Mr. Haines, with prohibition his avowed issue, received 12,000 less votes than in 1912.

Governor-elect Curtis is a believer in a local option law as a real temperance measure; giving as it does, the towns and cities the right within themselves to regulate the liquor traffic so that at all times the wishes of the majority may rule and State-wide nullification be eliminated.

Viewed from almost any angle, the recent Maine election, is a triumph for local option. The tremendous shrinkage in the Haines' vote is but the declaration of the voters of their disbelief in a law which for sixty years, has to its credit nothing but a record of illegal local option; prohibition in small towns and wideopen conditions in the cities and large towns.

This is evidenced in the city of Bangor, a city of 25,000 people, where under the prohibitory law, there was a record of 2,000 convictions for drunkenness in one year; and is in marked contrast to conditions in the city of Milwaukee with its 400,000 people where there were but 3,000 such convictions. One to each 133 people in the frankly wet community, and one to each dozen of the population under prohibition. It is also evidenced in the statement of Governor Haines himself who in analyzing his defeat said to the press on the day after the election: "One of the principal things which led to my defeat was the unfaithfulness of Sheriff O'Connell (Sheriff of Penobscot County) in performing the duties of his office as he agreed to do when I appointed him, and his refusal to keep his agreement to resign when I asked him to."

All signs point to a return to sanity in liquor legislation in the State of Maine, when fanatics and politicians will be disregarded, and when Maine will join her sister states which have found that questions of domestic policy can best be settled by the cities and towns of the State as units.

Maryland: A State-wide Prohibition Bill was defeated in the lower House of the Legislature by a vote of 57 to 42.

The Eastern Shore Anti-Shipping Bill was passed, by which shipments of liquor to any one person are to be limited to one gallon of whiskey and to six dozen pints of beer in any one month, the Act to apply to the population in the nine peninsula counties of the State, to wit: Caroline, Cecil, Dorchester, Kent, Queen Anne, Somerset, Talbot Wicomico and Worcester.

Local Option Bills were passed for Carroll, Charles and Garrett counties, and a High License Bill for St. Mary's County.

Carroll, Garrett and Cecil counties were voted dry at the election on November 3rd.

Massachusetts:-Some 43 bills were introduced into the Massachusetts Legislature of 1913-1914 affecting the liquor interests in various ways. A good many of these bills were in effect duplicates of others contained in the list. The most important were the bills to repeal the Bar and Bottle A'ct so-called; to provide for taking the vote on the license question on the day of the state election and the bill to provide for taking the license vote only on petition of the voters. The Bar and Bottle Bill was enacted by the Legislature in 1910 and the legislative effort of the past year was an attempt to repeal this law. The bill in brief prohibits a licensee from holding a 4th class or wholesale license in conjunction with a license permitting liquors to be drunk on the premises. The Repeal Act, which was backed by the liquor interests, was favorably reported by the committee on legal affairs, but on question of a third reading in the House, was defeated by a vote of 105 to 115.

The bill to provide for taking the license vote only on petition of the voters, which was likewise a measure put in by the liquor interests, was reported leave to withdraw and the report was accepted.

The most important measures filed by the Anti-Saloon League were bills to reduce the license fee to $50; two or three bills endeavoring to restrict further the transportation of liquors into nolicense cities and towns; two bills to abolish the 6th class, or druggists' license. The bill to reduce the fee was reported leave to withdraw and the report was accepted. The transportation bills were referred to the next General Court. The druggists' bills were given leave to withdraw. The other bills that went to make the total number introduced into the legislature including bills to provide for district option; bills to provide for fixing the fee for an unused license in the city of Boston at $10,000; a bill to provide that minors should not be permitted on any licensed premises; a bill to make the same restriction for parochial schools as now apply to public schools. Two bills to prohibit absolutely the issuing of licenses in connection with the sale of groceries. All of these bills were either defeated by adverse committee reports, or referred to the next General Court, so that there was no favorable or adverse legislation on the liquor question of any kind passed, except House Bill No. 1004, which provides for a 6 per cent. tolerance in wooden packages containing malt beverages. This measure was a distinct victory for the brewing industry and was carried through against the opposition of the Anti-Saloon League and the State Sealers of Weights and Measures. The Tolerance Bill so-called will tend to relieve the brewers of Massachusetts from endless litigation, and it removes hardships imposed by the difficulty of keeping wooden packages up to their maximum capacity.

The Boston Licensing Board made several rulings of importance to the industry during the past year, all of said rulings being put forth in the form of "requests," which in Boston are virtually commands, the penalty for non-compliance with which being the danger of licensees failing to have their licenses renewed.

The first of these regulations requested licensees to refrain, and for their employees to refrain, from treating customers. By way of emphasizing these "requests," the Licensing Board plainly stated that non-compliance would probably result in such licenses not being renewed.

