Résumé of License Vote in Massachusetts, 1915 Total vote for license in Massachusetts, 203,275, a decrease of 13,082. Total vote for no-license, 220,572, an increase of 6,717. Majority for no-license, 17,297, an increase of 15,553. City vote for license, 144,155, a decrease of 12,933 in the State. Town vote for license, 59,129, an increase of 140. No-license, 17. Total license, 90. Total no-license, 263. Net gain this year for no-license of one city and two towns. Changed to no-license: Athol, Clinton, Colrain, Falmouth, Lee, Maynard, Natick, Norfolk, Northampton, Oxford and Shelburne. Changed to license: Enfield, Leominster, Milford, Monroe, Oak Bluffs, Pepperell, Salisbury, Savoy and Warren. Licensing Authorities The Boston Licensing Board has, during the past year, exerted its energies to enforce mandates against the treating by licensees of their patrons, and to bring about an improvement of conditions in places which serve liquor to women. Many conferences were held between representatives of the local liquor dealers' organization and the Board, and a remarkable spirit of good will was manifested on both sides. Recently the Board suspended four licensees for two weeks for violation of the anti-treating regulation. It has plainly indicated that certain licenses may be revoked next May unless conditions are improved. The Board on May 1, 1915, issued a circular to Holders of Liquor Licenses requesting that— "Wherever in a room that is in use by any innholder or first-class victualler chiefly for the sale of liquor, women patrons are allowed, no men patrons unaccompanied by women shall be permitted to enter or remain." ΜΟΝΤΑΝΑ When the 14th General Assembly convened in January, 1915, the prohibitionists were out in full force, prepared to put through a bill submitting to the voters of the state the question of state-wide prohibition. The bill as put forth by the prohibitionists would have allowed the shipment of vast quantities of liquor into the state for personal use, and this was fought so successfully by the wet forces of the state that a referendum, for or against state-wide prohibition, was finally passed by both houses, to be voted on in November, 1916. The brewers of the state felt that some changes should be made in the laws regarding the conduct of the business in general, and they were mainly responsible for the Legislature passing bills regarding the granting of licenses, early closing and Sunday closing. The License Bill provides that not more than one license shall be granted to every five hundred inhabitants; that licenses shall not be granted in villages of less than fifty bona-fide residents, except in hotels of twenty or more sleeping rooms; that licenses may be suspended upon a second conviction for a penal offense against the laws of the State of Montana; and upon a third conviction no further license may be obtained. The Early Closing Law provides that no liquor may be sold in any incorporated city, town or village from twelve midnight to eight o'clock in the morning and also provides penalties. The Sunday Closing Law provides that saloons shall remain closed from Saturday midnight to one P.M. Sunday and fixes penalties; and that outside of the incorporated towns the saloons must close at ten o'clock Saturday night, opening at one P.M. on Sunday. On October 13, in an election in Richland County, 1,231 votes were cast for prohibition, and 540 against prohibition. Outside of the Indian reservations, Richland County is the only "dry" spot in the State of Montana. NEW MEXICO Three state-wide prohibition measures were introduced in the Legislature of 1915, but none of them got beyond the Committees to which it had been referred. Senate Joint Resolution No. 3 called for the submission of the question at the general election in 1916; Senate Joint Resolution No. 10 called for submission at a special election in November, 1915; a House resolution was the duplicate of Senate No. 3. Election Results Willard and Progresso (Precinct No. 6, Torrance County), February 4, 1915-"dry" 67, "wet" 43. Pinos Wells (Precinct No. 11, Torrance County), June 6, 1915"dry" 16, "wet" 48. Santa Fe, June 7, 1915-"wet" by majority of 139. Punta (Precinct No. 5, Torrance County), June 16, 1915—“dry” 15, "wet" 15. No further action taken. Manzano (Precinct No. 3, Torrance County)—"wet" 69, "dry" 53. Mora, August 3, 1915-"wet" 95, "dry" 5. La Cueva, August 17, 1915-"wet" 45, "dry" 44. Elections also took place at Springer and Maxwell, Colfax County, both of which went "wet"; at Romah, McKinley County, which went "dry"; at Mantayo and Logan, Quay County, both "wet," and at Capitan, Lincoln County, which also went "wet." NORTH CAROLINA Legislation The Legislature passed two new laws relating to the industry. One, Chapter 91, forbids the manufacture and sale of malt, requires transportation companies to keep a record of all shipments of such malt, and provides for penalties. The other, Chapter 97, restricts the receipt and use of intoxicating liquors. The Act limits the amount allowed to a person to one quart of spirituous or vinous liquors, or five gallons of malt liquors, every fifteen days. The words "malt liquors" include only such malt liquors as contain not more than five per centum of alcohol, and any malt liquors containing more than five per centum of alcohol shall be held to be "spirituous liquors." Fictitious names are forbidden; and no malt liquors may be served with meals where a charge is made for such meal or service. The Act further provides that no druggist or pharmacist may sell liquors. The Act does not forbid the use of grain alcohol in medicine, but a permit must be obtained in order to receive such shipments. A violation of any of the provisions of this Act constitutes a misdemeanor. Respectfully submitted, WALTER A. CARL, Chairman SPENCER H. OVER R. L. AUTREY A. S. LYONS E. S. CLAUSS HUGH F. Fox, Secretary REPORT OF THE LABOR COMMITTEE The Labor Bureau, under direction of the Labor Committee, during the twelve months since the Fifty-fourth Annual Convention, has rendered assistance to members and non-members in the following cities: Salt Lake City and Ogden, Utah; Kansas City, Mo.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Fort Wayne, Terre Haute and Vincennes, Ind.; Jacksonville and Tampa, Fla.; Savannah, Ga.; Alexandria, Va.; Philadelphia and Reading, Pa.; Washington, D. C. ; Trenton, Paterson and Newark, N. J.; Providence, R. I.; Boston, Springfield and Fall River, Mass.; Wilmington, Del.; Baltimore, Md.; Middletown, Syracuse and Troy, N. Y. With but few exceptions the work in all of these cities required the presence of our Labor Adjuster. Mr. Moffett's duties in the field consisted for the most part in representing local employers in contract negotiations; for the remainder they had to do with casual disputes. Employers in several of the cities enumerated had occasion to command the services of the bureau not once but several times; all whom we have assisted seem to have been well pleased with the aid given them. The work of our Labor Adjuster has been efficient, both to your Committee and to the members. With very few exceptions the many contracts signed show an increase of wages, and in several instances a reduction of hours for |