Evelyn Fanshawe, an English barrister who travelled round the United States
and Canada in 1892-3 in order to investigate the operation of prohibitory 
laws, reported that "The proportion of crime due to drink is often stated 
by ardent prohibitionists, with more emphasis than accuracy, to be
nine-tenths of the whole. Those of a more cautious temperament admit this 
estimate to be exaggerated, and recognise the difficulty of ascertaining
the true proportion. One specially conversant with the criminal statistics
of the state in which he holds office, and by no means hostile in principle
to prohibition, has told me that many wild statements of this kind go
uncontradicted, because anyone who demurs to or refutes them is set down as
an enemy of temperance; that he himself receives letters, which he does not
care to answer fully and openly, asking him to confirm such allegations out
of his official knowledge; but he has no doubt that crime in general is
very much less the effect of drink than many people suppose. A temperance 
lady goes and delivers a sympathetic address to the prisoners in jail,
dwelling on the terrible evils of drink, and its awful consequences in
turning good, respectable men into criminals. Then she calls on those who 
were brought to their present unfortunate condition by this cause to hold 
up their hands. Nearly everyone holds up his hand. Therefore, nine-tenths 
of crime is the result of drink. There is, as I have repeatedly been told 
by persons with prison experience, a strong tendency among convicts to 'put
it on the drink'. A man determines to commit crime; he fortifies himself
with a dram; he is caught, and says he was brought to it by drink. As a
matter of fact a large class of criminals could not carry on their
profession if they were drinkers. Liquor has enough crime to answer for
without any need for exaggerating it. The proportion can, of course, be
greatly exaggerated by including drunkenness itself (unaccompanied by any 
other offence arising out of the drinking)."