Reverend F. W. Straw is out with a curious "reply" to the Skandinaven. He is ill at ease and smarts under the lash of its exposure of his wild and foolish rant. But instead of confessing his errors and asking forgiveness for his slanderous rot, like a man, he squirms uneasily, dodges the points at issue, contradicts himself, and attempts to cover his retreat by raising a great volume of smoke. The "reply" in question reads as follows:

"There having been considerable criticism on a paper of mine published recently in your columns, I ask the privilege of replying. In the first place the paper was not written for publication, which will explain the lack of authorities quoted. It was written for the monthly ministers' meeting, and the statements were intended to provoke criticism which was answered verbally. When the press reporters asked for the paper I had no opportunity 2to look it over, and edit it for the press. Let me say that I had not the slightest thought of slandering any people or country. The whole argument was against the licensed saloon.

"The Skandinaven, in its very courteous reply, dodges the main issue in all but one item, which I desire to answer. It talks about 'reverend ignorance, loose and reckless assertions and charges, ' without attempting to give argument of proof, and closes by referring to 'what the good book says about bearing false witness against one's fellowmen'. This last brings to mind the fact that it was the Skandinaven which said last fall that Dickie and Wooley, publishers of the New Voice, had both been expelled from the Methodist conference. And when attention was called to the fact that Mr. Wooley was not a Methodist and that Mr. Dickie was at that time occupying a prominent official position of the church, that neither of then had ever been members of a Methodist conference, and that both were Christian gentlemen in good standing in their respective churches, it refused to correct its 'false witness'. Perhaps this is the reason it makes an entirely unwarranted fling at the 3New Voice in this article. But it is to be hoped that it is better informed and more honest about the Gothenburg system than about its neighbors.

"I maintain that the Gothenburg system has been a failure in Norway as a prohibition measure. It may have some success as a restrictive law or for regulating temperance. The temperance societies of Norway, including the Good Templar organizations, the Norwegian Total Abstinence Association, and the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church number about 202,000. As the population [of Norway] is only a little over 2,000,000 their influence is considerable. They are almost unanimously opposed to the present system and through their efforts it has been abolished in thirty cities. I am indebted for these facts to a gentleman of this city who visited his old home last summer and made a careful study of the situation. Whatever lessening of the drink evil has been brought about has been achieved by these societies, rather than by the system under discussion. They have had better opportunities than we have in this country, because the question so far has not become a political one. The argument that the samlag [as the liquor 4corporation is called] is lessening drinking would, if carried far enough, make the system destroy itself. The same argument applied to high licenses in this country shows the absurdity of the proposition. The only philosophical way to reduce the drink evil is to make the people drink less, and that cannot be done by license, call it by whatever name we like. It makes not a particle of difference in the amount of drink whether the drink is sold in one, two, or twenty places, if a man can get all he wants.

"The amount of liquor consumed per capita is not the best way to determine the drunkenness of the nation. It may mean that the drinkers drink more rather than more people are drinking. This is a fact in the United States. A recent Norwegian paper, printed in that country, gives the amount of liquor consumed in 1899 as follows:

Spirits	1.5 liters per capita.
Wines	2.31 liters per capita.
Beer	32.2 liters per capita.
Total	36.01 liters per capita.

5

"As a liter equals about a quart, the amount per person is about nine gallons, principally beer. The consumption of strong liquors has decreased and that of beer has increased. In the United States the average amount per capita is seventeen gallons. In Kansas it is less than one gallon, and in Maine the ratio is lower still.

"I have not mentioned Sweden because the Gothenburg system is administered differently in that country, and with poorer results as regards temperance. But that country was not under discussion in the article."

Mr. Straw opens his defense with a novel excuse for his misrepresentations. His paper, he says, was written for the ministers' meeting, not for publication, "which will explain the lack of authorities quoted"--whatever that may mean. This astonishing confession is not calculated to give the outside public an exalted idea of the discussions conducted at the ministers' meetings; but if Mr. Straw is satisfied with such explanations the Skandinaven has no reason to complain.

6

After such an introduction the reader is prepared for almost anything and Mr. Straw does not disappoint him. He "had not the slightest thought of slandering any people or country," Mr. Straw says, and asserts that Sweden was not under discussion in the article (read at the ministers' meeting).

"Sweden was not under discussion." But in turning to Mr. Straw's paper (article) we find Sweden discussed as follows:

"In Sweden the profits (of the liquor associations) go to the state; $444 was turned over to the government last year (1900); the taxpayer was bamboozled; there is more drunkenness, pauperism, and crime than in American cities of the same population. It is a striking commentary on the much-lauded Gothenburg system of dealing with the liquor traffic that the Swedish government has had to order that all the Stockholm suburban trains must be provided with special cars for drunken passengers. What have they to say who have been proclaiming the virtues of the Swedish system? No license system, nor free rum sale could make more drunkards than the 7Gothenburg system. Sweden is one of the most drunken countries of Europe, and Gothenburg, where it was first tried, has probably the highest per cent of drunkenness of any city in the world."

Some fourteen days pass, and the author of this batch of stupid, stinking lies steps forth and says: "I had not the slightest thought of slandering any people, and Sweden was not under discussion." And this man is a teacher of the gospel of truth!

