people has discontinued its street sprinkling and garbage collection. It has dispensed with its health officer, city physician and milk inspector, extinguished half the city lights, cut the school session from nine to seven months, and reduced by ten per cent all teachers' salaries over $75 a month. It has withdrawn all appropriation to its library. It has dismissed a third of its police force and put the remainder on a twelve-hour shift. It has closed several fire stations. It has abolished its recreation department, with playgrounds and indoor gymnasium. It has stopped every cent of its appropriations to hospitals, children's homes and all charities. It has cut the appropriations for parks over two-thirds, and hereafter the assistant engineer will take the place of all foremen. It has reduced its building, plumbing and electrical inspection forces. It has curtailed its zoo, keeping only the fowls, because they are inexpensive to maintain. It has done away with its bureau of weights and measures. It has abolished its welfare department.

. . Altogether, the cuts total $340,000. It costs Birmingham $1,228,629 a year to operate, and only $896,556 is available for the coming twelve months."

LOUISIANA

In Louisiana, also, there is a deficit in the State's finances caused largely by the deprivation of revenue in parishes under prohibitory law. At a special session of the Louisiana Legislature held this year, statistics were compiled estimating the receipts and expenditures of the State government for the biennial period ending June 30, 1916. These estimates, compiled by experts on State finances, placed the deficit at the end of the next fiscal year at about $336,000. If the State had been receiving the revenue from liquor licenses in the supposed "dry" parishes, this deficit would not confront the State. It is an incontestable fact that although about onehalf of Louisiana is pictured by prohibitionists as being "dry," yet liquor has been and is being surreptitiously sold in those parishes in abundant quantities. This persistent contraband traffic causes a loss to the State treasury yearly of hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue. On the other hand, also, it has intensified crime and increased the cost of the operation of the state and county administration of the courts and jails. In such admittedly

serious financial straits is Louisiana that the Legislature recently passed a bill providing for the assembling of a Constitutional Convention, one of the chief purposes of which is to revise the present Constitution so as to enable the State of Louisiana to raise more

revenue.

MICHIGAN

Michigan is another State facing severe financial pressure because of the loss of revenue caused by prohibitory laws in many counties which were induced to vote out saloons. For the year ended June 30, 1915, there was a State deficit of $595,210.13. The State tax levy for 1915 is $9,507,090.51, representing an increase of almost 56 per cent over the tax levy of $6,129,000 last year. The current report of Michigan's State Treasurer shows that the State's expenditures last year exceeded its income by almost $1,000,000. While the Anti-Saloon League has been boasting of having placed a large number of Michigan's counties in the "dry" column, the reports of prosecuting attorneys for those counties show generally a great increase in criminal statistics, and large expenditures for the enforcement of the law against illegal liquor selling. The legalized selling of beer has been replaced by the illicit and indiscriminate sale of hard intoxicants, chiefly whiskey of a low grade.

WASHINGTON STATE

In the State of Washington the manufacture and sale of all malt and spirituous liquors is to be prohibited after January 1, 1916, but the law allows any person of legal age to have shipped in from outside the State two quarts of spirituous liquors or twelve quarts of beer or other malt liquors every twenty days. This prohibitory law will directly and instantly cut off $1,538,803.57 hitherto paid by the brewers and liquor dealers in state and municipal licenses, taxes on plants and personal taxes. Indirectly, it will cause a loss. of other millions in wages, in vacant and depreciated real estate, in agricultural products and in other values. The prohibitory law will, including all sources, close out an annual sum of more than $14,000,000 hitherto paid out in revenue or otherwise distributed in that State.

In view of this inevitable prospect, town and city councils and state and county officials of the State of Washington are generally worried over the pressing matter of taxes. No one has yet presented a plan of how to solve the matter of raising the additional taxes to make up for the great impending loss of revenue. In King County, Sheriff Hodge, in anticipation of the extra expense needed to enforce the prohibition law, has asked for $145,498 for next year's needs, making an increase of $73,498 in excess of the 1915 requirements for King County. More than forty other sheriffs and as many prosecutors have been making similar requests for increases. Recently Governor Lister asked for a State appropriation of $50,000 for the same purpose of enforcing the prohibitory law. Side by side with the financial conditions confronting them, officials have to face the additional fact that much property has already greatly depreciated in value and that of the 41,500 employes thrown out of jobs by the prohibitory law, the bulk will remain to swell the ranks of the unemployed.

