resulted in a dry majority of 57. The wets contested on the grounds that a majority of the election officers were dry men. On May 19, 1914, the Court of Appeals in an opinion written by Judge Nunn affirmed the judgment of the Pulaski Circuit Court and sustained the validity of the election.

Scott County-A local option election, held in this county, September 6, 1913, resulted in a dry majority of 380. The city of Georgetown, which was the only wet city in the entire county gave a wet majority of 178 votes. A contest was made by the wets. The contest board on November 29, 1913, decided the election was valid and the wets appealed to the higher court. The Circuit Court on February 21, 1914, set aside the election since it was shown that in one precinct there was not the required 25 per cent. of the voters who signed the petition.

Fulton County-The drys won the local option election held in this county December 6, 1913, by a majority of 886. This county has been dry for years.

Christian County-The town of Pembroke in this county voted, April 14, 1914, to remain dry. One precinct went wet and the other dry, but in the total vote the drys had a majority of 17 votes.

On September 28, 1914, at the local option elections, Bell, Boone, Bourbon, Carroll, Clark, Mason, Montgomery, Scott and Shelby counties were voted dry.

At the same time Anderson county voted wet by a majority of 64 votes; Fayette county gave a majority of 3,264 against prohibition. Henderson county also voted for license.

On September 21, Davies, Christian, and McCracken counties voted for license by respective majorities of 614, 585 and 818.

In the case of Josselson Bros. v. Commonwealth the Court of Appeals ruled that a person could sell liquor in a wet county for shipment into a dry county without violating any law.

Louisiana:-A Near Beer Law was passed as a substitute for the Anti-Saloon League Bill abolishing the manufacture and sale of Near Beer, providing for the sale of Near Beer in every Parish, or County, in the State, including Prohibition Parishes, or Counties.

This Act is known as Act No. 211 of the Acts of 1914, and provides that Near Beer shall be made from ingredients in the proportion and manner, as follows, to-wit: "60 per cent. of choice barley malt; 35 per cent. of choice rice; 5 per cent. of brewing

sugars; one-third of a pound of choice hops per barrel of thirty-one gallons, brewed into a beverage; the period of fermentation shall not be less than nine days, to be stored and aged at a temperature of 36 degrees Fahrenheit, for at least three months, and what is known as the 'finishing' process shall require at least one month's additional time before being offered for sale as a beverage."

It further provides that Near Beer shall not contain more than two per cent. alcohol in volume, or 1.59 per cent. in weight; that on every bottle containing Near Beer there must be printed the maximum quantity of alcohol in volume, and the cork or crown seal stamped "Near Beer;" kegs must be similarly labeled.

It also provides that it shall be unlawful to manufacture or sell any malt non-intoxicating liquor as a substitute for Near Beer, or any adulterated temperance beer. The regulating clauses in the Act provide that it shall be unlawful to sell any other beverage of any other nature, kind or description, or any article of merchandise under the same roof where Near Beer is sold, or to keep for personal use any intoxicating liquor under the same roof where Near Beer is sold as a beverage.

There must be placed on Near Beer establishments, in a conspicuous place, a sign bearing the words "Near Beer," and the letters thereof must be one foot in height, by one foot in width, with no other reading matter on said sign.

Another Act, being Act No. 202 of the Acts of 1914, provides that no person, firm or corporation shall receive or possess intoxicating liquor in any parish, city or locality wherein the sale of intoxicating liquor is prohibited by law, if the liquor is to be used in violation of that law.

A person living in dry territory, however, may have liquor shipped to him for his own use or for the use of any member of his family.

The Act provides that common carriers must keep a record of delivery of all the liquor in dry territory, which record must be kept at point of delivery for a period of not less than one year from the date of the delivery of the liquor, and shall be accessible on demand to any officer charged with the enforcement of the law, or member of the Grand Jury of the parish in which said delivery is made. Delivery by the common carrier shall be made only to the consignee, or his order; delivering the liquor shipments to minors is prohibited.

The third bill passed by the Louisiana Legislature, being Act No. 146 of the Acts of 1914, and known by the name of the "Blind Tiger" Act, defines a "blind tiger" to be any place, in those subdivisions of the State where the sale of spirituous, malt or intoxicating liquors is prohibited, where such spirituous, malt or intoxicating liquors are kept for sale, barter, exchange or habitual giving away as a beverage in connection with any business conducted at such place.

It condemns the persons keeping a "blind tiger" as guilty of a misdemeanor.

The Act also grants the right of seizure and search of “blind tigers" upon an affidavit reciting that a certain designated place is believed to be a "blind tiger," together with such additional evidence as may be required by the Court to make out a case fairly probable in law that such a place is a "blind tiger."

