Page images

Clubs or societies are prohibited from giving away liquors in prohibited or local option territory.

It is made the especial duty of prosecuting attorneys of the county and the attorney of any village or the city solicitor of any city to prosecute violations of this act.

While the Rose law is more liberal than that of the local option law of Indiana, inasmuch as a larger percentage of the voters must sign a petition for an election, it does not give both sides to the question an equal opportunity to make majority rule felt. The county may by a large vote decide against prohibition for the entire county and yet practically all the territory may be brought under local prohibition through special elections held under the Jones act.


Although the State is under constitutional prohibition for twenty-one years dating from December, 1907, a dispensary law was passed in 1908 providing for the sale of liquors for medicinal, sacramental, scientific and industrial purposes, under which State agencies should be established for the purpose of carrying on such sales. The law established one agency in each incorporated town of 2,000 inhabitants, or one at some place in each county having no such town, sales to be made only upon prescription. Druggists were to be put under bond not to use liquors obtained from the agencies except for medicinal purposes and were limited as to the quantity of liquor they could have on hand at any one time. Local agents were forbidden to sell more than one "package" of spirituous liquors or more than three gallons of malt liquors to any one person in any one day.

This law has since been declared unconstitutional, but it is likely to be revived in some other form.


The so-called Byrd law became operative in March, 1908. It is an unusually elaborate and, in some respects, very stringent high license measure. Some of its more noteworthy features follow:

Ardent spirits are defined as any liquor containing 21 per cent. alcohol. Licenses are divided into five classes: (1) Wholesale; (2) retail; (3) malt liquor bar license; (4) sample liquor merchant's license; (5) social club license.

Of peculiar interest are the regulations in regard to club licenses as they are more circumstantial and restrictive than in any other State. No such license may be granted to any social club in any no-license or local option territory. The club applying for a license must furnish a list of the names of all the members and of its officers, together with their place of residence; must post and have published a notice of the application two weeks in advance, and must furnish a bond of $5,000 approved by the court, conditioned for the faithful compliance with the provisions of the law. In order to be licensed, a club must possess a clubhouse or club rooms (not less than four) which have been continuously open for the exclusive use of its members and their guests for a period of twelve months preceding the application. The club must furthermore be possessed of not less than thirty members all of whom shall be twenty-one years of age and who pay dues aggregating not less than eight dollars a year. It must also be shown that an initiation fee of not less than five dollars has been paid by all members, and that the club shall be actually managed by regularly appointed governors who, at the time of application, must be men of such character and standing that, in the opinion of the court, they are eligible for such privilege.

A druggist desiring to sell ardent spirits must take out a retail liquor dealer's license, unless he confines himself to the sale of liquors used in the preparation of medicine.

Licenses for the sale of spirits are granted only as follows: (a) within towns of five hundred inhabitants or more; (b) to hotels and clubs; (c) in a community contiguous to a city having adequate police protection and a population of at least five hundred within a radius of one-half mile of the place where the business is to be conducted; (d) in incorporated cities.

Licenses are granted by the circuit or corporation court of the county or city where they are to be exercised, except that of a sample liquor merchant, which shall be obtained from any circuit, corporation or hustings court and carries with it the privilege of doing business anywhere in the State. The license fee of a sample liquor

merchant is five hundred dollars. For every agent or salesman employed to sell as a sample liquor merchant a fee of five hundred dollars must be paid. Other license fees are for wholesale of spirits, $450; for wholesale of malt liquors only, $150; malt liquor bar license, $200; ardent spirits license at retail, $450. If the latter is

exercised in a hotel there is an additional fee of one dollar for each room available for guests.

A brewer's license costs $150 and entitles him to sell his product in quantities of two dozen pints or more at any place within the State except when his manufactory is situated in a no-license territory, in which case sale and delivery shall be made at the place of manufacture.

No one, including clubs, may sell liquor on Sunday or Christmas day to minors, students, habitual drunkards, etc., nor at stated times on election days.

To drink intoxicating liquors of any kind on a passenger train (except in buffet, dining room and Pullman cars), except by special permission obtained from the conductor, is made a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of fifteen dollars.

