A 903,808
Price 2/6.
LIQUOR LEGISLATION
IN THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA.
REPORT
Of a non-partisan Inquiry on the spot into the Laws and
their Operation, undertaken at the request of
W. RATHBONE, M.P.,
B
MK
:
E. L. FANSHAWE,
OF THE INNER TEMPLE, BARRISTER.
CASSELL AND COMPANY, LIMITED:
LONDON, PARIS & MELBOURNE.
[ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.]
from
***
yu
5 199
DAEZULTATERIAL
ARTES
LIBRARY
1817
VERITAS
PLURIOUS CHUN
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Zetm
TUEBOR
W
SCIENTIA
CIRCUMSPICE
OF THE
ARIZARARAMOZZO
SI·QUÆR:S PENINSULAM-AMŒNAM.
LUTHALAI
LAZADAS AS
INTELLIG
RELATE
Phone
6. ARRESTIGEN, KARST

GAANKOm len s ONTO E OTT:
HV
5078
F 21
社
​The accompanying Report does not seek
to lay down precise conclusions with regard
to the merits of existing schemes for liquor
legislation in the United Kingdom; nor is
any independent scheme put forward as the
outcome of American
of American experiments and
experience.
It is believed, however, that those who
are interested in the subject of any definite
proposal for legislation, will find it profitable
to take note of the operation of American
liquor laws and form their own conclusions
thereon.
W. R.
}
LIQUOR LEGISLATION
UNITED STATES AND CANADA.
IN THE
REPORT
Of a non-partisan Inquiry on the spot into the Laws and their
Operation, undertaken at the request of
W. RATHBONE, M.P.,
✰
a
CASSELL
BY
E. L. FANSHAWE,
OF THE INNER TEMPLE, BARRISTER.
AND COMPANY,
LONDON, PARIS & MELBOURNE.
167476
[ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.]
LIMITED:
100%
:
Watfor
***
classed 10-7-3
PREFACE.
I HAVE been anxious to have, for my own guidance and the
information of those interested in the subject of Temperance
Legislation, the most accurate account procurable of the
licensing and prohibitory laws which during the last forty
years have been tried, in almost every conceivable form, in
the United States and Canada. In the annexed Report will
be found the results of an investigation on the spot, during
nearly eight months,-by a lawyer entirely uncommitted to
foregone conclusions,-into such legislation and its results.
An extended investigation into the system in operation in
Scandinavia has recently been made under the direction of
the Bureau of Labour Statistics at Washington. The name
of Colonel Carroll D. Wright, the Chief of the bureau, is a
guarantee for the accuracy of the information which the
Report will contain; and it may be hoped that this informa-
tion, combined with that contained in the following pages,
will afford to British legislators timely guidance gathered
from the experience of two different sections of the world, in
which the liquor question has received an unusual amount of
attention in the way of experimental legislation.
The following letter will explain in detail the objects of
the inquiry on which the present Report is based.
W. RATHBONE.
LETTER OF INSTRUCTIONS.
July 20th, 1892.
DEAR MR. FANSHAWE,
It is clear from the prominence given to the subject
at the last Election that the Liquor Traffic Legislation will be
one of the most important subjects before the new House of
iv
PREFACE.
Commons, and it appears to me to be one of the most important
conditions of success that the Legislature should have accurate
information as to the results of the aims at reform in progress
in different countries, especially in the United States, from the
enactment of the Maine Liquor Law to the present time.
Very valuable papers have been issued by the Foreign
Office on the subject; but the latest of them (issued in 1890)
itself asserts that sufficient data have not been obtained to
enable satisfactory conclusions to be formed as to the effects.
It appears to me, therefore, that a report by a lawyer,
uncommitted to any of the various schemes advocated for
dealing with this subject, and accustomed to digest evidence
and place it in a clear form before those who have to act, is
almost a necessary preliminary to sound legislation.
