cohol," has been fixed by that bureau. However, the bureau is willing to treat as negligible minute amounts of alcohol which are of occasional and not constant occurrence, and is not inclined to take the position that the word "beer" is properly applicable to a malt beverage which contains at most only traces of alcohol.

The Attorney-General of the State of Arizona has decided that a carload of "near beer" consigned to an Arizona firm would not be admitted. "The prohibition amendment expressly forbids the importation of brews of any kind," said the Attorney-General. "No brewery product can be admitted to this State, even if it contains no alcohol at all. Also the sale of products labeled 'hop ale,' 'Hop Cheer' and similar beverages which are manufactured in the State, must cease." The committee is advised that very satisfactory results are being obtained under the operation of the "near beer" law in the State of Louisiana.

STATE LEGISLATION

A recent act of the Alabama Legislature forbids liquor advertising upon any street or railroad car or any public place or resort nor may any advertisement contain a picture of a brewery or bottles, kegs, barrels, etc., represented as containing beer or any prohibited liquors. The law prevents newspapers and magazines that print liquor advertisements from coming into the State.

A new Colorado law requires packages containing liquor to be marked conspicuously, "This package contains intoxicating liquor.'

A law has been enacted in Wisconsin providing for reasonable tolerances on barrels containing fermented liquors, the barrel must contain thirty-one gallons, such tolerances to be prescribed by the State Superintendent of Weights and Measures.

An amendment to the Yost Prohibition Law of West Virginia provides that no more than half a gallon of liquor can be brought into the State by one person, unless the quantity and quality are marked in large black letters on the package.

A new Michigan law requires an affidavit of the consignee giving his age, etc., for shipments into dry territory and another law prohibits reference to any deceased ex-president of the United States in advertisements.

CHARGING FOR BOTTLES

In the report of this committee submitted at Atlantic City reference was made to the advisability of the adoption by all of our members of a system of charging for bottles, both to the middleman and the consumer, and the adoption of uniform bottles, plain and interchangeable.

This practice has been developing in some sections of the country and its results are so beneficial that the committee feels that it is its duty to present to our members some figures it has obtained, relative to the saving which can be effected thereby, in the hope that the members may be so impressed that the system will be generally adopted.

Some of the most striking figures that have come into the possession of your committee were furnished by a Massachusetts company which adopted the method of charging for bottles, only a few years ago.

These figures, running over a period of years, offer a comparison of years during which the company did not charge and the years during which charges were made.

In the year 1910 the company referred to bottled 30,530 barrels and purchased 1,163,952 bottles or 38.125 bottles per barrel. In the year 1914 that company bottled 31,025 barrels and purchased only 429,696 bottles, or 13.85 bottles per barrel.

At the rate of $3.00 per gross this shows a saving of $15,297 for the year, which amounts to about fifty cents per barrel on all the beer bottled by that company for the year.

We have figures for another Massachusetts brewery which is charging for its bottles, showing the average number of bottles per barrel purchased for the years 1912, 1913 and 1914 to be 18, 26 and 23, while during the same years an eastern brewery that was not charging for bottles showed purchases of 54, 60 and 56 bottles per barrel for the years mentioned.

We are advised by the Bottling Brewers' Protective Association of New York and Brooklyn that the result of the deposit system adopted by that organization February 1, 1915, has been most satisfactory, the number of bottles received through the Association from the public dumps being materially reduced.

Comparative figures show that the number of bottles received in the exchange the first eight months the deposit system was in operation was reduced fifty-six per cent from the figures of the corresponding eight months of the previous year.

The figures for August and September, 1915, compared with the corresponding months of 1914, show a reduction of sixty-eight per cent. These results are so satisfactory and the possible saving is so enormous, that the Advisory Committee urges upon the members the adoption of the use of plain unlettered bottles and of the system of charging therefor.

On behalf of the Advisory Committee: JAMES R. NICHOLSON, Chairman

GUSTAV W. LEMBECK

WILLIAM HOFFMANN

LOUIS B. SCHRAM

N. W. KENDALL

HUGH F. FOX, Secretary

REPORT OF VIGILANCE COMMITTEE

PROHIBITION AND PUBLIC FINANCES

One of the most alluring promises held out by the prohibitionists in general and the Anti-Saloon League in particular was that the adoption of prohibition would both immediately and progressively reduce taxation and hence very materially lighten the burdens of the taxpayer. This prospect was based largely upon the assertion reiterated by prohibitionists that the revenue from liquor licenses was much more than offset by the expenditures necessary to provide for police, courts, charities and correctional institutions, much of the work of which (so the prohibitionists claimed) came from crime and poverty caused by saloons. What foundation they had for this assertion the prohibitionists never have been able adequately to explain, but still, despite entirely contrary results shown by Government, State and private investigations, they have persisted in repeating it.

In the first place, it is worthy of note that after more than half a century of prohibition the State of Maine has an abnormally high number of paupers. The 1914 Statistical Abstract of the United States, published by the Department of Commerce, states that in 1910 the percentage of paupers in Maine per 100,000 popu