Page images
PDF
EPUB

of foreign or domestic distilled spirits, intoxicating liquors, wines, or any compound thereof in any district or territory of any of the several States or Territories of the United States of America where the sale or giving away of such foreign or domestic distilled spirits, intoxicating liquors, wines, or any compound thereof are prohibited by the laws of said States or Territories, and for other purposes.

H. R. 297. By MR. HEPBURN, Iowa:

‘To limit the effect of the regulations of commerce between the several States and with foreign countries in certain cases."

H. R. 3,958. By MR. GARRETT, Tennessee:

“To forbid the licensing by the United States of any pursuit or business forbidden by State, Territorial or municipal laws."

H. R. 3,983. By MR. AIKEN, South Carolina:

“To limit the effect of the regulation of commerce between the several States and Territories, as to intoxicating liquors, etc.” H. J. Res. 37. By MR. ACHESON, Pennsylvania:

'That an additional tax of one dollar per barrel be imposed annually on each barrel of beer brewed in the United States, and that the amount realized from this additional tax be set aside by the Secretary of the Treasury as a fund for the improvement of the waterways of the country.” H. R. 4,779. By MR. LAMB, Virginia:

“To authorize citizens of the District of Columbia to vote on an excise law."

6

H. R. 4,859. By Mr. Acheson, Pennsylvania:

“To forbid interstate transportation of liquors.” H. R. 9,086. By MR. SIMS, Tennessee:

"To prohibit manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors in the District of Columbia.”

H. R. 10,483. By MR. CALE, Alaska:

“Amending Criminal Code of Alaska concerning the liquor traffic."

H. R. 10,486. By Mr. CLAYTON, Alabama:

. ‘To limit the effects of the regulation of commerce between the several States and with foreign countries in certain cases." (Liquor.) H. R. 11,301. By MR. PEARRE, Maryland:

To aid the States in the enforcement of their liquor laws.” H. R. 11,828. By MR. LAMAR, Missouri:

"To prohibit the United States from issuing a license authorizing manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors in States, etc., where prohibited, and to prohibit interstate carriers from bringing intoxicating liquors into such territory, etc." H. R. 11,830. By Mr. CLARK, Florida:

"To prevent express companies, etc., from delivering interstate shipments of intoxicating liquors to persons, etc., in any town, etc., where prohibited, etc.” H. R. 12,405. By MR. TIRRELL, Massachusetts:

"To prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors in buildings, ships, navy yards, parks and other premises owned or used by the United States Government." H. R. 13,656. By Mr. BowERS, Mississippi:

“To subject intoxicating liquors transported from one State into another, for delivery or sale to the laws and regulations of such latter State, and to prohibit the issuance of Federal licenses to sell same in prohibited localities." H. R. 13,658. By MR. HEFFIN, Alabama:

“To prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors in the new union railroad station in Washington, District of Columbia.” H. R. 15,116. By MR. ACHESON, Pennsylvania:

To forbid the transmission through the United States mail of any kind of newspaper, circular, pamphlet or publication containing any advertisement of any intoxicating liquors." H. R. 15,650. By Mr. Acheson, Pennsylvania:

"To prohibit the sale of intoxicating beverages in the Canal Zone."

H. R. 16,745. By MR. HUMPHREYS, Mississippi:

"To prevent payment of special tax on retail liquor dealers under assumed or fictitious name, etc.” H. R. 16,750. By Mr. De ARMOND, Missouri:

"To prohibit and prescribe the punishment for the shipping and carrying in interstate commerce, in certain cases, of intoxicating

*

liquors, etc., and to forbid and prescribe the punishment for issuing of and collecting or accepting any tax or fee for any authorization or permit to sell any such liquor in prohibition territory." H. J. Res. 143. By Mr. Acheson, Pennsylvania:

"Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the manufacture, sale and importation of intoxicating liquors, including beer, ale and wine,

shall be prohibited in the United States and territories, etc." H. R. 19,081. By MR. ACHESON, Pennsylvania:

“Providing that in the military service preference shall hereafter be given in promotions and in important details to total abstainers." H. R. 19,469. By Mr. BYRD, Mississippi:

"To subject to the laws of any State or Territory all intoxicating liquors shipped therein by railroads, express companies and steamship companies.” H. R. 19,539. MR. HUMPHREYS, Mississippi:

“To increase the tax on distilled spirits, beer and playing cards.” H. R. 20,313. By Mr. SMITH, Michigan:

‘Making drunkenness in the District of Columbia a misdemeanor, and to provide a hospital for inebriates and for other purposes.' H. R. 21,535. By Mr. De ARMOND, Missouri:

Concerning permits to sell intoxicating liquors." H. R. 21,558. By MR. CLARK, Florida:

"To prohibit the receipt of money in payment of special taxes as dealers in intoxicating liquors by internal revenue officials of the United States, except in certain cases, and to provide punishments for its violation.' H. R. 22,007. By MR. BENNETT, New York:

"Authorizing the appointment of a commission to collate information concerning the alcoholic liquor traffic and to consider and recommend any needful legislation in relation thereto."

a

SENATE BILLS.
S. 46. By MR. GALLINGER, New Hampshire:

“Providing that the Federal Government shall not grant liquortax receipts to persons residing in prohibition territory, State or local."

S. Res. 42. By Mr. Tillman, South Carolina:

"Instructing the Committee on the Judiciary to consider and report whether it is practicable for the National Government to discontinue the issuing of permits to retail dealers in States or counties and municipalities where local option prevails prohibiting the sale of liquors.'

[ocr errors]

S. Res. 55. By Mr. CLAY, Georgia:

“Instructing the Judiciary Committee to report, at the earliest convenient day, a bill providing that intoxicating liquors, etc., transported into any State or Territory, etc., shall upon arrival within the borders of the State, and before and after delivery to the consignee in such State, be subject to the laws of such State," etc., also "to consider and report whether Congress has the constitutional right to pass a bill prohibiting the transportation of liquors," etc.

S. 6,264. By MR. GALLINGER, New Hampshire:

“To regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors in the District of Columbia."

III.

RESULTS OF STATE ELECTIONS UPON FUTURE

LEGISLATION.

Two facts stand out prominently as the State elections of 1908 are reviewed: (1) The extent to which the liquor question was made a political issue; (2) the emphatic disapproval registered in many States against proposed restrictive measures, particularly against the introduction of county local option.

Never before in the history of the country has the liquor issue so generally gained prominence in State campaigns. Where the question of State-wide prohibition was not to the fore, the fight centered upon county local option for which there was a concerted movement along the whole line. This was not surprising. Signal victories for county local option had been won in Ohio and Indiana prior to the State elections. And county local option has been discovered as a convenient means of forcing upon municipalities by aid of a large rural vote a policy to which the municipalities are likely to be opposed. At no time have the forces arrayed against the liquor traffic conducted a campaign with greater vigor and with so lavish an expenditure of money. The hoped-for victories did not materialize, and in some places an emphatic protest was registered against restrictive legislation already enacted.

Below is a summary, by States, of some of the most notable results of the State elections:

Colorado: The liquor question was not an issue so far as the governorship was concerned, but a strong effort was made to elect a legislature favorable to county local option. A majority of the new legislature appear to be opposed to such a measure.

Florida: The State primaries held in June resulted adversely to State-wide prohibition. The mandate of the primaries was ratified at the State election, the governor and legislature chosen being opposed to prohibition.

Idaho: The majority of the legislature chosen are opposed to county local option, which was a prominent issue in the State election, but did not enter into the campaign for the office of governor.

Illinois: The question of county local option was made a leading question in the campaign for the legislature. It is estimated that 75% of the next legislature will be found opposed to county local option. The Prohibition party will have no representatives in the legislature, although they formerly had a few.

Indiana: A county local option law had been forced through at a special session of the legislature just prior to the State election. While the State gave a majority for the Republican Presidential nominee, the Republican candidate for governor was beaten by his Democratic opponent on account of the county local option law. Moreover, the next legislature has a Democratic majority as a result of a popular protest against the same law.

Maine: The question of the resubmission of the prohibition law dwarfed all other issues at the September election. National politics were lost sight of and party lines obliterated. Although the Republican governor was elected by a majority of 8,000 (the normal Republican majority is 30,000), the overturn was so decided that resubmission is certain to be the chief issue in the campaign of 1910. Although a nominal victory for prohibition, the result amounted to

« PreviousContinue »