With this view I have consulted Mr. Justice Wright, who
for more than eleven years gave me invaluable legal and other
assistance-especially in his admirable collection and digest of
the materials necessary for the consideration and the reform of
the whole system of local government and taxation-and Mr.
W. S. Caine, who was for many years president of the British
Temperance Association, and has a deep interest in and a
wide knowledge of the subject of temperance legislation. They
agreed with me both as to the probable value of such inquiry, and
that a report from you, made after inquiry on the spot as to the
different experiments, would be entitled to public confidence.
I shall, therefore, be obliged if you will proceed to the
United States of America and Canada, to conduct such
inquiry there, and I hand you herewith the necessary letters
of introduction to facilitate your work.
From the temperance reformers of America you will ob-
tain the views held on that side respecting the results in the
different States. From official sources (including police), and
from others uncommitted or opposed to the local legislation,
you will be able to learn what is said on the other side.
It is distinctly understood that you go with unbiassed mind,
PREFACE.
V
to place before those interested American facts and opinions,
without any object of supporting or opposing any particular
line of legislation, the sole aim of your inquiry being to collect
in the clearest and most correct manner the facts, results, and
opinions, which are the outcome of American experience in the
various States visited by you.
I need hardly point out that it is important not only to
obtain an accurate report of the different laws and their results,
but of the different circumstances of the States and districts in
which they have been administered, as a law may have been
very different in its effects in a sparsely populated district and
in a large town or populous district. Again, there may be
differences between the new States in the West and the old
settled States in the East, and between the North and the
South, in the latter of which I am informed by one of my
temperance friends that some very interesting experiments are
going on.
It will be, moreover, important to observe the effects of
different experiments on the different classes of those who
drink; for instance, on those of confirmed habits of in-
temperance who may be bent on evading the laws, whatever
they are; and on that part of the population whom it is sought
to protect from excessive temptation to acquire habits of
intemperance.
Again, it will be of interest to ascertain (so far as may be
possible) the effects of prohibitory or restrictive laws, not
merely as regards actual drunkenness, but as regards the moral
and material condition of the population generally, including
moderate drinkers, as well as those who are, or are in danger of
becoming, drunkards.
Information also will be valuable, showing how far public.
opinion in the different States where they have had varying
laws in operation has been strengthened in their favour, or
otherwise, by experience. It may be difficult to judge of this
except where votes have been taken after local experience.
vi
PREFACE.
I do not fetter you with any instructions as to the mode in
which you should proceed to obtain the desired information.
I am satisfied that by following your own judgment in this
matter you will be best able to give such a fair and judicial
account of American experience as may be of use in the
preparation of future legislation.
Yours faithfully,
W. RATHBONE.
CONTENTS.
PREFACE
CHAPTER I.-INTRODUCTORY
CHAPTER II.-HABITS AND CHARACTERISTICS
CHAPTER III.-PROHIBITION
CHAPTER IV.-LOCAL OPTION.
CHAPTER V.--HIGH-LICENCE AND NUMERICAL LIMITATION.
CHAPTER VI.-SOME DETAILS.
CHAPTER VII.-MAINE (Prohibition).
CHAPTER VIII.-KANSAS (Prohibition)
CHAPTER IX.--IOWA (Prohibition)
CHAPTER X.-RHODE ISLAND (Ex-Prohibition).
CHAPTER XI.-MASSACHUSETTS (Ex-Prohibition, High-Licence,
Numerical Limitation, Local Option)
CHAPTER XII.—PENNSYLVANIA (High-Licence, Limitation of
Number).
225
CHAPTER XIII.-MINNESOTA AND NEBRASKA (High-Licence). 238
CHAPTER XIV.-MICHIGAN AND MISSOURI (Local Option).