A regulation was also put forth by the Licensing Board prohibiting fewer than four persons from occupying a private dining-room on premises where liquor is sold.

Still another regulation issued by the Board provides that all persons applying for rooms at hotels where liquors are served must be accompanied by baggage. Commenting upon the issuance of these regulations, the Licensing Board, in its last annual report said:

"The power of the Board to enforce its decision is given by the statutes. It can, upon proof of a violation of law by a licensee or by his employee, suspend a license for a definite period, or can revoke it altogether. It can refuse to renew a license when the character and conduct of the licensee has been such as to render him, in its opinion, an unfit man to continue in the business. These powers of the Board are absolute, there being no appeal from its decisions, save to the clemency of the Board itself.

"Clothed with absolute power, the Board feels most keenly its accountability. It believes that it should use its power and its best abilities for the improvement and betterment of Boston. It recognizes that in a certain, restricted sense it has charge of the morals of the city. It therefore has endeavored to institute certain reforms. It has tried to strengthen the moral fiber of those addicted to intemperance by taking away the insidious danger of free drinks proffered them by salesmen or proprietors. It has striven to lessen the danger to young women and others arising from the abuse of private dining-rooms. It is constantly on the lookout for infractions of the law against sales of liquor to intoxicated persons and to minors. It cordially invites the co-operation of citizens in its work along these lines. Any citizen who is witness to a sale of intoxicating liquor to a minor or intoxicated person, or who is cognizant of any other infraction of the liquor law, should at once communicate with the Board, either in person or by letter signed with the full name and address of the complainant. Immediate attention will be given to such complaints. Unfortunately, most of the complaints which reach the Board are anonymous and must be consigned to the waste basket.”

Another matter of importance is a decision of the full bench of the Massachusetts Supreme Court bearing upon the granting of pony express licenses in no-license cities and towns. The bill providing for the granting of pony express licenses was passed some three years ago but it was interpreted by some judges in the lower courts as not being mandatory. A typical case was taken to the Supreme Court which has rendered its decision that every town and city in the State under no-license must, upon application, grant one or more pony express licenses.

ELECTIONS

The tabulation of the license vote of the state shows that in the last town and municipal elections ii towns and i city changed from no-license to license, and that 11 towns and i city changed from license to no-license. In the matter of population embraced within these two groups of communities, however, the license cause was distinctly the gainer. The II towns and i city which shifted from license to no-license have a combined population of 43,982, while the 11 towns and i city which changed from no-license to license have a combined population of 146,976, or a gain in population under license this year of 102,994. This big gain of population under license was mainly due to the change in the city of Lynn (population 89,336), which voted license after being dry for six consecutive years. The only other city to change its position was Newburyport (population 14,949), which went back to no-license. Falmouth swung from dry to wet by a majority of 51 votes, and for the first time in its history—or at least since the days of the old town agencies-liquor will be sold.

Gardner, Shelburne, Belchertown, Royalston, Orange and Athol all changed from dry to wet, and the vote in Athol was the largest in the town's history. Hubbardstown, Warren and Milford returned to the dry column.

In the town and municipal elections of 1913, the total "yes" vote of Massachusetts was 199,066, and the total “no” vote was 199,278, a majority of 212 against license. In this connection it must be understood that Massachusetts as a State did not vote on the license question. These figures are simply a compilation of the "yes” and “no” votes of the various communities in the commonwealth, under a local option system.

In the town and municipal elections of 1914, the license cause made a substantial gain. The majority of the State as a whole shifted from "no" to "yes" by a substantial margin. The "yes" vote for the entire state in the last elections was 217,096 and the “no” vote was 213,921, a majority in favor of license of 3,175.

At an election on December ist, Northampton, Quincy and Waltham voted dry; while Fitchburg, Holyoke, Marlboro, New Bedford and Pittsfield voted wet, but with decreased majorities.

Michigan:-There have been no new laws enacted in Michigan since the adjournment of the Legislature in May, 1913.

The Anti-Saloon League in Michigan during the past summer has taken up with the Attorney General the right of railroads to sell liquors on trains. Heretofore the railroads have run their café cars as usual through Michigan, except in dry counties, where the sale of liquors was entirely stopped. The Anti-Saloon League alleged that there was no provision in the Michigan laws for licensing any railroad to sell liquor upon its trains and that under any circumstances the only sale that could be made legally on trains would be after the railroad had taken out a liquor license in each of the counties through which the trains should pass and in which it was desired to sell alcoholic beverages. Attorney General Grant Fellows gave the Anti-Saloon League a ruling that their position was correct, whereupon they served notice upon all the railroads doing business in Michigan to desist forth with from the sale of alcoholic beverages. The Northwestern and Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul railroads which operate in the Upper Peninsula only, immediately announced that they would refrain from selling liquors in Michigan.