The story of Jewish control of liquor has now been carried through two stages, the “Divide and Conquer” stages. The third stage follows with swift and relentless steps. Blind though the country was to the Jewish character of the liquor business, it was not blind to the ravages of that business upon society. There came a sentiment that moved ceaselessly through the country, and mounted to stormy power; people could only speak of it as a “wave.” The term became hackneyed by overuse, but it was accurately descriptive. The indignation of the people, the arousal of their just moral resentment was as a flood which rose to cleanse the land. The attack was on liquor, and the attack was just. The attack was on liquor and it came none too soon. The country was drenched in vile concoctions which rapidly undermined large sections of the population. Crime increased and domestic misery was everywhere. The people attacked the only thing they could see—they attacked the stuff and the places that distributed it. They did not see the $200,000,000 Jewish whisky combination, they did not see the sinister devices by which strong drink was made vile and viler with the growth of Jewish control. The people rose and swept away the saloon. They did not sweep away the stocks of liquor. They did not sweep away Jewish interest in liquor. They left the source untouched. And that source is still existent. There remains another chapter of the narrative: the coming of Prohibition and of the illicit traffic in liquor. It remains to be seen whether the same thread carries through the latter phases. —— Issue of December 24, 1921. LXIV. The Jewish Element in Bootlegging Evil A student of the liquor history of the United States is left wondering, not that Prohibition came, but that the authorities ever allowed matters to go so far as to compel the people to take the issue into their own hands. That is the point where those who believe in “personal liberty” and those who believe in “public safety” ought to meet each other. It cannot be contended that every believer in Prohibition is a crank, nor can it be contended that every believer in “personal liberty” is a drunkard or a liquor guzzler; each of them stands for a principle that is a principle of right. But the Prohibitionist has been able to command victory over the “personal liberty” advocate because the stuff that the Prohibitionist is against ought not to be sold nor used under any circumstances, whereas the stuff the “personal liberty” advocate thinks he favors is not the stuff he thinks it is at all.