260
CHAPTER XV.-OHIO, ILLINOIS, WISCONSIN
278
CHAPTER XVI.-COLORADO AND CALIFORNIA
304
CHAPTER XVII. -GEORGIA (Local Option. High-Licence)
316
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
·
•
•
PAGE
iii
•
I
5
21
51
61
81
100
125
149
173
187
viii
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XVIII.—MARYLANd, Virginia, Kentucky, South
CAROLINA (Local Option. State Dispensaries)
CHAPTER XIX.-OTHER STATES
CHAPTER XX.-CANADA .
APPENDIX I.-Address of Hon. Francis Wayland at the Sixth
National Convention of Law and Order Leagues in the United
States
•
APPENDIX II.-Liquor Ordinance of Atlanta
INDEX.
·
•
•
•
•
PAGE
336
358
371
409
416
427
LIQUOR LEGISLATION
IN THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
THE American Union comprises forty-four States, six Ter-
ritories, and the District of Columbia, each of which has a
separate and distinct system of laws, both civil and criminal.
The right of every State and (subject to certain additional
limitations which need not here be noticed) of every Territory
to legislate for itself is controlled only by the provisions of the
Federal Constitution, which cannot be altered save by the
nation at large. The powers of each State Legislature are
indeed fettered to some extent by its own fundamental law,
or State Constitution; but, as this fundamental law can itself
be altered by the action of the individual State, and without
reference to the federal power, it involves no detraction from
the sovereign power of the State, which is master of its own
Constitution.
The liquor laws of the United States, therefore, are the
liquor laws of some fifty separate and independent commu-
nities. And, as the whole mass of legislation is vast, and the
points of difference, large and small, between the laws of dif-
ferent States are manifold, so, too, in the attempt to ascertain
the practical bearings and results of different systems, the
centres of information and areas of local experience are many
and widely separated. Admirable and complete in their own
B
2
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
line, and readily available as are the statistics published at
Washington and in certain individual States, there is much
even of purely statistical information which cannot be obtained
except in the places immediately concerned; while many
things regarding the practical operation of the laws are not
reducible to statistical form, but can be gathered only by
observation on the spot or by contact with those who have
local and personal experience. The strong and bitter antagon-
isms which surround the whole problem of liquor legislation
constitute a great addition to its inherent difficulties.
In Canada, also, though there is less multiplicity of laws,
the several provinces have their own distinct systems of liquor
legislation, and the subject is further complicated by the
intervention of the Parliament at Ottawa, which has passed
legislation having effect throughout the Dominion, side by side
with the provincial laws. The subject is in a state of great
unrest in Canada; agitation for prohibition is being carried on
with ardour; and a Royal Commission, appointed last year to
go into the whole question, has not yet reported.
Under these circumstances a complete examination of the
liquor laws of America and their working would be a task of
very considerable magnitude. To formulate without prejudice
any positive and definite conclusions as the result of such an
examination would be one of great difficulty. A commission
proceeding from Washington under high official sanction
would, perhaps, be the only body competent to undertake such
an inquiry; but, in view of the existing social and political
aspects of the liquor question in America, it is permissible to
doubt whether such a body could now be constituted with any
prospect that it would conduct its proceedings, and agree on
its conclusions, without raising allegations of bias on one side
or another.*
* Since the above was written, I learn that a strong committee of fifty
has been appointed, under the auspices of the Bishop of New York, to
investigate the whole liquor problem.
INTRODUCTORY.
3
A
It need not be said that the following pages have no claim
to completeness in the examination of the subject, still less do
they attempt to formulate any scheme for English legislation
as being the logical outcome of American experience. They
simply embody the result of observations and inquiries respect-
ing liquor laws and their working made during a tour under-
taken with that object in the United States and Canada
between August, 1892, and April, 1893. During that period it
was my good fortune to be brought into contact with many men
of wide experience and all shades of opinion, to whom, for
their great candour and courtesy, I desire here to tender my
acknowledgments.
