Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

others from the thousand prominent business men already referred to. These gentlemen have their headquarters in New York, but their interests extend all over the United States. It is unfortunate that we have the replies of only 169 of them. Of this number fewer than a third-51-expressed themselves in favour of prohibition. A larger number-66-declared themselves vigorously opposed to prohibition, and in addition 25 expressed opposition, but more mildly: the remainder must also be classed as opponents, since they wanted modification, such as the exception of light wines, or wanted the Quebec system of Government sale.

The view of the business element was pursued further into Rotary and similar Clubs. On a vote taken at the Cleveland Rotary Club only 64 out of 188 favoured the existing law. At the Rochester Kiwanis Club prohibitionists numbered 30 out of 70. In only one ballot was there a majority favourable to prohibition—the Kansas City Clubs-the numbers being 54 out of 81. These figures are worth setting by the side of the statements so often heard from prohibitionists as to the enthusiasm of captains of industry over the industrial and economic value of prohibition. But more emphatic, more important, too, in a democratic country, are the views expressed by the working classes, of which the Bulletin contains a good many specimens.

[ocr errors]

The first specimen given is the 'fairly typical industrial city' of Fitchburg, Mass. Out of 149 men interviewed 84 appeared hostile to prohibition; 50 were friendly, and 15 uncertain. Many of them recorded a serious and sober judgment that the results of prohibition were unsatisfactory.' At Lawrence, Mass., a meeting of 180 men and women employés of a woollen factory was held, and 'the labour manager who assembled the group and presided made a strong prohibition appeal before a vote was taken.' But only 8 men and 19 women responded to the appeal; the rest, men and women, voted for modification. In some cases the opposition was even more strongly pronounced, as in Chicago, where out of 260 men interviewed in five establishments only 20 were favourable to prohibition; or, as in St Louis, where only two out of 56 men interviewed were in favour of the present régime. It is fair,

T

however, to say that one town-Kansas City again-gave a less emphatic result; out of 163 men interviewed 62 were friendly to prohibition.

It is said that at all events the women favour prohibition; and it appears from the Bulletin's figures that in factory towns where both men and women were interviewed the minority of women favouring prohibition was larger proportionally than the minority of men. But even that position was shaken when the Department's investigator visited the anthracite coal region of Pennsylvania, and called upon miners' wives at their homes. She made 97 calls. In 54 cases no interview was possible, because of a real or simulated ignorance of English; 32 refused to talk (this reticence suggesting to the Research Department that they were against prohibition); and among the remaining 11 who were willing to talk not one endorsement of prohibition was found! It is not, therefore, surprising to read afterwards that the men of this area rejected prohibition overwhelmingly. A meeting of 168 delegates, representing 43,000 miners, was held. Only 7 of them voted for prohibition; and 70 not only were against prohibition but voted for the return of the saloon. This last-named exceptional result of the voting the Bulletin explains by pointing out that the saloon in the mining towns performed a different and more nearly valid social function than was the case with the city saloon.' In this there is a moral whose application may be extended beyond America. It is the case for the improved publichouse. Houses of public refreshment should be worthy of their name, and not mere drinking bars.

An exception to this attitude of hostility to prohibition should be recorded. It is found in the newspaper trade. A ballot of 80 persons employed on the 'Seattle Daily Times' revealed 47 sympathisers with prohibition. This attitude was reflected yet more strongly in the answers to a questionnaire addressed to the editors of the 680 morning newspapers of the United States. It is significant that only 170 replied at all, and that of these only 163 recorded their personal views. Of this last number 113 favoured the Prohibition Act, 12 wanted it repealed, 34 were for amendment, 5 were doubtful, 5 thought the Act impossible to enforce, 3

were neutral, and 1 was for resubmission of the question to the people. For what it is worth, this journalistic inquiry gives the prohibitionists the most favourable results which the Research could obtain. Its final test was a ballot of 597 men assembled in a Citizens' Military Training Camp in 1924. Only 104 of them favoured prohibition.

A question will naturally arise on these facts: Why, if prohibition is so unpopular, did so many legislators vote for it? We have given one answer-Governor Clement's-on an earlier page. The Bulletin also offers its answer- -a significant answer.

'So much stress is put upon the moral issue involved in prohibition that it is highly probable that many persons, and especially legislators, vote for prohibition laws against their preference, because they cannot "stand the gaff" of moral criticism' (p. 77).