In order to detract attention from his own sorry performance Mr. Straw prefers a charge of misrepresentation against the Skandinaven. He asserts that this paper refused to correct a false statement concerning Messrs. Wooley and Dickie. Another prevarication. The statement referred to was contained in an editorial published during October of last year. It was made upon authority regarded as reliable. A prohibition paper charged in an elaborate editorial that it was not true. This article was published in full by the Skandinaven--before the ballots were cast. Mr. Straw will 8find it in the daily Skandinaven of November 2, 1900, and in the semi-weekly edition of the paper of the same date. The Skandinaven is a good-natured paper and regards Mr. Straw as a victim of misinformation in this instance; the real author of this particular falsehood is probably the anonymous authority the preacher in question called to his aid. But the incident is a fresh illustration of the utter worthlessness of Mr. Straw's statements.

After thus disposing of all preliminaries, Mr. Straw moves to the attack upon the main question under discussion. "I maintain," he says, "that the Gothenburg system has been a failure in Norway as a prohibition measure." That is a perfectly safe if not a very heroic position. Outside of asylums for idiots or the insane no one has yet been found to "maintain" that the Gothenburg system was ever intended "for a prohibition measure". It is a system for effective control and restriction of the liquor traffic wherever such traffic cannot be suppressed. It is supported by thousands upon thousands of earnest men and women, because they know that it lessens 9drinking, and they firmly believe that ultimately it will destroy itself, i. e., it will gradually wean the people from drink until total abstinence becomes the natural order of the community. This may be somewhat difficult to grasp for narrow fanatics of the Straw type, but it is plain enough to people of broad and sound views and has, moreover, already been demonstrated in a small number of Norwegian cities (those where the overthrow of the samlag has been justified by the results).

Assisted by his nameless authority, Mr. Straw proceeds to enlighten the Skandinaven and the world at large about conditions in Norway. As was to be expected, the result is another installment of errors and falsehoods.

It is true, of course, that the various temperance organizations have done much to lessen the drink evil, though their voting strength has been absurdly exaggerated by Mr. Straw's unknown authority; they have done a great and glorious work. But is not the same true of similar societies in other countries? Granting, for the sake of argument, that all the credit is to 10be given to these organizations, why is it that their work has been so vastly more effective in Finland, Norway, and Sweden where the Gothenburg system obtains than in other countries where it has not been adopted? The answer is self-evident: because the Gothenburg system restricts the consumption of intoxicants.

It is not true that the liquor question has not become a political one in Norway. The radical temperance people forced it into politics nearly ten years ago, to the serious detriment of the cause.

It is true the twenty-six samlag (not thirty) were voted down between January 1, 1895 and December 31, 1899. But Mr. Straw, or his nameless authority, conceals the more important truth that in most instances the result of the overthrow of the samlag has been an increase of drunkenness, and that even large numbers of temperance people now vote to re-establish the very samlag they helped to disestablish a few years ago. To illustrate: In 1895 the samlag was voted down in eleven of thirteen cities voting on the 11question last year. In 1900 twelve of the same thirteen cities again voted on the question with the result that the samlag was re-established in nine of the twelve cities. The voters of these nine cities reversed their decision of 1895, because experience had taught them that they had made a mistake by voting down the samlag.

It is not true that the consumption of liquors of all kinds in Norway in 1899 amounted to 36.01 liters or nine gallons per capita. It is singular how difficult it is for Mr. Straw to stick to the truth, even if he has nothing to gain by prevarication. According to the official statistics, the per capita consumption of beer in Norway in 1899 was 23.2 liters, not 32.2 liters as stated by Mr. Straw; hence the total consumption of intoxicants should be reduced from nine to seven gallons, as compared with seventeen gallons in the United States. Neither Mr. Straw nor anybody else knows the amount of liquor consumed in Kansas and Maine.

12

These incontestable facts prove that the assertions Mr. Straw had made were as many bare-faced falsehoods. Does the "divine" hasten to admit his error? Not he. "The amount of liquor consumed per capita is not," he says, "the best way to determine the drunkenness of a nation." It is the test adopted by authorities and by all prohibitionists. His reference to Sweden shows that he himself used this very test when he tried to prove that the Gothenburg system has been a failure in Sweden; and in his "reply" he makes use of it to illustrate the work of the temperance societies of Norway. But when he himself is shown to be a prevaricator by this same test, then it "is not the best way"!

It is not a very edifying spectacle to see ministers of the gospel descend to the level of cheap humbugs and stupid liars. He regards the criticism of his fallacies as discourteous. He has been treated with greater courtesy than he deserves. He has the temerity to assert that the Skandinaven dodges the main issue. Nonsense. This paper has no quarrel with his faith in prohibition, because it believes in prohibition wherever and whenever it 13can be successfully enforced. But it does not believe in the howling dervishes of prohibition, who have retarded the progress of the cause by their lack of common sense. It does not believe in the doctrine that the end justifies the means, and it will permit neither Mr. Straw nor any shouter to build false arguments upon slanderous misrepresentations of life in the Scandinavian countries. It does not believe to any great extent in ministers who display a painful lack of candor and common honesty in discussing public questions; and finally, it believes that any further attention paid to the mouthings of Mr. Straw would be a sheer waste of material and information.

[Translator's note: At one time the issue of the Gothenburg system provoked quite a discussion in the American and the foreign language press. It was proposed by some people that the system should be tried out in America, but with the publicity, good and bad, gained through the discussions of the matter, the interest finally died out.

The Scandinavian Lutheran Church worked very hard to keep up the interest 14but because of the "failure" of the system in Scandinavia, it at last became a dead issue.]