Page images

viding, however, that the number of the saloons then (September 23, 1913) in the city should not be affected by that limitation.


In June, 1914, Copperfield, Salt Lake County, voted dry by 4 votes, and Vernal, in Unitah County, voted dry by 77 votes.

At the same election in Salt Lake County, Murray voted dry by 12 votes; Sandy voted 191 wet and 141 dry; Midvale voted 295 wet and 132 dry.

Virginia: The Enabling Act was passed by the Legislature in January, 1914. It provided that if the electors voted for State-wide. prohibition, the Act would be effective on November 1, 1916.

The Act further reads:

"It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, social club, firm or corporation, to manufacture for sale, sell, or purchase for sale, transport for sale, dispense or otherwise dispose of any spirituous, vinous, fermented, distilled or malt liquors, or intoxicating bitters within this State, except for medicinal, scientific, sacramental or mechanical purposes as may be allowed under the provisions of such acts as the General Assembly of Virginia shall pass at its said regular session held next after the date of such election allowing such sale for such purposes, and except wine and its by-products, other than brandy and such other by-products as contain no greater percentage of alcohol than wine, may be manufactured from grapes, berries and fruits by any person, firm or corporation now manufacturing wine in this State; provided the wine or by-products so manufactured be sold only in packages of not less than two and onehalf gallons or one dozen bottles, and be delivered to a common carrier to be transported outside of the State of Virginia into territory where the same may be sold legally. And except that all malt liquors containing not more than three and one-half per cent. in volume of alcohol, may be manufactured by any person, firm or corporation now manufacturing malt liquors in this State, provided such products so manufactured be sold in packages of not less than five gallons or not less than two dozen bottles, and be delivered to a common carrier to be transported outside of the State of Virginia into territory where the same may be sold legally; and any person or persons, social club, firm or corporation, so manufacturing, selling, dispensing or disposing of any spirituous, vinous, fermented, distilled or malt liquors shall be liable for all the penalties now or hereafter prescribed for manufacturing, selling, dispensing or disposing of ardent spirits without a license.

"Provided, that nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting the present law concerning the manufacture and sale of cider."

At the State-wide prohibition election Virginia was placed in the dry column by over 30,000 majority; 23 counties out of 100 voted wet. The cities of Richmond, Norfolk, Alexandria and Williamsburg returned a majority for local option, the total vote of the cities was 21,726 for and 19,669 against the proposition, a majority of 2,025 in favor of prohibition.

In the election the ballot used read as follows:

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

This proved to be very confusing to voters. It was a deceptive ballot and should have read:



The result of the election will cause the State to lose about $700,000 annually in revenues. Only manufacturers engaged in the production of wine and its by-products, cider, and beer of not over 32 per cent. of alcohol can manufacture in this State after November 1, 1916. The product will have to be shipped outside the State and into territory where its sale is legally authorized.

Washington: The vote in November was 169,497 for Prohibition and 157,029 against, a majority of 12,400 in favor of the Prohibitory Act.

Seattle went strongly wet and carried the county with it. Tacoma also carried its county for the wets, but while Spokane went wet by a small majority, Spokane County went dry, as did 32 of the 39 counties in the State.

The new Act will go into effect January 1, 1916. It is a drastic enactment. It forbids the manufacture and sale of liquor, even by clubs; forbids the soliciting of orders and advertisement of liquors, and the making of false statements for the purpose of obtaining the same; provides for the search for and seizure and destruction thereof; and fixes penalties for violations. Druggists are permitted to sell alcoholic beverages on prescription under rigid. regulation; and individuals can obtain liquors for their personal use (in quantities not exceeding one-half gallon of intoxicating liquors. other than beer or 12 quarts or 24 pints of beer at one time) by complying with certain regulations.

West Virginia:-The State Commission of Prohibition has ruled. that express companies, organized solely for the purpose of operating between West Virginia and Ohio towns in handling alcoholic beverages, are entitled to all the privileges of any other common carrier as long as they live up to the law. They may carry shipments of liquor into the State so long as they do not refuse to carry other goods.

The State authorities have declared that Bevo and White Ribbon Brew, two alleged temperance drinks, must not be sold in the State as they can produce intoxication.

The Governor has announced that there is a shortage of over $66,000 in the State treasury and, unless new resources are created, the deficit will be over $1,250,000 by the end of the year.

Wisconsin:-Final decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin on the Baker law has considerably disturbed the trade in this State during the past year. This law was passed in 1907 and limited the number of saloons to one to each 250 inhabitants.

