?