The Louisiana Supreme Court, in the case of State v. AnheuserBusch Brewing Company, reported in the 64th Southern Reporter, page 415, held that Act 176, of 1908, commonly known as the "Gay-Shattuck Act," regulating the traffic in intoxicating liquors, applies, as far as regulation is concerned, to bar-rooms and other places where liquors are sold in less quantities than five gallons, and its terms do not cover a brewery which sells in the original and unbroken packages in quantities over five gallons, and therefore, a brewing company selling in the original package and in quantities over five gallons does not have to take out a license as a retail liquor dealer.

Maine: While party politics, both. from a state and national standpoint, was a live issue in the September election in Maine, Prohibition may fairly be said to have been the real issue with which Governor Haines appealed to the electorate of the State for re-election.

Mr. Haines, who is a prohibitionist, on the promise that he would and could make the law effective, was elected in 1912, his total vote being 70,931. After two years of radical attempts to enforce the law, in which time he caused the removal of four Sheriffs in four counties substituting four prohibition Sheriffs, he was defeated; his total vote in the recent election being but 58,500. His principal opponent, Oakley C. Curtis of Portland, was elected by a plurality over both Haines and Gardner, of 3,300.

Mr. Haines, with prohibition his avowed issue, received 12,000 less votes than in 1912.

Governor-elect Curtis is a believer in a local option law as a real temperance measure; giving as it does, the towns and cities the right within themselves to regulate the liquor traffic so that at all times the wishes of the majority may rule and State-wide nullification be eliminated.

Viewed from almost any angle, the recent Maine election, is a triumph for local option. The tremendous shrinkage in the Haines' vote is but the declaration of the voters of their disbelief in a law which for sixty years, has to its credit nothing but a · record of illegal local option; prohibition in small towns and wideopen conditions in the cities and large towns.

.

This is evidenced in the city of Bangor, a city of 25,000 people, where under the prohibitory law, there was a record of 2,000 convictions for drunkenness in one year; and is in marked contrast to conditions in the city of Milwaukee with its 400,000 people where there were but 3,000 such convictions. One to each 133 people in the frankly wet community, and one to each dozen of the population under prohibition. It is also evidenced in the statement of Governor Haines himself who in analyzing his defeat said to the press on the day after the election: "One of the principal things which led to my defeat was the unfaithfulness of Sheriff O'Connell (Sheriff of Penobscot County) in performing the duties of his office as he agreed to do when I appointed him, and his refusal to keep his agreement to resign when I asked him to.”

All signs point to a return to sanity in liquor legislation in the State of Maine, when fanatics and politicians will be disregarded, and when Maine will join her sister states which have found that questions of domestic policy can best be settled by the cities and towns of the State as units.

Maryland: A State-wide Prohibition Bill was defeated in the lower House of the Legislature by a vote of 57 to 42.

The Eastern Shore Anti-Shipping Bill was passed, by which shipments of liquor to any one person are to be limited to one gallon of whiskey and to six dozen pints of beer in any one month, the Act to apply to the population in the nine peninsula counties of the State, to wit: Caroline, Cecil, Dorchester, Kent, Queen Anne, Somerset, Talbot Wicomico and Worcester.

Local Option Bills were passed for Carroll, Charles and Garrett counties, and a High License Bill for St. Mary's County.

Carroll, Garrett and Cecil counties were voted dry at the election on November 3rd.

Massachusetts:-Some 43 bills were introduced into the Massachusetts Legislature of 1913-1914 affecting the liquor interests in various ways. A good many of these bills were in effect duplicates of others contained in the list. The most important were the bills to repeal the Bar and Bottle Act so-called; to provide for taking the vote on the license question on the day of the state election and the bill to provide for taking the license vote only on petition of the voters. The Bar and Bottle Bill was enacted by the Legislature in 1910 and the legislative effort of the past year was an attempt to repeal this law. The bill in brief prohibits a licensee from holding a 4th class or wholesale license in conjunction with a license permitting liquors to be drunk on the premises. The Repeal Act, which was backed by the liquor interests, was favorably reported by the committee on legal affairs, but on question of a third reading in the House, was defeated by a vote of 105 to 115.

The bill to provide for taking the license vote only on petition of the voters, which was likewise a measure put in by the liquor interests, was reported leave to withdraw and the report was accepted.

The most important measures filed by the Anti-Saloon League were bills to reduce the license fee to $50; two or three bills endeavoring to restrict further the transportation of liquors into nolicense cities and towns; two bills to abolish the 6th class, or druggists' license. The bill to reduce the fee was reported leave to withdraw and the report was accepted. The transportation bills were referred to the next General Court. The druggists' bills were given leave to withdraw. The other bills that went to make the total number introduced into the legislature including bills to provide for district option; bills to provide for fixing the fee for an unused license in the city of Boston at $10,000; a bill to provide that minors should not be permitted on any licensed premises; a bill to make the same restriction for parochial schools as now apply to public schools. Two bills to prohibit absolutely the issuing of licenses in connection with the sale of groceries. All of these bills were either defeated by adverse committee reports, or referred to