Monroe County likewise showed encouraging results for the license forces.

Niagara County made a net gain of one town for the license

column.

Oneida County results indicated a strong sentiment for license; one no-license town was won over to the wet column and several partial license towns adopted full licenses.

Orange County increased its license towns.

Otsego County joined Orange County by increasing the number of license towns.

Sullivan County voted license for two dry towns and one partial license town gave a majorty for full license.

Other counties in the State remained practically unchanged with slight exceptions.

There are 933 townships in the State of New York. In 1913 the result of local option elections shows the following:

In 1914 an increase in favor of license was indicated as can be gleaned from the following recapitulation:

The Supreme Court granted to a minor the right to decide a question of public policy in the case In re Farley, 146 N. Y. S. 291. Holding that under the Liquor Tax Law, requiring, with an application for a license, the consent of the owners of at least twothirds of the dwellings within 300 feet of the place to be licensed, consent can be given by infant owners.

According to the Court of Appeals, in the case of People v. Weiner, solicitation for liquor orders in no-license districts must be personal to be illegal; and a dealer's mailing a liquor pricelist to a possible purchaser in a dry town is no violation of the Liquor Tax Law.

North Carolina:-The only law enacted since the last report is comprised in chapter 44 of the Public Laws of 1913. It makes it unlawful for any persons, other than druggists and medical depositories duly licensed, to sell or handle intoxicating liquor in the State.

The possession of liquor for the purpose of sale is unlawful; and proof of any one of the following facts shall constitute prima facie evidence of the violation of this section.

First. The possession of a license from the government of the United States to sell or manufacture liquors; or

Second. The possession of more than one gallon of spirituous liquors at any one time, whether in one or more places; or

Third. The possession of more than three gallons of vinous liquors at any one time, whether in one or more places; or

Fourth. The possession of more than five gallons of malt liquors at any one time, whether in one or more places; or

Fifth. The delivery to such person of more than five gallons of spirituous or vinous liquors, or more than twenty gallons of malt liquors within any four successive weeks, whether in one or more places; or

Sixth. The possession of intoxicating liquors as samples to obtain orders thereon; provided that this section shall not prohibit any person from keeping in his possession wines and ciders in any quantity where such wines and ciders have been manufactured. from grapes or fruit grown on his own premises.

Five thousand two hundred and seventy gallons of liquor were shipped into Greensboro, which has a population of about 16,000 in December, 1913, averaging 195.1 gallons per day. This does not include beer. The average per day for November, 1913, was 170.44 gallons.

North Dakota:-Shipments of intoxicating liquors are carried and delivered for personal use. In 1913 the Legislature passed an Act providing for the inspection of freight and express books and records by the State's Attorney, the Attorney General or his assistants in the matter of the enforcement of the prohibition law.

This Act simply gives attorneys power to inspect the records of common carriers as to shipments of intoxicating liquors.

Ohio: The license code went into full operation in November, 1913. As expected, the limitation clause of one saloon to each

five hundred population proved the source of greatest dissatisfaction. This clause was injected by Anti-Saloon League adherents into the license constitutional amendment, adopted September 3, 1912, after bitter opposition by the liberals, who favored gradual reduction of the ratio by natural and legal causes. The limitation clause, together with dry results in local option elections, operated to reduce the number of saloons from 8,485 on May 6, 1913, to 5,523 on April 30, 1914. A number of good, honest and deserving citizens were, through the limitation suddenly deprived of their livelihood and property, their applications for license being returned with the advice "the quota is full." While individual brewers suffered loss through the enforced limitation, the trade has now recovered its poise and it is felt that much good is being derived from the general operation of the license law, and a minimum of prosecutions against saloonists has been reached.

A constitutional amendment for the purpose of creating a "small legislature" based upon equal representation according to population in the legislative districts was initiated. By this it was hoped to effect and insure majority rule by basing representation in the legislature on population instead of the prevailing rule of giving to each county, no matter how few its population, one representative. At the polls, November 4, 1913, the measure was defeated by a large majority.

