« PreviousContinue »
Kansas:-Judge Pollock, of the Federal District Court of Kansas, ruled that under the Webb-Kenyon Law and the Mahin State Law, breweries and liquor dealers cannot solicit business in that State.
In Kansas City, Kansas, anyone displaying brewery advertising in street cars or windows, on billboards, wagons or automobiles will be subject to a fine of $500 or thirty days in jail, according to an ordinance passed by the City Commission. Newspaper advertising is not affected.
The Webb-Kenyon Law as well as the Mahin State Law were upheld by the State Supreme Court.
The State Supreme Court holds that Jamaica ginger, lemon and vanilla extracts, cologne, camphor and similar tinctures and essences are "intoxicating liquors" and that druggists selling them may be prosecuted under the prohibition law.
Kentucky-Four bills affecting the liquor interests of the State of Kentucky were enacted by the Kentucky General Assembly during the Regular Session of 1914. Of these only one is looked upon as favorable to Kentucky shippers of liquor, affording as it does, the right to ship liquor from wet into dry territory, provided it is labeled “for personal, family, medicinal, mechanical, chemical, scientific or sacramental purposes.” Under the old law, railroads and other common carriers were prohibited from carrying liquor, no matter how labeled, from wet to dry territory within the State. A test case was made by Crigler & Crigler Company of Covington, Ky., against the Adams Express Co., and the Kenton County Circuit Judge ruled that an express company can be compelled to receive and ship liquor from a wet territory to a dry territory when labeled as required by the Act in question.
A new law provided that 25 per cent. of the voters of a county may call a local option election in a county.
Another Act provides for the search of premises in local option territory whenever there is good reason to believe that liquor is being sold therein, for the arrest of the person or persons in charge of such premises and for the purpose of declaring such intoxicating liquors contraband and directs the confiscation and destruction of same.
Another new Act provides that the General Council or Commissioners in cities of the second class, shall have power by ordinance to license, tax and regulate the sale of spirituous, vinous and malt liquors; to authorize and designate the proper officers of the city to issue and grant all licenses in accordance with such regulations as by ordinance may be prescribed, and to fix the prices and fees to be charged for.
Twenty-seven bills affecting the liquor business were introduced but failed to pass; the most important among them being: a bill to prohibit transportation of liquor for sale into local option territory, to require common carriers to keep records of such shipments in separate books and make such records prima facie evidence in proceedings under local option laws; a bill to authorize issuing of search warrants in prosecutions for illicit sale of liquor; a bill to provide for commitment of persons to a State hospital who are so addicted to use of stimulants as not to have power of self-control; a bill to make it a felony to sell liquor without a license; a bill to prevent manufacture of liquor in local option territory; a bill to prevent soliciting orders for liquor in local option territory; a bill to confiscate and destroy liquor in local option territory; a bill amending the constitution so as to provide for State-Wide Prohibition; and a bill to prohibit brewers and distillers from owning saloons.
At a meeting of the Board of Aldermen in Covington on October 10, 1913, an ordinance restricting saloons to one to every 500 of the population was passed. The ordinance does not affect saloonkeepers now in business.
The General Council of the City of Georgetown passed an ordinance limiting saloons to five and fixing the fee to retail liquor at $1,000 per year.
In March, 1914, the commissioners of the City of Lexington issued 120 liquor licenses, which was seven less than in the previous year and fixed the license fee at $500.
The City Council of the City of Frankfort limited the number of saloons to one to each 1,000 population and increased the license fee from $400 to $500.
Pulaski County-A local option election was held in Somerset, the only wet city in Pulaski County on September 29th, 1913, and
resulted in a dry majority of 57. The wets contested on the grounds that a majority of the election officers were dry men. On May 19, 1914, the Court of Appeals in an opinion written by Judge Nunn affirmed the judgment of the Pulaski Circuit Court and sustained the validity of the election.
Scott County-A local option election, held in this county, September 6, 1913, resulted in a dry majority of 380. The city of Georgetown, which was the only wet city in the entire county gave a wet majority of 178 votes. A contest was made by the wets. The contest board on November 29, 1913, decided the election was valid and the wets appealed to the higher court. The Circuit Court on February 21, 1914, set aside the election since it was shown that in one precinct there was not the required 25 per cent. of the voters who signed the petition.
Fulton County—The drys won the local option election held in this county December 6, 1913, by a majority of 886. This county has been dry for years.
Christian County—The town of Pembroke in this county voted, April 14, 1914, to remain dry. One precinct went wet and the other dry, but in the total vote the drys had a majority of 17 votes.
On September 28, 1914, at the local option elections, Bell, Boone, Bourbon, Carroll, Clark, Mason, Montgomery, Scott and Shelby counties were voted dry.
