At the elections of last Tuesday, seven states have, among other things, voted as to whether or not state prohibition should be abolished or retained. Of these seven states, six declared in favor of abolishing prohibition. Kansas alone remained faithful to prohibition, of course only officially and theoretically. The states that have decided in favor of admitting trade in spirituous beverages are West Virginia, Florida, Idaho, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska. Up until now, alcoholic beverages have been legally sold in twenty-eight states; two other states have resolved to repeal prohibition, but have not yet reintroduced the sale of drinks. One of the latter states is Maine, which has been dry from time immemorial.

Accordingly, thirty-six states in all have by now either repealed prohibition or have resolved to repeal it. The remaining twelve states continue to adhere 2to the dry blessing. There are, of course, among them no populous states having large cities and thriving industries. They are all and sundry midget states or Southern states where Methodists and Baptists, attuned as they are to prohibition, exercise an extraordinarily strong influence upon the population. It would, however, be totally erroneous to explain the present strength of prohibition exclusively from this viewpoint. Economic reasons are, in part, responsible for the dry tendencies in these states.

For this, the situation in dry Georgia provides us with irrefutable proof. In the district of Atlanta, 279 distilleries were confiscated in August, 1932, at a time when national prohibition was still in force in the whole country. In August of this year, after national prohibition was repealed, and after it was abolished in many of the states, the number of confiscated distilleries was 513. In the official report, is stated that the production of moonshine whiskey is increasing at a quick pace in the district of Atlanta. The federal officers who are entrusted with the suppression of moonshine whiskey and its 3production explain the growth of this illegal industry by the fact that moonshiners make a good profit from it, being in a position to sell their products in neighboring states at a price considerably lower than the price of the legitimate liquor.

This reminds us strongly of the warning published by the Rockefeller Institute long before prohibition was repealed. At that time, the Rockefeller Institute wrote in a report: When at last but a few dry areas will remain, they may not forget that they have a certain responsibility toward the states in which spirituous beverages are legally obtainable. Such dry areas will become a paradise for whiskey smugglers. The illegal liquor business should not be permitted to use these dry areas (as a basis for their operations) from which cheap, inferior spirituous drinks will be sold to wet states.

As the report from Atlanta makes clear, this warning by the Rockefeller Institute was justified. Nor can it be maintained that moonshiners go 4about their illegal business in dry states solely for the purpose of getting an easy income. In the mountainous regions of the South, much whiskey was distilled, even before prohibition. This was done for the simple reason that the farmers that live there are generally very poor and have no other way of making use of the little corn they grow. Prohibition has made their "home industry" thrive immensely. As the costs of distilled beverages are still too high on the legitimate market, due particularly to exorbitant taxation, it is no wonder that the moonshiners continue selling their products to wet states.

It goes without saying that they do not neglect the home market and, in an effort to protect it, they do their best to keep their own states dry. In this manner, prohibition has become an economic factor of some importance in these states. The local authorities, quite familiar with the situation, and fully aware of the needs of their subjects, are naturally in favor of retaining prohibition. They cannot be expected, on such an important question, to 5set themselves in opposition to their constituents. Secretary of the treasury Morgenthau, who several months ago declared that he would make speedy and short shrift of moonshine whiskey, will soon convince himself that this is not so easy as he anticipated. Here lies one of those problems the solution of which cannot be expected within any predictable time.