last year under the old law were $2,921,268.62, while the receipts for the first license year ending September 30, 1897, under the present law, amounted to $12,268,341.14, and the receipts for the year ending September 30, 1914, from liquor tax certificates, penalties, etc., were $18,109,260.61; and this notwithstanding the great reduction in the number of places between 1896 and 1914. It cost the State $252,782.77 to collect less than three million dollars under the old law, whereas only $422,979.04 were required to collect considerably over eighteen million dollars under the existing law. The total revenue derived by the State directly from the liquor traffic for the period commencing May 1, 1896, and ending September 30, 1914, was $294,645,789. During this time the total expenses of the Department were $6,134,442.30, leaving a balance to the credit of the State and out of which much of its work was carried on, of $288,934,325.74. Not content with charging this traffic over eighteen million dollars a year directly for the privilege of doing business, it is now ordained that there shall be added to this sum approximately $4,527,315.15, which will make a total of $22,636,575.76 that the State hopes to realize from the liquor traffic during the fiscal year ending September 30, 1916.

A reference to the Constitutional Convention which was held in the State of New York this year cannot properly be omitted in an adequate consideration of the measures that might affect the brewing industry. This body assembles in the State of New York once in every twenty years for the purpose of amending, changing and modifying the fundamental law of the State so as to adapt it to such changes as may have been wrought by time in the affairs of its people and make it a handy vehicle of government for conditions as they are found to exist. Notwithstanding that over seven hundred proposed changes have been introduced in and considered by this body, not one of them places any restriction of any kind or nature upon the traffic in liquors nor is any change suggested in the present statutory law regulating the same. This is significant in the light of the fact that in most States where changes in their constitutions have been considered, an attempt has generally been made to write into the constitution some clause which provided for either prohibition or local option. The absence of any consideration of the question of prohibition or local option by the Constitutional

Convention held in the State of New York this year leads reasonably, if not unavoidably, to the conclusion that the people of the State are by no means prepared to substitute either prohibition or local option for the present law which provides for the regulation and restriction of the traffic in liquors by the State through an elaborate, well organized and practically constituted State Department. The regulatory law of the State stands out as preeminently satisfactory when a contrast is drawn between the considerations by which it is attacked and those by which it is defended.

Local Option elections in the State of New York are confined entirely to the rural sections of the State. These sections vote under a township unit, the township frequently containing several small villages. At such elections four propositions are submitted to the electors, namely:

No. 1-To determine whether liquor should be sold to be drunk on the premises. (Saloon.)

No. 2-Liquor to be sold but not to be drunk on the premises; that is, bottle license only.

No. 3-The Pharmacist's or Druggist's License.

No. 4-Selling Liquor in connection with keeping a hotel. The results of local option elections in 1915 show few changes. Several "dry" towns returned to the license column and a number of license towns voted for no-license. In the majority of cases where license towns went "dry" the result was not due to any increase in prohibition sentiment but was brought about by local conditions.

The most notable achievement of the prohibitionists was that in Tioga County where the Towns of Waverly and Owego went over to the "dry" column by substantial majorities. Tioga County is now entirely "dry."

In St. Lawrence County, where more than a score of towns voted, the no-license forces made slight gains.

Cayuga County remained unchanged.

Livingston County returns showed an increase of one license.

town.

Chenango County remained unchanged and the no-license forces gained one town in Franklin County.

There are 933 townships in the State of New York and at the

present time about 385 of these have full license, 142 partial license and about 40 no-license.

NORTH DAKOTA

There is very little to report in respect to North Dakota. The Legislature passed several Acts, one defining what shall constitute the crime of bootlegging. By the Act in question, Chapter 194, any person who shall sell or barter intoxicating liquors upon his premises or place, public or private, within the State of North Dakota, which is owned, kept, maintained or controlled by him or who shall act directly or indirectly, with or without compensation, as the agent of another in connection with the purchase or sale of intoxicating liquor, or who shall solicit or receive from any person any order for intoxicating liquor, either for delivery from without or within the State, shall be guilty of the crime of bootlegging.

Another bill, Chapter 196, prohibits the receiving or receipting for intoxicating liquors under any fictitious name or appellation.

The most important action to be reported in North Dakota, is the action brought by the Attorney General against a number of railroads, which seek to enjoin a common carrier from receiving without the State any intoxicating liquors unless the carrier is satisfied that the shipments in question are not intended for any purpose which is in violation of the law of the State of North Dakota.

ΟΗΙΟ

On January 26, 1915, the Supreme Court of Ohio unanimously upheld the validity of the Home Rule Amendment.

The Home Rule Amendment, so called because it gave to each township and each municipality in Ohio freedom to be "wet" or "dry" by its own vote, was designed as a remedy for the eternal liquor question. Under it the predominant sentiment of the local community, whether "wet" or "dry," has full and free play to decide its own (home rule) course, without interference from any outside source, be that source the rest of the county or the rest of the State.

The McDermott Act, providing for the district plan of decentralizing the liquor license system, passed both Houses, preceded by