Article September 29, 1928 Issue

Signs of the Times

[From the Christian Advocate, New York, New York]

A police court judge in a "wet" section, himself a "wet" by conviction and habit, is certainly not a biased witness in favor of prohibition and the Volstead Act. Yet here is Judge Arthur P. Stone, of the District Court in Cambridge, Massachusetts [as reported in the Congregationalist], giving striking testimony based on his personal experience: "Perhaps, however, the experience of a police court judge in a district which presents the ordinary problems of a comparatively densely populated community may be of some interest. I ought to say, what I have said many times before, that I did not believe in the Prohibition Amendment, and did not believe that it could be worked out practically if adopted. Neither was I an abstainer from the use of alcoholic liquors. I have always viewed the problem, however, as a social and economic one, and my experience as judge of the Cambridge District Court has convinced me that the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment furnishes the basis of the solution as to the control of the liquor traffic. I am sorry for anyone who feels that a horrible injustice has been done, but I am not much worried about the theoretical injustice to a few when I find a practical benefit to the many. I know that nearly two hundred thousand people of the district where I preside are far better off to-day than they have ever been with regard to this question. I know that our social agencies have fewer cases where the efficient cause is intemperance, than ever before."

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

Signs of the Times

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access