In
My aim has been to record things as I saw them, and
facts and opinions as I heard them, and in particular (so far
as may be compatible with the necessary work of summarising
the evidence) to abstain from the expression of opinions and
conclusions of my own, except where the authority for them is
also given, and even then to express them sparingly.
dealing with a highly controversial subject, I have endeavoured
as much as possible to keep clear of controversy. The reader,
therefore, is not pressed with arguments, based on American
experience, in favour of any defined scheme of liquor legisla-
.tion; it is sought rather to lay before him a true statement of
facts and leave him to draw his own conclusions, whether
favourable or unfavourable to any particular proposal for
dealing with the liquor question in this country. While the
adoption of this method may probably lay the book open to
the charge of indefiniteness, it is hoped that some compensat-
ing advantage may be found in the attempt to approach in a
non-controversial spirit a subject on which so much of an ex-
tremely partisan character is written and said.
:
Later chapters, comprising the main portion of the volume,
deal separately with individual States and with Canada; but,
as a great part of the whole subject falls naturally into a few
main subdivisions, on which light is cast from various quarters,
B 2
4
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
it has seemed desirable to group together, in a brief summary,
points bearing on special branches of the general question.
The three things which most readily suggest themselves for
separate treatment are: State Prohibition, Local Option, and
High Licence. The last-named principle is indeed, in a
sense, merely a detail of licensing law; but, as in several
States it is the leading feature of the law, from which important
results are claimed to have ensued, and as much controversy
has gathered round it, and it has excited bitter opposition as
well as widespread support, it calls for special notice in any
examination of American liquor legislation. Several details,
which are common in American licensing laws, but have noi
been adopted in England, also deserve to be mentioned, and
the subject of "temperance instruction" in the elementary
schools, now compulsory in the majority of the States, is one
which has engaged the energies of many zealous persons in all
parts of the country, and cannot be well approached except as
a whole.
A point of great practical importance in any attempt to
import American experience for British consumption is to
realise the different conditions prevailing in the two countries
in regard to the liquor question. As the sole purpose of the
following pages is to aid those engaged in the attempt to settle.
the liquor problem on this side of the Atlantic, the differ-
ences just referred to are at the root of the whole matter, and
it will be as well before going further to see what they are.
5
CHAPTER II.
HABITS AND CHARACTERISTICS.
THE average typical American differs from the average typical
Englishman both in his habit, mental and bodily, in regard to
the personal and social use of intoxicating liquor, and in his
attitude of mind in regard to legislative interference with the
traffic. The political bearings of the question in the two
countries differ widely in important particulars. Variations of
climate also enter into the question-to what extent it is
difficult to estimate, but probably in no slight degree. These
heads of difference, personal, social, political, and climatic,
are intimately connected with and inter-dependent on one
another.
One of the first things which strike an Englishman
. travelling in America is the vast consumption at table of iced
water. If he quits the eastern cities and penetrates into the
interior, he will be not unlikely-except at a few of the larger
centres-to find himself often the only person taking wine or
beer with his dinner in the dining-room of the hotel. If at
any hour of the day he strolls into the bar-room, he may or may
not find some of his fellow-lodgers and their friends treating
themselves or one another to a glass of whisky or a cocktail.
It would be rash to attempt an estimate of the number of
total abstainers in the United States, but I think it cannot be
doubted that they form a very much larger proportion of the
population there than in this country. The feeling that there
is something disreputable or sinful about the use of intoxicating
liquor is certainly strong and widespread, and it commands a
certain deference from many who do not themselves share it,
or at all events do not practise total abstinence. People of
this latter class would be ashamed to be seen with a glass of
6
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
beer at their dinner, and prefer to go to the bar, where they are
not so likely to be seen. I do not, of course, give this as the
view of fashionable society, or of Americans who travel, or of
the foreign portion of the population; nor do I attempt to
measure its full extent or significance among the rest. But it
is a fact that it prevails widely among a large section of the
community, and is not restricted to those who are identified
with the active anti-liquor movement. It constitutes a marked
distinction between the American and English points of view.
