« PreviousContinue »
Pennsylvania:-Judge Brumm, of Schuykill County, has placed a ban upon the bars in some three hundred clubs, and the saloons in the County were ordered to have their windows and doors opened to public view during business hours.
The written opinion of Judge J. W. Reed, of Jefferson County, that "when the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania declares that the Brooks High License Law, or any other license law, vests in the Court of first instance the right to refuse all licenses in a county, on the ground that no necessity exists under the law for the granting of licenses, I will not hesitate a minute to follow the decision by refusing every license in Jefferson county," has left the temperance people confident, in view of the recent decision of the Superior Court in the Venango County cases, that their next effort before the License Court in January will be successful. The decision in the Venango County cases, when the refusal of the Venango County Judge to grant any licenses, alleging that there was no need for them, was upheld, was founded on the Brooks Law, which gives the local judge absolute discretion in the licensing of saloons.
An opinion of the Court in Jefferson County held that the Brooks High License Law was not a local option law, that the law gives the judge the power to regulate the liquor traffic in his district and that neither he nor any other man can regulate that which is prohibited.
Although no prohibition or local option law exists among the State's statutes there are now seven dry counties in PennsylvaniaBedford, Huntington and Mifflin counties under one judiciary dictum, as well as Greene, Lawrence, Juniata and Venango counties, that have been forced into prohibition by four other jurists.
Butler County returned to the wet column after two years drought. The Iron City Trades Council has adopted resolutions against prohibition in all its phases.
An opinion holding that a Brewing Company was not guilty of a misdemeanor in offering premiums in return for "caps" from beer bottles was handed down by the Quarter Sessions Court. Under the Act a brewer is not licensed, and a distinction should be made between a license granted by a Court and the privilege given by it for a limited sale to a certain class of customers according to the opinion of the Court.
Rhode Island: The only new law that was passed at the 1914 session of the legislature was the one that the city of Newport
should be authorized to issue four additional liquor licenses during the summer months.
The most important Bills that failed to pass were:
I. Prohibiting the sale or use of intoxicating liquors in the State. This bill was never printed and did not leave the Committee. 2. Voting on licenses by districts and granting licenses in the districts, on the basis of one in 500 instead of one in 500 for the city or town, as the case may be. This would in many instances, particularly in the business sections of a city, entirely prohibit the granting of any liquor licenses.
3. The closing of saloons on Good Friday and Memorial Day. 4. Limiting the number of saloons-in cities-to one per 1,000 inhabitants instead of one in 500, as at present.
5. Making it necessary to obtain 60 per cent. of the ballots cast in favor of license, otherwise licenses could not be issued.
6. Including Club Liquor Licenses in the number of one to 500. 7. Prohibiting the granting of any new licenses or transfer of an existing license to any building or place owned by a manufacturer of intoxicants.
8. Prohibiting the use of signs or screens in saloon windows. 9. Limiting the sale of intoxicating liquors to the place covered by the license, therefore, prohibiting the solicitation of orders in any other place.
10. Prohibiting the giving away of free lunch.
South Carolina:-The Supreme Court, in the case of Town of Dillon v. Saleeby, declared that the ordinance, prohibiting the sale of cider without a certificate of a licensed physician that it is to be used for medicinal purposes is constitutional. Furthermore, it was maintained that cider contains some alcohol and causes its drinkers to become disorderly.
The Supreme Court has decided that a person may order and keep in his possession liquor for personal use, so long as he does not attempt to use it unlawfully. And the Court penalized an express company for refusing to deliver an Inter-State shipment of liquor in South Carolina in the case of Stukes v. Southern Express Company.
South Dakota:-The laws demand license elections annually in all cities and towns. In 1913 there were 92 wet cities and towns
and 62 dry. In the 1914 elections 28 that were wet changed to dry, and 5 that were dry voted wet.
There is some sentiment in this State favoring municipal saloons. While there is nothing in the statutes of the State authorizing such institutions, the city of Sisseton conducted a municipal saloon for one year-without authority-at great profit to the municipality. The saloon was voted out last spring.