For the same election, the Anti-Saloon League had initiated an "Anti-shipping" bill, which sought to prohibit all liquor shipments and carriage into dry territory with two exceptions-shipments to a regular druggist, and carriage by "a person who carries or otherwise personally conveys not to exceed one quart of intoxicating liquor for his own private use." The measure called out an unusually large vote: Yes, 360,534; No, 455,099-majority against 94,565. The interesting feature of the vote was that 45 dry counties returned a majority of 8,733 against the measure: voting Yes, 108,889; No, 117,622. The 43 wet counties voted Yes, 251,645; No. 337,477—majority against 85,832.

ELECTIONS

Since July 1, 1913, two counties have voted dry and two counties have voted wet under the Rose County Option Law, all repeating their former verdicts. One dry county decreased its former majority from 2,117 to 195; the other increased it from 964 to 1.417

One wet county increased its former majority from 36 to 1,264; the other decreased it from 1,961 to 319.

For the same period, under the Beal Municipal Option Law, 29 municipal corporations were carried by the drys, of which 15 were previously wet and 14 were dry. Fifteen municipal corporations were carried by the wets, all of which were previously wet except one.

During the same period, under the Township Local Option Law, 10 townships were carried by the drys, of which 5 had been wet and 5 had been dry. Ten townships were also carried by the wets; all previously wet.

For years, the Anti-Saloon League has threatened to bring on State-wide prohibition, and the public utterances of its leaders and official action of its trustees gave every indication that they would bring about the struggle in 1915. The liberal interests gave the league a jolt by precipitating the fight this year. The liberals initiated a petition for a constitutional amendment having a two-fold object: first, a provision for home rule in local option elections, by confining the political units in which such elections may be held to townships or municipal corporations; second, by a declaration against State-wide prohibition, preventing such prohibition except by a vote of the people throughout the State. The popularity of this home rule amendment, which will repeal the so-called county option law whereby wet cities now have their vote overriden by a county dry vote, whereas dry towns or townships are unaffected by any wet county result, was evidenced by the voluminous signing of the liberal petition; 304,062 signatures, nearly one-third of the vote of the State, were secured within thirty days. The dry forces, caught by surprise, were forced to come out with a counter petition for a constitutional amendment to provide for State-wide prohibition, within 18 months after its adoption, of the manufacture, sale and importation for sale of liquor. Their petition had 175,000 signatures.

Prohibition was defeated by 84,512 votes at the November election; the vote being 503,817 in favor of the amendment and 588,329 against it. The Home Rule Amendment was carried by 12,567 majority. The rural districts from which considerable majorities for prohibition were expected, returned either surprisingly small majorities for it, or voted it down.

Under the new law the new units are the municipality, the townships and the area of the townships outside the municipalities.

The Home Rule amendment states that: "No law shall be passed or be in effect prohibiting the sale or giving away of intoxicating liquor operating in a subdivision of the State upon a vote of the electors thereof, or upon any other contingency, which has force within a territory larger than a municipal corporation or a township outside of a municipal corporation therein."

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Many rulings have been made by the State Licensing Board and Attorney General of purely local import anent interpretation of the license law. The constitutionality of the license law was upheld by the Supreme Court, overruling contentions made that the State, under the Federal constitution, could not deprive a man of the right to engage in the liquor business by applying the limitation quota; that County Boards had no right to deny licenses to qualified applicants; that the issuance of licenses to corporations was invalid. The provision in the license law excluding aliens from becoming applicants for license has also been sustained by a lower court.

The Anti-Free Lunch Law, which shortly after its enactment in 1910 was declared unconstitutional by one police court and constitutional by another, and which thereafter was unobserved, has lately been declared unconstitutional by a municipal judge in Cincinnati.

Oregon: The vote on the State-wide Prohibition Amendment in November resulted in a majority of 36,000 in favor of the amend

ment.

The verdict of the people was against saloons, but not against drinking, for the amendment is aimed at the saloons and manufacturers, and in nowise interferes with the personal liberty of anyone who wishes to have liquor in his own household.

The Amendment reads: "From and after January 1, 1916, no intoxicating liquor shall be manufactured, or sold within this State, except for medicinal purposes upon prescription of a licensed physician, or for scientific, sacramental or mechanical purposes." This cannot become operative until the Legislature provides penalties for its violation.