It further provided, however, that in localities where this ratio was exceeded at the time of the initiation of the law that the privilege should be given to those locations and persons who were in business at that time, until through the retirement of licensee or change of business by these locations, the number should be reduced to the prescribed ratio. Many retailers, under a mistaken interpretation of the law, opened stands which are now, by the ruling of the highest court, declared illegal.

Since the decision of the Supreme Court, the Wisconsin Brewers' Association has taken a firm stand for the observance of the law, which cannot fail to have a beneficial effect upon the standing and bearing of the industry before the public. Over two hundred saloons were closed because of this ruling in the city of Milwaukee alone.


Wet and dry elections were held in 141 cities, villages and towns in the State in April, and there was little change in the result. Desperate efforts were made to carry Madison, the State Capital, into the dry column, but they were checked by a small margin. Beloit and Janesville went strongly for license.

Other towns and cities voting for license were: Alma Center,

Bay City, Boyceville, Chilton, Cobb, Clinton, Cornell, Darlington, DeSoto, Downing, Edgerton, Fox Lake, Galesville, Iron River, Linden, Maiden Rock, Manawa, Manston, Menominee, Oostburg, Palmyra, Purple Lake, Reedsburg, Rice Lake, Ridgeway, River Falls, Shawano, Sparta, Stanley, Trempealeau Waupun, Westcott and Whitewater.

Canada: The two provincial general elections which have been held, one in Ontario and the other in Manitoba, in which the question of the abolishment of the bar figured, have not resulted in favor of the prohibitionists.

In Ontario the issue was fought out almost entirely upon the question of the abolition of the bar, the Liberals having pledged themselves in favor of abolition, while the Government adhered to its local option record. After a campaign which was notable for the number of ministers who took part in it as partisans of the Liberal party, the result was the defeat of the Liberals by an overwhelming majority. If the history of the liquor licensing legislation in Ontario since 1906 is reviewed, there will be found a lengthy list of measures which restrict the trade, and even in this election the issue was not temperance versus the licensed trade, but one temperance policy against another. Naturally enough members of the trade supported the policy which was the least unfavorable of the two, conscious all the time that their action would not be regarded as entitling them to immunity from further restriction. The local option policy has decreased the number of licensed places in Ontario without decreasing crime and disorder; while the most serious inconvenience that it causes business interests is the extinction of good hotels in dry districts, where it is almost impossible for the commercial or pleasure traveller to secure proper accommodations.

In Manitoba the issue was not put so fairly and straightforwardly before the people. The temperance question was only one item in a long programme with which the Liberals essayed to gain votes. As far as the abolition of the bar was concerned, after a great deal of negotiation, and no little quibbling, the Liberal party in Manitoba undertook, if returned to power, to submit the question of the continuance of the licensed bar in the Province to a vote of the people. What was to be done afterwards was left in a discreetly vague position. The reduction in the Government vote is in no sense

a temperance victory; it was due to other causes altogether, although the temperance organizations will likely hail the result as a moral victory for their cause.

As far as the Dominion is concerned, the progress of antiliquor legislation is not making any headway, and one has only to look at Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to find ample corroboration of this assertion.

Quebec investigated the whole matter of the sale of liquor, and has enacted legislation of a character which tacitly admits the impossibility of prohibition, and the Royal License Commission, in its report, directly asserted that impossibility. Ontario has turned down a "Banish-the-Bar" proposal, and Manitoba has done likewise. There seems to be in the Dominion a preference for "tapering-off" by means of local option, instead of "swearing-off" by the artificial and impracticable method of prohibition. For, it is not liquor which the temperance advocates are fighting against, but the sale and the sellers of liquor. The temperance people declaim against the use of liquor, but the net result of the conversion of their propaganda into a legislative enactment is simply to change the method of sale from a lawful to an unlawful vendor. We would point to the Maritime Provinces for proof of this statement. Liquor remains, it is sold, drunkenness and other abuses increase, all under the operation of this so-called reform legislation. Compare wet Saskatchewan with dry Nova Scotia. Taking the figures for drunkenness as given in the Criminal Statistics of Canada for the years 1908 to 1912, the following results are apparent:

[blocks in formation]

Nova Scotia with only one licensed centre, namely, Halifax, had 50 per cent. more convictions for drunkenness than Saskatchewan in 1912. The convictions per head of population in that year were: Nova Scotia, 7.38; Saskatchewan, 4.56.

Two other comparisons from the same report are:

« PreviousContinue »