This statement of the politicians' attitude is polite to the verge of euphemism. But is the 'moral issue' so clear? It appears to be clear enough to the Federal Council of the Churches-and that is what gives a particular effectiveness to the criticism of prohibition which their report presents; for the compilers of this report are still so sympathetic with the prohibitionist idea that they can produce no more effective conclusion to their labours than the expression of a hope—sincere, if faint that the Government's new efforts to enforce prohibition may yet be successful. But it is not clear to men like Dr Murray Butler, the President of Columbia University, and other men of note and independent thought in America, who have already protested that the moral issue is quite other than prohibitionists assume that the real moral issue is the eternal issue of liberty, upon which Prohibition stamps as though it were a reptile to be destroyed.

[ocr errors]

Art. 12.-THE LAST DAYS OF THE GRAND DUKE
MICHAEL.

THE tragic end of the Emperor Nicholas II, of the Empress and their children, has been the subject of many articles in the Press. The deaths of the Grand Dukes Paul Alexandrovitch, Dimitri Constantinovitch, Nicolas, George and Serge Michaelovitch, and of the Grand Duchess Elizabeth, sister of the Empress, are established facts; but the fate of the Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovitch, the youngest son of the Czar Alexander III, and in fact the last Czar of the eldest branch of the Romanovs, by right of the abdication of the Emperor Nicholas II, has remained to this day lost in mystery.

I knew the Grand Duke Michael well. I was an eyewitness of his abdication, which took place in my residence at St Petersburg; I have been able to follow up all the incidents of his confinement in Smolney, where I visited him several times, and was one of the last of those who saw him before he was sent as an exile to Perm, and started on that journey from which he never returned.

My friendship with the Grand Duke dates from 1912. At that time, His Highness was in command of the 'Chevaliers Gardes,' and my husband was serving under him. He was born at St Petersburg, on Nov. 22, 1878, and was the third and youngest son of the Emperor Alexander III. His mother, the Empress Maria Feodrovna, seemed particularly attached to him. The Grand Duke, after having received an excellent foundation for his education, went to the School of Artillery, where he took a high place in the military examinations, and passed out with the first class of officers into the Artillery of the Guards, in which he served for several years.

The Emperor Alexander III died on Oct. 20, 1894, and the Cesarevitch Nicholas Alexandrovitch came to the throne. His brother, the Grand Duke George, was declared heir to the throne, with the title of Cesarevitch,

Smolney was a school in St Petersburg for daughters of the Aristocracy, which was used in the Revolution as a prison and became afterwards also a headquarters of the Bolshevists.

[blocks in formation]

1

"

but a cruel and lingering disease, gradually undermining his health, carried him off in the flower of his manhood, and he died in 1899, at his favourite residence, d'Abas Touman, in the Caucasus. By right of birth, the Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovitch should have succeeded him, and it was then that an Imperial Manifesto declared him heir to the throne: Until such time as God in His goodness, gives us a son.'

Shortly afterwards he was appointed Commandant of a squadron of Cavalry of Her Majesty the Empress, stationed at Gatchina, and there he met, for the first time, the woman who played a very large part in his life's history. So great was the impression that she made on him, that he renounced for her sake the hereditary rights of his high office as Cesarevitch, and the honours due to him by his close relationship with the Emperor. This enchantress was Nathalie Sergueyevna Voulfert, the wife of one of the officers in the regiment, and by marriage, Madame Mamontov, the future Countess Brassov. Captivated by her great and infinite charm, the Grand Duke fell desperately in love with her, and when he was convinced that his feelings were reciprocated, it was arranged that she should apply for a divorce.

In 1913, the Grand Duke handed over the command of the regiment to Prince Dolgorouky, and went to Vienna to be married. After the marriage he wrote to the Emperor, informing him of his wish to live the life of a simple commoner. As a result of this letter, the Emperor issued a manifesto, founded on the regulations binding the Imperial family, and so deprived the Grand Duke Michael of his especial rights, putting his estates and possessions under guardianship, and only allowing him a modest income for personal expenses. The Grand Duke and his wife retired to Cannes, where they spent several months, and then left for England, living in Hertfordshire.

At this time, the Grand Duke had with him a Mr Johnson, who was not only a capable secretary but the most devoted of friends. Mr Johnson soon became indispensable, both to the Grand Duke and his wife, and I feel it is my duty to say that the memory of Nicolas Johnson remains inseparably united with that

« AnteriorContinuar »