Special provision is made for the manufacture and sale of "malt beverage," which is defined as a non-intoxicating product of a brewery, containing not more than 21 per cent. of alcohol. Only a person holding a manufacturer's malt liquor license may manufacture "malt beverage" and must pay for the privilege an additional license tax of $250 and give a bond of $10,000. "Malt beverage" may only be sold by the manufacturer direct to the consumer (not to be drunk on the premises) in quantities of not less than one-half dozen bottles. Pure apple cider is not subject to the provisions of the act.

[ocr errors]

Throughout the act a license is designated as a "privilege.' There is implied intention that the licensing authorities (the courts) shall be governed in granting a "privilege "by what they consider may best conduce to the welfare of the community.

[blocks in formation]

Brief mention is made below of some of the minor legislation passed or defeated, affecting various States.

Kentucky: A pure food law was passed identical with the federal, except that it does not exempt the retailers selling unattested packages under the manufacturer's registered guaranty.

The charter of second class cities was so amended that the city council may impose a retail license not exceeding $500.

An act was passed making it unlawful for distillers to sell on their premises except to wholesale dealers and licensed retailers. The act prevents the operation of small stills carried on in prohibition districts solely for the purpose of supplying the local trade through a jug and bottle business.

The "county unit bill," providing for local option by counties was passed in the House, but did not reach the Senate.

Maryland: Bills were passed granting three counties local option. The general local option law introduced was defeated. For Baltimore the retail license fees were increased from $250 to $500; in 1909 they are to be $750 and thereafter $1,000. Clubs must pay similar rates.

Massachusetts: Of the multitude of bills attempted the only one passed was of minor importance. It gives the licensing boards in Boston authority to suspend a license during a stated period for an infraction of the law. Previously there was no option in such cases and the license had to be revoked.

The so-called district option bill, which would divide Boston into eight districts, giving each the right to vote separately on the license question, was again defeated.

New Jersey: A bill was passed for the appointment of a State commission to investigate the whole excise question and report to the next Legislature. Another law enacted imposes a license of $100 on all peddlers of bottled goods. The proposed local option law was defeated.

Ohio: Five laws were passed: (1) prohibiting the use of intoxicants while on board an engine or car; (2) providing for local option (see preceding pages); (3) to prevent pocketing of saloons in residential districts by having in such districts an insufficient number of voters to affect a remonstrance; (4) making a second offense against liquor laws punishable by a fine and abatement of the place of sale as a nuisance, or requiring the offender to give a bond of $1,000 for good behavior; (5) supplementing the search and seizure law as to petitions in error, making C. O. D. shipments as of the place of destination, where goods are delivered or money paid, and forbidding clubs in no-license districts from furnishing liquors.

West Virginia: The Legislature refused to consider a general local option law.

Proposed Congressional Legislation: During the first session of the Sixtieth Congress, which convened in December, 1907, there were offered by fifty-three different members, representing twentysix States and one Territory, no less than seventy-nine bills affecting the liquor traffic in the same way. At the session of 1907-8 none of these bills were passed. How many will be revived remains to be seen.

A complete list of these bills would not be worth while as many of them aim at the same thing. Some of the most important are given below. It will be observed that most of the bills were introduced by men from the South and that their object is to secure prohibition or to make it effective.

H. R. 32. By MR. WALLACE, Arkansas:

"To regulate the transportation of intoxicating liquors from one State to another as interstate commerce and for other purposes."

H. R. 40. By MR. CANDLER, Mississippi:

"To prevent the sale of vinous, spirituous, malt or intoxicating liquors in the District of Columbia."

H. R. 81. By MR. BARTLETT, Georgia:

"Prohibiting the issuance to, or the payment of taxes by wholesale or retail liquor dealers in any State, county or municipality where, by the laws of such State, county or municipality, the sale of foreign or domestic distilled spirits or wines is prohibited.” H. R. 103. By MR. WILLIAMS, Mississippi:

"That all persons are prohibited from importing into the United States from any foreign country and from transporting into one State from another State * * * any spirituous, malt, or vinous liquors forbidden by the laws or police regulations of that State to be sold therein, or prohibited by law to be sold in the county or municipality to which they are transported, when said spirituous, vinous or malt liquors so transported into such State, county or city are carried C. O. D. or in a manner so that the carrier thereof is charged with the duty of collecting money in payment for the same or doing any other act as agent for the seller necessary to complete or perfect the sale."

H. R. 192. By MR. MACON, Georgia:

"To prohibit the collection of a revenue tax, or the granting of other authority permitting or authorizing the sale or giving away

« PreviousContinue »