At the same time Anderson county voted wet by a majority of 64 votes; Fayette county gave a majority of 3,264 against prohibition. Henderson county also voted for license.
On September 21, Davies, Christian, and McCracken counties voted for license by respective majorities of 614, 585 and 818.
In the case of Josselson Bros. v. Commonwealth the Court of Appeals ruled that a person could sell liquor in a wet county for shipment into a dry county without violating any law.
Louisiana:-A Near Beer Law was passed as a substitute for the Anti-Saloon League Bill abolishing the manufacture and sale of Near Beer, providing for the sale of Near Beer in every Parish, or County, in the State, including Prohibition Parishes, or Counties.
This Act is known as Act No. 211 of the Acts of 1914, and provides that Near Beer shall be made from ingredients in the proportion and manner, as follows, to-wit: “60 per cent. of choice barley malt; 35 per cent. of choice rice; 5 per cent. of brewing
sugars; one-third of a pound of choice hops per barrel of thirty-one gallons, brewed into a beverage; the period of fermentation shall not be less than nine days, to be stored and aged at a temperature of 36 degrees Fahrenheit, for at least three months, and what is known as the finishing' process shall require at least one month's additional time before being offered for sale as a beverage."
It further provides that Near Beer shall not contain more than two per cent. alcohol in volume, or 1.59 per cent. in weight; that on every bottle containing Near Beer there must be printed the maximum quantity of alcohol in volume, and the cork or crown seal stamped "Near Beer;" kegs must be similarly labeled.
It also provides that it shall be unlawful to manufacture or sell any malt non-intoxicating liquor as a substitute for Near Beer, or any adulterated temperance beer. The regulating clauses in the Act provide that it shall be unlawful to sell any other beverage of any other nature, kind or description, or any article of merchandise under the same roof where Near Beer is sold, or to keep for personal use any intoxicating liquor under the same roof where Near Beer is sold as a beverage.
There must be placed on Near Beer establishments, in a conspicuous place, a sign bearing the words “Near Beer," and the letters thereof must be one foot in height, by one foot in width, with no other reading matter on said sign.
Another Act, being Act No. 202 of the Acts of 1914, provides that no person, firm or corporation shall receive or possess intoxicating liquor in any parish, city or locality wherein the sale of intoxicating liquor is prohibited by law, if the liquor is to be used in violation of that law.
A person living in dry territory, however, may have liquor shipped to him for his own use or for the use of any member of his family.
The Act provides that common carriers must keep a record of delivery of all the liquor in dry territory, which record must be kept at point of delivery for a period of not less than one year from the date of the delivery of the liquor, and shall be accessible on demand to any officer charged with the enforcement of the law, or member of the Grand Jury of the parish in which said delivery is made. Delivery by the common carrier shall be made only to the consignee, or his order; delivering the liquor shipments to minors is prohibited.
The third bill passed by the Louisiana Legislature, being Act No. 146 of the Acts of 1914, and known by the name of the “Blind Tiger” Act, defines a “blind tiger" to be any place, in those subdivisions of the State where the sale of spirituous, malt or intoxicating liquors is prohibited, where such spirituous, malt or intoxicating liquors are kept for sale, barter, exchange or habitual giving away as a beverage in connection with any business conducted at such place.
It condemns the persons keeping a “blind tiger” as guilty of a misdemeanor.
The Act also grants the right of seizure and search of “blind tigers” upon an affidavit reciting that a certain designated place is believed to be a “blind tiger,” together with such additional evidence as may be required by the Court to make out a case fairly probable in law that such a place is a "blind tiger."
The Louisiana Supreme Court, in the case of State v. AnheuserBusch Brewing Company, reported in the 64th Southern Reporter, page 415, held that Act 176, of 1908, commonly known as the “Gay-Shattuck Act,” regulating the traffic in intoxicating liquors, applies, as far as regulation is concerned, to bar-rooms and other places where liquors are sold in less quantities than five gallons, and its terms do not cover a brewery which sells in the original and unbroken packages in quantities over five gallons, and therefore, a brewing company selling in the original package and in quantities over five gallons does not have to take out a license as a retail liquor dealer.
Maine:-While party politics, both from a state and national standpoint, was a live issue in the September election in Maine, Prohibition may fairly be said to have been the real issue with which Governor Haines appealed to the electorate of the State for re-election.
Mr. Haines, who is a prohibitionist, on the promise that he would and could make the law effective, was elected in 1912, his total vote being 70,931. After two years of radical attempts to enforce the law, in which time he caused the removal of four Sheriffs in four counties substituting four prohibition Sheriffs, he was defeated; his total vote in the recent election being but 58,500. His principal opponent, Oakley C. Curtis of Portland, was elected by a plurality over both Haines and Gardner, of 3,300.