In their eagerness to make the ocean round about the United States dry, Prohibition officials even suggested to the Government that the Bahama Islands be purchased from Great Britain. In this heavenly haven, it was pointed out, rum-runners foregathered; perhaps England would help us to make such conditions impossible in the future, and would be willing to let the Islands come to us, in part payment of the old War debt. But our own territory in that direction--Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands--are still far from dry. With the problem of these localities still unsettled, it would seem to be a piece of folly to lay hands on the Bahamas, in the hope of “cleaning them up.” Yet why stop, in our fanatic zeal, at the Bahamas? Why not reach out and get the Canary Islands--indeed, everything everywhere. We who preached aloofness until we were blue in the face, seem suddenly bent upon interfering with all countries, no matter how remote they may be. When men were actually, not potentially, in danger of death and destruction, we would not lift a finger to aid them in Europe; but now, with a mock holiness that ill comports with our attitude of a few years ago, we are for saving a handful of drunkards from a terrible end. And the pity of it is that we do not see how funny we are! CHAPTER X THE MULLAN-GAGE LAW, THE VAN NESS ACT AND THE HOBERT ACT The Empire State, not certain that the teeth of the Volstead Act were biting it hard enough decided on April 4, 1921, that it would pass what is known to the man in the street as the Mullan-Gage Law. It begins as follows: “SEC. 1. The penal law is hereby amended by inserting therein a new article, to be article one hundred and thirteen.” It goes on to say: “The possession of liquors by any person not legally permitted under this article to possess liquor shall be prima facie evidence that such liquor is kept for the purpose of being sold, bartered, exchanged, given away, furnished or otherwise disposed of in violation of the provisions of this article; and the burden of proof shall be upon the possessor in any action concerning the same to prove that such liquor was lawfully acquired, possessed and used.” As every one knows, in ordinary cases a defendant is considered innocent until proved guilty. But here we see a dangerous reversal of that idea in jurisprudence. Anyone carrying a flask would be considered, in the eyes of this law, a bootlegger, a purveyor of illegal goods--in fact, a criminal even though no evidence had been produced to prove him so. In our anxiety to purify the nation, we have distorted old established laws, turned reasoning topsy-turvy, and once more made ourselves ridiculous--in the Empire State at least.