It is easy to illustrate this distinction in several ways. For
instance, I found myself on one occasion in a small university
town, when a banquet was given by the business men to
the university professors. The proceedings continued from
nine p.m. till past two; nothing was drunk but water (as one of
the professors told me, a little regretfully, the following day).
The exclusion of wine at public dinners is indeed quite com-
mon, if it is not actually rather the rule than the exception;
it is not unusual even at so cosmopolitan a place as Boston.
Then, again, there is probably no church organisation in
America whose ministers could maintain their position as
pastors of their congregations if it were known that they were
not total abstainers. In thousands of private houses, also, in
all parts of the country, no fermented liquor is ever seen. †
The feeling against its general use is accentuated against its
use by women and by the young, so that a special disposition
is manifested to banish it from the family table. A woman
employed in serving liquor in a bar-room is an object rarely,
*
* A case was related to me where something like consternation was
created among the passengers in one of the Fall River steamboats by the
spectacle of three ministers of religion drinking beer with their supper.
I have found more than once in conversation with Americans
that an estimate putting the number of "teetotal" houses at one-half of
the whole number of residences in the town would be considered low.
Total abstinence has even reached the White House at Washington, where,
during one administration (as disrespectful persons have said),
flowed like champagne."
"water
HABITS AND CHARACTERISTICS.
7
perhaps never, seen in America. The employment of women
in this way seems extraordinary to many Americans visiting
Europe for the first time. In some States it is expressly for-
bidden by law.* I know of at least one State in which the
serving of liquor to a woman in a saloon, for consumption on
the premises, is a crime punishable with a year's imprisonment
in addition to a heavy fine.t
Serving liquor to minors is universally prohibited, and a
strong feeling is noticeable in many quarters that the young
ought to be kept as far as possible away from all temptation
to depart from habits of abstinence. A professor in a State
University, not himself a teetotaller, nor professing extreme
views on the liquor question, has told me that he should not
think it right to place wine on his table if any of his pupils
(young men of the age of Oxford undergraduates) were
present. ‡
+
Habitual deviation from total abstinence is often regarded
as a disqualification, or (if not as an actual disqualification) as
in some degree an obstacle, in candidates for clerkships or
other kinds of employment. If a clerk is known by his
employer to be in the habit of taking liquor, he will in a large
* Laws of New York, 1892, ch. 360, "An Act to prohibit the hiring
of barmaids." See also Colorado, p. 307.
It
+ See Licensing Law of Rhode Island, summarised on page 184. In
Philadelphia, I was told, saloon keepers are shy of selling to women.
is not illegal, but it might prejudice them with the licensing authority.
As showing the effect of this bent of public opinion upon the young
I may mention an instance related to me by a clergyman residing in a large
western town. He was present at a dinner given to a number of young
men, members of a local masonic lodge. Towards the close of the enter-
tainment the glasses were filled with some kind of negus. When the party
separated, my informant, as he passed along the table to the door, observed
that not one glass in ten was emptied, the most part had hardly been
touched. I should add that my informant was by no means an extreme
man on the liquor question; he was indeed a strong and (considering his
cloth) courageous opponent of prohibition. Instances like the case just
mentioned are not rare.
8
AMERICAN Liquor Laws.
number of cases fall into disfavour, perhaps lose his place. I
have heard it used seriously as an argument against pro-
hibition that under that system clerks and employees of
mercantile houses will get drink in secret places, whereas
under a licence system they will go without liquor, being
afraid to be seen entering an open saloon. I mention this,
not for the sake of the argument, but as an indication of what
I have been saying about the attitude of the public mind in
regard to the use of liquor.*
Here, by way of further illustration, is an extract from the
official annual report of the superintendent of police in a large
city in one of the northern central States :-
"Officers cannot drink and be relied upon to do their duty.
