changes in the law but came about in spite of them. Notwithstanding the Legislature for 1914 was not very long lived, it bore the usual liberal crop of proposed amendments to the Liquor Tax Law. Fiftythree measures were introduced which were intended to change or modify the method of regulation of the liquor traffic in the State and most of them carried hostile and unfavorable features for the dealers, and for that matter, the public. Noteworthy among them were two measures advocated by and introduced for the Anti-Saloon League. The principal one was the so-called Optional Local Prohibition Bill which was described as an Act to provide for the creation by popular vote of "Anti-Saloon Territory." It differed from prior local option bills in the fact that it was drawn in entire disregard of the present Liquor Tax Law and had the effect of repealing that law and abolishing the Department of Excise whenever its remedy was adopted in a given territory. Prior to the introduction of this bill the measures of the Anti-Saloon League proposed an extension of the present local option provisions of the Liquor Tax Law to cities so that the people of cities could vote for dry or wet territory in the same way that such elections are now made possible in towns under existing law, but the law itself was otherwise suffered to remain intact and unchanged. The bill in question provided that local option elections might be held in any county, city, town, village or election district, upon the question of whether the territory shall become Anti-Saloon territory, when such elections were applied for by petition of one-quarter of the voters. If the majority vote was against the traffic, the sale of intoxicating liquors was to be prohibited on and after September 15th following the election, except sales at wholesale for delivery outside of the territory in question. After a territory had voted for or against saloons, the question could again be submitted upon similar petition but not until the lapse of twenty-three months, except, however, that where a county had voted as a unit in favor of saloons, the question could immediately be submitted in the various towns, cities and villages of the county, and one or more of its subdivisions could be voted dry.

The other bill of Anti-Saloon League origin was the so-called poison label bill which required that all retainers containing alcoholic beverages be labeled as poison and bear the sign of the skull and cross-bones. This sensational proposal came almost contemporaneously with the emphatic and pointed condemnation by ex-President

Taft of exaggerated warning and hypocritical tirades against the use of alcoholic beverages. It is worth while repeating his language here:

"Criticism of a different nature might well be directed to many text-books that seek to inculcate aversion to the use of intoxicating liquors. The unwise extremity to which Legislatures have gone in the requirement for such teaching has stimulated a class of books which dwell on the results of the use of intoxicating liquor in such an exaggerated way that the pupils soon begin to understand that they are grotesque exaggerations, and therefore to become skeptical in respect to the whole matter."

The former propostion was rejected as impossible. The latter was regarded as a joke.

Even the very limited local option provisions in the Liquor Tax Law have proven so obviously impracticable and obnoxious and so materially subversive of efficient regulation that the Commissioner of the Department of Excise himself recommended in his report and caused to be introduced in the Legislature, a measure which was intended to cure some of the defects and remove some of the objections and hardships of local option in New York. Among other things, it permitted the issuance of a liquor tax certificate in towns where the sale of liquor is prohibited as the result of a vote at the last local option election, to a designated person at a designated place, upon compliance with all of the other provisions of the Liquor Tax Law and the filing of a consent in writing that the traffic in liquors be carried on by the applicant in the premises designated, signed and acknowledged by the electors of the town to the number of 55 per cent. or more of the votes cast at the next preceding local option election. The main features and the principle involved in this bill were embodied in another proposed amendment of the law which reduced the number of signatures required to 51 per cent. of the votes cast at the next preceding general election and limited the life of the certificate when obtained to a term ending on the 30th day of September next succeeding the date of the commencement of the traffic, so that the consents had to be obtained and filed from year to year. The merit claimed for this bill consisted in the fact that it threw the applicant for the certificate upon the judgment of his townspeople and enabled them to consent to or oppose his application after due consideration of the character of the person, the nature and location of the premises and the needs of the community,

instead of voting generally in favor of or against the traffic in any and all parts of the town and by any and all persons. This proposition provoked much discussion and received considerable attention in the Legislature, although it failed of enactment.