The foregoing are some examples of States in which prohibitory laws have disjointed public finances without at the same time either preventing the illegal widespread consumption of liquor or of effecting the remotest approach to an adequate plan to recoup in other ways the loss of license revenue. If in States where they have had their own dominant way the prohibitionists have failed so signally to make good, both morally and financially, what reason has any intelligent person to doubt that in reaching out for national prohibition, they would fail even more ignominiously? National prohibition would entail a positive deficit of $250,000,000. To make up for this colossal loss in revenue the prohibitionists have nothing to present but the same airy promises which every time they have been tested by experience have proved disastrous to the communities misled into believing them.

Following is a review of legislative events and matters concerning our interests generally in the different States:

ALABAMA

Alabama became a prohibition state July 1st by statutory enactment. Both houses of the Legislature, after Governor Henderson

had vetoed the bills and asked that the prohibition question be submitted to the voters at a special election, voted down his proposal and repassed the bills.

The prohibition measures re-enact the prohibition law repealed in 1911 after it had been in force two years. Under the 1911 Local Option Law, eight counties were "wet." These included the large centers of population.

An Anti-Advertising Bill was passed. In brief, this bill prohibits the advertising in State or foreign newspapers, periodicals, magazines, on sign or billboards, or in any way, of spirituous, vinous or malt liquors and prescribes the penalty to be imposed upon newsdealers for placing on sale foreign newspapers, magazines, etc., containing such advertisements.

An Anti-Shipping Bill was also passed at the January, 1915, session, which was amended at an adjourned session and approved by the Governor on September 25th, 1915. The bill provides that only two quarts of spirituous or five gallons of malt liquors can be delivered or received at any time, but only one of either kind of the liquors can be delivered or received within a period of 15 days; deliveries can only be made between the hours of 6:00 A. M. and 5:00 P. M. every day, Sunday excepted.

The Anti-Advertising Liquor Law was declared valid by the Supreme Court in the case of State v. Delaye, 68 So. 993.

ARIZONA

Following the adoption of the Prohibition Amendment at the election of November, 1914, a bill in equity was filed in the Federal Court for the District of Arizona, praying for an injunction restraining the putting of the amendment into effect, on January 1st, 1915. The points given in the petition, being in the main to the effect that its operation would be a violation of the Federal laws permitting the carrying on of Interstate Commerce; that it would interfere with the health of residents of the State, inasmuch as it prohibited the sale of health-giving proprietaries; further, that it interfered with the personal rights of citizens of the United States, in that it restricted what they might drink. A hearing of the petition was held at Los Angeles before three Federal Judges,

but the injunction prayed for was denied, the Court in a statement intimating that as the matter was now before the State courts, the Federal tribunal would follow their rule of not acting upon the matter until the Court of Last Resort in the State had acted.

The Amendment which had been voted in November then became effective and operative January 1st, 1915, and for the purpose of making a test Louis Gherna at Tucson, Arizona, made a sale of liquor and was at once arrested and tried in the Superior Court of Pima County, and found guilty of violation, and sentenced to imprisonment. Other violations of the law were made in other counties of the State and in every instance the County Court held the law to be effective and sentences were imposed.

The action before the Federal Court was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

In January, 1915, the Arizona Legislature convened, and on the initial day a Bill was introduced in the State Senate by Senator Drachman of Pima County, and in the House of Representatives a duplicate of this Bill was introduced by Representative Powers, providing for the regulation of the sales of liquor. The Bill as prepared and introduced contained all of the drastic features of the Kansas and Wisconsin State Statutes, and in addition thereto a number of innovations were proposed; it provided that liquor wherever found in Arizona, could be, and must be, destroyed by the County Sheriff or his order; it provided that where the County Attorney failed to prosecute sales of liquor illegally made, the Attorney General must appoint a deputy for the prosecution of such violation. It made the landlord guilty with his tenant, where tenant was convicted of illegal sale. The drastic features of these bills worked their defeat, and both were indefinitely postponed; subsequently a Bill was proposed (S B No. 72), which permitted the importation of alcohol into the State for certain purposes, and which made exempt from prosecution sales of alcohol for medicinal, scientific and religious purposes. In this Bill representatives of the Proprietary Association secured the incorporation of an Amendment which would permit of unrestricted sale of proprietary medicine. The Amendment was so objectionable to House leaders that the Bill