The two do not and cannot go together, and whatever a man's
qualifications may be, the fact that he is even a moderate drinker
should disqualify him from belonging to any well-regulated police
department."
Much more might be said in illustration of the strong anti-
liquor tendencies noticeable in America, but it is perhaps un-
necessary. They are very marked, and permeate the community
very widely and deeply; and they should not be lost sight of
by foreigners who study the liquor question as it affects that
country.
Notwithstanding all this, however, statistics tell us that the
American has lately been drinking on the average more spirits.
and more wine, though much less beer, than the Englishman;
and the consumption, per capita, in the United States has in
recent years been on the increase. American drinking, more-
over, it must be owned, is to a great extent a peculiarly
pernicious kind of drinking. It consists largely in the treating
* The very use of the word "drink" illustrates my meaning. To
say in England that a man "drinks" is to put upon him the imputation of
habitual intemperance. In America the word would not necessarily mean
more than that he was not a teetotaller.
HABITS AND CHARACTERISTICS.
9
and being treated to whisky and strong spirituous compounds
over the bar of a saloon. The habit of treating has much to
answer for. It is peculiarly an American custom in the extent
to which it is there carried; and some Americans go so far
as to attribute to it the greater part of all the mischief caused
by drink throughout their country.*
Saloon drinking in America is no doubt in many respects
much the same thing as public-house drinking in England;
but treating is a special feature of the one, as, perhaps, silent
soaking is of the other. And the saloon attracts a class
clerks, professional and commercial men, and others which
does not to the same extent frequent the public-house. The
American reformer, therefore, views the existence of the saloon
as something which may intimately concern himself, in his own
family, or among his own relations and friends. Business men,
it is said, are much more apt to drink now than they used to be,
and the growing custom of resorting to clubs is alleged to
be promoting the habit. I have heard the opinion expressed
that drinking is decreasing in the lower and increasing in the
upper classes.
The great distinction, however, between English and
American drinking probably is that the retail liquor traffic is
in America concentrated about the drinking-bar far more.
exclusively than it is here. The proportion of Englishmen (in
all classes of life) who look upon a measure of fermented liquor
as part of their dinner, whether at home or at the club or
eating-house, is large; in America it is certainly very much
* Two Americans go together to a bar; one treats the other, who,
feeling himself under an obligation, must have his revenge. The result is
in many cases that each will have had not only more than is good for him
(assuming that a cocktail can ever be good for anyone under any circum-
stances), but twice as much as he had any desire for. The managing
editor of the leading newspaper in a large city in one of the central States
told me that he had found the treating custom such a nuisance that at
last he made up his mind to refuse all invitations of the kind, and became
practically a teetotaller.
10
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
smaller, though I found in some quarters a belief that wine and
beer at meals were in growing demand.*
This distinction may probably be accounted for, in part,
by the circumstance that the national drink of America has
been whisky. Until comparatively recent times the native
production of what may be called "table drinks," wine and
beer, was small, while imported European wine was and is too
scarce and too expensive to be anything but a luxury reserved
for the rich. Of late the home production of wine has shown
increased activity. California, the chief seat of this industry,
produces some fifteen million gallons annually, and the home
consumption of Californian wine is said to reach a million
gallons a month. In Arizona and New Mexico the culture of
the vine is increasing. Further east, Ohio and some other
States produce a limited quantity of wines; even prohibitory
Kansas was credited with 130,000 gallons in 1889. The whole
production in the United States in that year was stated in the
census return to have been over twenty-four million gallons.
Still, outside California, the consumption of native wine is not
large, and even in that State it is hardly a national beverage as
wine is in Italy and in most parts of France, or cider in
Normandy and Brittany. A good deal of American wine finds its
way to France, and is thence launched upon the markets as
French wine.