ELECTIONS

In considering local option elections in the State of New York it should be kept in mind that such elections are confined to the sparsely populated sections of the State known as towns and that in such elections four propositions are submitted to the electors, namely:

No. I.

To determine whether liquor shall 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. A Pharmacist or Druggist's License.

No. 4. Selling liquor in connection with keeping a hotel.

The results of local option elections in 1914 show a slight gain for license towns. There were local option elections in the towns of forty-one counties during the year and at these elections several large towns which had been dry returned to license. A more detailed report of recent elections follows:

Allegany County, Wellsville, probably the largest dry town in the State and which had been dry for four years, voted for license by an overwhelming majority.

Herkimer County held all its license towns and made a net gain of one township.

Orleans County where the Anti-Saloon League and allied Prohibition forces made an unusually aggressive fight, retained its license towns and reclaimed a large dry town.

Erie County is entirely wet as a result of last fall's election. Greene County held all of its license towns and gained one town from the dry column and one partial license town voted full license. Jefferson County showed decidedly satisfactory results. Two dry towns voted for full license and several partial license towns did likewise; one partial license town only, voted dry.

Lewis County retained all towns in the license column and one partial license town voted for full license,

Monroe County likewise showed encouraging results for the license forces.

Niagara County made a net gain of one town for the license.

column.

Oneida County results indicated a strong sentiment for license; one no-license town was won over to the wet column and several partial license towns adopted full licenses.

Orange County increased its license towns.

Otsego County joined Orange County by increasing the number of license towns.

Sullivan County voted license for two dry towns and one partial license town gave a majorty for full license.

Other counties in the State remained practically unchanged with slight exceptions.

There are 933 townships in the State of New York. In 1913 the result of local option elections shows the following:

In 1914 an increase in favor of license was indicated as can be gleaned from the following recapitulation:

The Supreme Court granted to a minor the right to decide a question of public policy in the case In re Farley, 146 N. Y. S. 291. Holding that under the Liquor Tax Law, requiring, with an application for a license, the consent of the owners of at least twothirds of the dwellings within 300 feet of the place to be licensed, consent can be given by infant owners.

According to the Court of Appeals, in the case of People v. Weiner, solicitation for liquor orders in no-license districts must be personal to be illegal; and a dealer's mailing a liquor pricelist to a possible purchaser in a dry town is no violation of the Liquor Tax Law.

North Carolina:-The only law enacted since the last report is comprised in chapter 44 of the Public Laws of 1913. It makes it unlawful for any persons, other than druggists and medical depositories duly licensed, to sell or handle intoxicating liquor in the State.

The possession of liquor for the purpose of sale is unlawful; and proof of any one of the following facts shall constitute prima facie evidence of the violation of this section.

First. The possession of a license from the government of the United States to sell or manufacture liquors; or

Second. The possession of more than one gallon of spirituous liquors at any one time, whether in one or more places; or

Third. The possession of more than three gallons of vinous liquors at any one time, whether in one or more places; or

Fourth. The possession of more than five gallons of malt liquors at any one time, whether in one or more places; or

Fifth. The delivery to such person of more than five gallons of spirituous or vinous liquors, or more than twenty gallons of malt liquors within any four successive weeks, whether in one or more places; or

Sixth. The possession of intoxicating liquors as samples to obtain orders thereon; provided that this section shall not prohibit any person from keeping in his possession wines and ciders in any quantity where such wines and ciders have been manufactured from grapes or fruit grown on his own premises.

Five thousand two hundred and seventy gallons of liquor were shipped into Greensboro, which has a population of about 16,000 in December, 1913, averaging 195.1 gallons per day. This does not include beer. The average per day for November, 1913, was 170.44 gallons.

North Dakota:-Shipments of intoxicating liquors are carried and delivered for personal use. In 1913 the Legislature passed an Act providing for the inspection of freight and express books and records by the State's Attorney, the Attorney General or his assistants in the matter of the enforcement of the prohibition law.

This Act simply gives attorneys power to inspect the records of common carriers as to shipments of intoxicating liquors.

Ohio: The license code went into full operation in November, 1913. As expected, the limitation clause of one saloon to each