During the war, and long after it, the hours were rigidly regulated with respect to bars. One could not obtain a drink until noon; then the bars were tightly closed again at 3:30 P.M., and not reopened until 6 o’clock, closing again at 9. There was little disorder, less drunkenness than ever before in the history of the country; and, with true British loyalty, everyone obeyed the law. No one even thought of disobeying it. That is a way they have over there. I don’t suppose one could have tempted an inn-keeper to sell one glass of ale, though he offered him a thousand pounds. I remember the shock of a bar-maid in a tiny town in the south of England when I, a visitor, not knowing the regulations, asked for a beaker of beer. “Why, we’re closed, sir, until suppertime,” she informed me; and turned away, not expecting--and not getting--any argument. Had we respected our laws we would not have had Prohibition today. In Sweden, in the summer of 1922, a referendum was taken on the all-important question of Prohibition; and the wets won. The returns were as follows: Against 930,655 For 901,053 As in America, certain localities were decidedly in favor of complete Prohibition; but in the large cities one found the desire for what might be termed “dampness.” The female vote was preponderately anti-Prohibition. A sensible system has been evolved in Sweden. They regulate the liquor traffic under what is known as the Bratt system. Only one organization in the country is permitted to dispense alcoholic beverages. This is known as the Wine and Spirits Central, and, as in the Province of Quebec, tickets are issued to citizens, and it is almost impossible to acquire more than one’s allotted quota. There is a widespread desire for a continued restriction of alcohol, but naturally quiet forces are at work all the time to bring about complete Prohibition. Certain reformers are attempting, by means of local option, gradually to make the whole of Sweden as dry as a desert; but Dr. Bratt is equally firm for the present system, which he contends--and figures would seem to confirm his contention--that it is better for the people than anything which could be devised. He has pointed out that in 1913, before liquor restriction, drunkenness was amazingly common. In 1921, drunkenness decreased 27 per cent. Arrests for drunkenness have gone down 49 per cent under his system. There is little doubt that government control in Sweden, as elsewhere, has worked remarkably well. Russia went dry. Now the Soviet government has decided that Prohibition is a complete failure, resulting in the secret manufacture, as in the United States, of much vile hootch. There will be a return to good vodka, and the proceeds coming from the sale of it will be used to educate the people. Doesn’t this sound sensible?