The vote on the Bill, to allow the manufacture and sale of beer, Pennsylvania.-The Supreme Court ruled that the offering of Premiums for the return of caps, stoppers, corks, stamps or labels was illegal. In Pennsylvania Liquor Licenses are granted only by the Court of Quarter Sessions in the county where the petition for license is made. In Crawford county 37 retail licenses were issued but all wholesale licenses were refused. In Lawrence county, which had been dry for five years, 23 licenses were issued. New Castle in this county had been dry for six years. In Tioga county, "dry" one year, 12 licenses were granted. In Jefferson county all licenses were refused, no reason being given. In Venango county all licenses were refused for the third year. South Carolina.-The General Assembly passed a law, allowing any individual to obtain by transportation into the state each calendar month either two quarts of whiskey or five dozen pint bottles of beer. The Governor refused to sign this bill. His action leaves the limitation at one gallon spirituous, vinous, fermented or malted liquors every 30 days. The Supreme Court decided that Malt Tonic may be delivered under the new Prohibition Law, holding that liquor which will not intoxicate by immoderate use because one using it would become sick before he becomes intoxicated "is not an intoxicating liquor" forbidden to be delivered within the State by the Act of February 20, 1915. South Dakota.-The State voted in favor of Prohibition at the November election. Texas.-The Democratic Primary Election occurring in Texas July 22, 1916, indicated an indorsement of Governor Ferguson's stand against any further agitation for liquor legislation either Pro or Anti in the legislature. Governor Ferguson was nominated in 1914 on a platform promising to veto all liquor legislation; his majority at that time was 40,000. He defeated the Anti-Saloon League candidate in the 1916 primaries by a majority of 66,081. At the same election the question of National Prohibition was prominently before the people in the contest for Senator Culberson's seat in the United States Senate. Senator Culberson declared himself opposed to National Prohibition. He was opposed by three candidates favoring nation-wide prohibition and two candidates opposing it. The candidates favoring nation-wide prohibition polled 153,328 votes, those opposing nation-wide prohibition polled 240,178 votes, showing a majority of 86,850 against National Prohibition. The two highest candidates for this office were required to run a second race under the Texas laws, a majority being required to nominate, in which contest both candidates were opposed to nationwide prohibition. Senator Culberson was successful in the second primary. The question of submitting a State-wide prohibition amendment by the legislature to the people in 1917 was passed on by the voters in the Democratic Primary, the vote being for submission 176,926 and against submission 173,962. The law of Texas requires that such amendment must receive a majority of all the votes cast in the primary before it becomes binding upon the members of the legislature and submission received 30,047 votes less than a majority of those participating in the Primary. The Democratic State Convention, for this reason, voted down the effort of the Anti-Saloon League to make the submission of a constitutional amendment a Democratic platform demand upon the Legislature. LEGAL DECISIONS The court of civil appeals held that a contract whereby a brewery company agreed to give an individual the exclusive right to sell its beer was not violative, as a conspiracy in restraint of trade, of the Texas Anti-Trust Act. A brewery may compel sole sale of its beer by refusing to renew a lease. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that one was not guilty of violating the Local Option Law unless he sells an intoxicant or a liquor which, when taken in reasonable quantities, will intoxicate. ELECTIONS Counties or Precincts voting "wet": Calhoun county, Eagle Lake precinct, Basling county, Crosby precinct, Karnes county, Runge county, Tarrant county and Texas City precinct. Counties or Precincts voting "dry": Aransas county, Bee county, Pell county, Jim Wells county (in courts), Meces county, and San Patricio county. In a local option election in Tarrant county, September 2, 1916, prohibition was defeated by a large majority. The county vote outside of Fort Worth was about 1,400, of which about 800 stood in favor of prohibition and about 600 against. But the city of Fort Worth went wet, casting about 4,800 against prohibition to about 2,300 in favor. Utah. Both the Democratic and Republican platforms contain planks pledging the incoming Legislature to enact a State-wide prohibition law within six months from the time the legislature meets in January, 1917. Therefore it seems certain that such a law will become effective by July or August, 1917. There have been no important changes, because of local option elections held in the State, except that several small villages voted for license. Vermont.-Prohibition was defeated by a majority of 13,164 votes at an election held March 7th, 1916. The vote was on the question of re-enacting the prohibitory amendment which was first placed on statute books in 1852 and which was repealed in 1903 by a majority of 729. The 1916 election showed 18,503 votes for prohibition and 31,667 against prohibition. Dade county voted no license. Virginia.-By a vote of 85 to 5 the lower branch of the General Assembly, on March 4, passed the State-wide prohibition bill practically as it came from the Senate. The bill provides for the creation of a commissioner of prohibition whose duty will be to see that the law is enforced. The law was effective on November 1st. The bill was attacked because it did not carry out what the people voted for in the Enabling Act. An amendment to submit this bill to a vote of the people was defeated. One quart of liquor, one gallon of wine or three gallons of beer is the amount named in the bill that may be received by any person during one month. No liquor can be sold, stored, furnished, or given away in any club, apartment or other place. Jail terms, in addition to heavy fines, are the penalties for violations. Washington. Both Anti-prohibition amendments were defeated at the November elections. Amendment No. 18, provided for the selling of both beer and liquors by hotels. The complete vote was: Against Majority against the amendment 261,143 48,292 212,851 Amendment No. 24 provided for the manufacture of beer and sale direct from the brewery to the consumer. The complete vote West Virginia.-The Supreme Court declared constitutional that section of the liquor law which prohibits liquor dealers outside the State from advertising their goods in West Virginia by circular letters and order blanks. The Court of Appeals decided that common carriers may ship liquor into the State, provided the packages were properly labeled, or were the personal property, as baggage of travelers. The Court of Appeals held that it was not unlawful for a citizen to carry one-half gallon of intoxicating liquors without a statutory labels or more with such label along a highway to his home for personal use. Wisconsin.-The following municipalities voted license at the elections: Alma Center, Antizo, Ashland, Augusta, Baldwin, Bayfield, Beloit, Branden, Campbellport, Cedar Grove, Columbus, Driggsville, Ellsworth, Fairchild, Fairwater, Fox Lake, Glenwood, Hammond, Hancock, Independence, Lake Mills, Lima, Mondovi, Oastburg, Philips, Richford, Salem, Trempealeau, Turtle Lake, Wantoma, Westfield, and Whitewater. The following no license: Almond, Arlington, Boyceville, Brule, Clayton, Dalton, Downing, Emerald, Fall River, Galesville, Green Lake, Hudson, Kingston, Nebagamon, New Richmond, North Hudson, Omro, Pachwaukee, Pardeerville, Parklan, Plainfield, Randolph, River Falls, Superior, and Westfield. United States.-Attorneys general of 15 states on Feb. 23rd filed with the U. S. Supreme Court at Washington a joint argument to support the constitutionality of the West Virginia Liquor Law, prohibiting the receipt and possession of liquors for personal use and of the Federal Webb-Kenyon Act, prohibiting the shipping of liquors in volation of state laws. The Vice President as President of the United States Senate ruled against a "rider" amendment to the post office appropriation bill prohibiting the use of the mails to newspapers seeking to carry liquor advertisements from a wet to a dry State. Upon an appeal from the decision of the chair the Senate sustained the ruling. Respectfully submitted, WALTER A. CARL, Chairman. R. L. AUTREY. S. B. FOSTER. JOSEPH A. WEIBEL. |