Election. The Town of Beverly voted "wet" in the first initiative and referendum election on the excise issue held under the commission form of government in a New Jersey municipality. The “wets” had a majority of 41 in a total of 551 votes. NEW YORK There is nothing startling to record about the events affecting the brewing industry of the State of New York for the previous year, unless it be the extraordinary action of the lower branch of the Legislature in stamping its disapproval upon prohibition and local option legislation and the manner in which the liquor traffic of the State was called upon to help the State in its financial difficulties. There was placed upon the statute book a law which made more definite and certain the provisions which operate for the punishment and suppression of gambling and disorderly acts in saloons and hotels. This measure was urged by and introduced at the request of the New York State Brewers' Ass ciation and is a further contribution by the brewers of the State toward the elimination of the objectionable and vicious practices which at times connect themselves with premises certificated for the sale of liquor. Otherwise no material changes were made in the laws. governing and regulating the liquor traffic or any of its branches in the State of New York. Most of the proposed changes in the Liquor Tax Law presented to the Legislature in many and different bills were unfavorable and inimical to the liquor traffic. Among them was the socalled Optional Local Prohibition Bill which provided that local option elections may be held in counties, cities, towns, villages or election districts. It was practically the same bill which was introduced in the last Legislature but which never was heard of after it was committed to the Committee on Excise. There was also a bill which provided for State-wide prohibition and one which provided for a referendum on the question of State-wide prohibition. Considerable attention was attracted to all three of these measures because of the agitation stirred up by the Anti-Saloon League and other prohibition forces. Hearings on them had large attendances and the discussions were lengthy and acrimonious. The Optional Local Prohibition Bill and the bill providing for a referendum on the question of prohibition were reported out of the Committee on Excise of the Assembly in the latter part of one week but were recommitted by the general body in the early part of the next week by a vote both prompt and emphatic and in a manner so as to leave no doubt that the legislative mind of the State of New York was by no means prepared to consider seriously either any extension of local option or prohibition direct or a referendum on the question. Another bill which aroused considerable interest and which met the same fate as the two just last mentioned was one which provided that it shall be unlawful to sell liquors in any city of the third class which contains a college or university supported by the State, and provided that it shall take effect only if ratified by the voters of the city at an election to be held therein. The bill was intended to apply only to the city of Ithaca, which is the home of Cornell College. It is to be noted that this is a rare but glaring attempt to provide for local option in a selected city of the State by special and class legislation. The most important bill enacted affecting the brewing interests of the State was the one which increased the fee for liquor tax certificates by twenty-five per cent for the Excise year commencing October 1st, 1915. While this increase on its face appears to work some hardship on the liquor traffic, there are several important factors connected with it which should not be overlooked. In the first place, the increase is declared to be a temporary expedient only, which was resorted to in order to help out the State in a financial stringency, and is to remain in effect for just one year, at the end of which time it abates by the operation of the act which imposes it. A procedure of this kind emphasizes the folly as well as the danger of enacting prohibition or local option laws when the condition of the State's finances is taken into consideration. The importance of the Liquor Tax Law as a revenueproducing measure has never been more clearly shown than at this session of the Legislature. Instead of taking steps to impractically limit the traffic in liquor, the Legislature has turned to the traffic as a means of increasing its revenue and has thereby placed an added stamp of legality and approval upon it. It is also significant that this increase of excise tax was openly and vigorously opposed by the Anti-Saloon League. The leaders of this organization immediately beheld in such legislation an acknowledgment of the dependence of the State upon the liquor traffic for revenue and the futility of attempts to abolish or encumber the traffic with unreasonable and unnecessary burdens so as to materially reduce or wipe out the revenue derived therefrom. At the expense of repetition this observation may be permitted on the increase of the liquor tax above referred to. The sur-tax was not imposed as a restrictive measure, but purely as one of taxation; and taxation involves the elemental factor of vested property rights which are assessed for contribution toward the expense of carrying on the government. When the State assumes this attitude towards a business, the public should hesitate before it asks that this source of revenue be abolished, and it ill becomes any one to advocate the extinction of the industry involved without compensation. While discussing the subject of revenue from the liquor traffic in the State of New York, it may not be amiss to stop and look back so as to become acquainted with the immense amount of money derived by the State from it and how the existing law has operated. "By their fruits ye shall know them." If this sentiment is to prevail in judging the results obtained from the Liquor Tax Law of New York, it should win unstinted approval and support. From the economic point of view its operation has been actually remarkable. The present law went into effect on March 23, 1896, and on May 1, 1896, the Department of Excise was ready for its work. Prior to the enactment of this law on March 23, 1896, the number of licensed drinking places in the State of New York was 33,257, or one to every 180 of the population. At the end of the license year for 1914 there were only 23,373 such places, or one to every 425 of the population, and in the City of New York the ratio was one to every 528. In 1896 the population of the State was six million, while in 1914 it had increased to ten million. During the two years ending September 30, 1914, the number of places had decreased by 1,018; but a larger falling off in the number of places will be shown by the reports for the coming license year because of increased license fee. The receipts from the liquor traffic of the entire State for the |