Tennessee:-Senate Bill No. 4 was signed by Governor Hooper. This was an Act prohibiting the shipment of intoxicating liquor (ie., liquor containing more than one-half of one per cent. alcohol) into this State or between points within this State, except, for personal use, in quantities not exceeding one gallon, by persons lawfully authorized to sell it, or for sacramental purposes. This act provided that the common carrier could not deliver the liquor to minors, and could only deliver it to the consignee; the common carrier must file statements with the County Clerk showing such shipments, and copies of such statement may be used as evidence. This Act was declared by the Supreme Court, unconstitutional, excepting in the requirement that carriers should keep a record of goods received by them and that the records should be filed with the County Court Clerk. In other words, the material points, affecting orders from this State to dealers in another State, were so restricted that the Act was declared unconstitutional and in conflict with InterState Commerce, thus allowing the purchase of any quantity desired.
Senate Bill No. 6, commonly called the Nuisance Bill, has, in most localities been vigorously enforced. Under this Act, places where liquor is sold are declared public nuisances and may be abated.
Senate Bill No. 3, prohibiting the shipping of intoxicants from one county to another within the State, has also been enforced.
Governor Hooper has offered a reward of $50 for the conviction of every person charged with violating the four-mile Anti-Saloon Law, giving as his reason, that the State has no means with which to employ detectives.
Judge Edgington, of the First District of the Criminal Court, Memphis, issued orders permitting three of the largest brewery agencies to resume Inter-State business, the business to be confined strictly to beer going into adjoining commonwealths.
Texas: A law was enacted known as the Allison Liquor Law which forbids the Intra-State shipment of liquors except to licensed dealers. An extra session of the Legislature later amended this law by permitting the Intra-State shipment of liquors from any part in wet territory to any other part in wet territory and to any person. This law has proven during the 18 months that it has been in operation, the most effective measure ever passed for the enforcement of real prohibition because it made it impossible for the bootlegger to obtain shipments. The law penalized the shipper, transportation companies and the person receiving the liquor by confinement in the penitentiary and heavy fines.
The Attorney General in construing section 6 of the Allison Law holds that advertisements of liquors in newspapers, which have a circulation in both dry and wet territory, in which advertisement it is made clear that no orders will be received from, nor shipments made into any prohibition territory, would not constitute a violation of the law.
Municipal ordinances prescribing limits wherein liquor may be sold in cities were made more effective by a law which provides that when cities have defined the zones where liquor may be licensed and sold, a delivery in the restricted district constitutes a felony punishable by confinement in the penitentiary. This law prevents a delivery wagon from delivering beer in the residential section of a city.
Numerous rulings have been issued by the Comptroller of the State who issues the permits for licenses, prescribing the qualifications of the applicants. They must be taxpayers, paying a poll tax and property tax and must hold not more than one license. If not a native-born citizen, the applicant must present his citizenship
A number of local option elections were held during the year ending September 1, 1914, and covering counties and precincts. The elections held in dry counties all returned dry majorities except two counties, Shackelford County and Llano County, which had been dry and voted wet.
Elections held in wet counties resulted in loss of ground in numerous precincts. The counties of Freestone, Hardin and Montgomery, which were wet voted dry.
At the Democratic Party Primary election held July 25, 1914, the question of submitting a State-wide prohibition amendment was defeated by a majority of 22,000 votes.
A bona fide club dispensing liquor to its members does not require a license, according to a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
An Act (1911), provided that every person who shall place any packages, of any nature, containing liquor for shipment into local option territory, without labeling it "intoxicating liquor," shall be punished. The Court of Criminal Appeals held, that such section. covers and prohibits such a shipment checked as baggage without being properly labeled. The accused delivered a trunk containing liquor, unlabeled, to a railroad company in a wet county for shipment into a dry county, knowing that it would be necessary for the carrier to transfer the liquor to a connecting carrier at a junction in the dry county. It was held, that accused thereby made the initial carrier his agent to deliver the liquor to the connecting carrier in dry territory, which constituted an offense separate from that committed by the original delivery of the liquor to the initial carrier, and for which the accused could be properly prosecuted in the dry county. There was a dissenting opinion, based on the belief that courts are not authorized to create offenses, that being the province of the Legislature, and that the offense is not a continuing one, and thus terminated at the point and county of shipment, and the offense was committed there, if committed at all, and that the shipper is not responsible for the transfer of goods to a connecting line.
Judge Davidson, who dissented, said "the decision, as I understand the law, is so obviously wrong it would hardly need dicussion."-Phillips v. State, 167 S. W. 353, June 3, 1914.
Utah:-There have been no new State laws affecting the liquor industry since 1913.
The Board of Commissioners of Salt Lake City adopted an ordinance which is practically the same as the State statute, except. in two sections. These sections limit the number of saloons in Salt Lake City to one saloon for each 1,000 population of the city, pro