American beer is the product of German immigration;
large quantities of it are now produced and consumed, but its
origin is foreign, and its development comparatively recent. The
total annual production grew in twenty-five years (1863-1888)
from two to nearly twenty-five million barrels, and the consump-
tion, per capita, in fifteen years (1875–1891) from six to
fifteen gallons. But, though beer-drinking has doubtless
gained ground among the native Americans, whisky still
* The custom of free lunches (food of an inferior kind being provided
gratis, and only the drink being paid for) is one method of attracting the
poorer class to the saloons.
HABITS AND CHARACTERISTICS.
I I
predominates with them as the national drink, and the beer is
to a very large extent drunk, as well as made, by the foreign
elements in the population, especially the Germans.
The peculiarly dry and exciting climate of America seems
also to have borne its share in influencing opinion upon the
liquor question. I have repeatedly heard it said that people
cannot stand strong liquor in America as they can in Europe.
I have been told it by medical men who spoke from their
professional experience, and by others who spoke of particular
cases within their own personal knowledge and observation.
The evidence, I believe, is strong that a given amount of
liquor might seriously affect a man in America which in
Europe he would be able to take without visible ill effects.*
A few words should be said about the attitude of mind
of Americans towards liquor legislation. It is a matter of
common observation that the development of the principles
of local self-government and majority rule has been accom-
panied by a disposition to show less tenderness for the rights
and interests of individuals than prevails in Great Britain.
Americans, in discussing their own institutions, often note this
disposition. It, perhaps, accounts for the comparatively rare
use in America of the argument that local option or prohibi-
tion is an unjustifiable interference with personal liberty. That
argument is, of course, urged, and strongly urged, in many
quarters; but on the whole it is remarkable how large a
proportion, even of those who do not favour extreme repres-
sive measures, are unconcerned by it.
* A distinguished physician has told me of a case, in his own practice,
where he had to warn an English patient that he was killing himself by
drink. He was much surprised, and assured the doctor that he drank no
more than he had been accustomed to in England (he had gone over to fill
a post for which he had been selected in an American University). My
informant quite believed the statement, but his patient died, and in his
opinion died of drink. The head of a great hospital in America told me
that it was no uncommon experience with nurses who had come out from
England to find, after a short time, that they had to give up their beer or
reduce the amount of it.
12
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
Local option would probably be regarded as justifiable and
correct in principle by the great majority of Americans, what-
ever their individual views might be of its value as a practical
measure. And, among opponents of State prohibition, I have
been struck by the large proportion who rested their opposi-
tion to it solely on their belief that it would not be effective,
and were not at all pressed by any feeling that it interfered
unduly with individual rights. A gentleman, holding a re-
sponsible office in his State, remarked to me that he would
vote for prohibition in the Dakotas, but not in a State like
Minnesota, with its three large cities, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and
Duluth. Many who would welcome real, effective prohibition,
regard it as unattainable. So, too, with the argument that
the closing of the saloon is an interference with the poor
while it does not touch the rich; it cannot be said that this
argument is not heard, but certainly it is not allowed much
prominence. And, if it is true that the proportion of total
abstainers is exceptionally large among the Americans, it
follows that the number of those whose personal convenience
is affected or threatened by prohibition is proportionately small.
The compensation question receives little attention, indeed
can hardly be said to have any political existence, so far as
the saloon keepers are concerned. Such advocacy as is forth-
coming in favour of any such claim is little more than
academic, and renewals of licences have been refused in the
most wholesale way without the question of compensation
being seriously raised. The only real controversy which has
arisen in connection with this question was upon the right of
brewers and distillers to be compensated for loss of capital on
the passing of a law prohibiting the manufacture of liquor;
and the final decision was against the claim.*
*This was in Kansas. I heard of one brewer who lost $80,000 and was
ruined. The U.S. circuit court decided that the brewers and distillers were
entitled to compensation; but the supreme court held that the question
of compensation was at the discretion of the State; and none was given.
HABITS AND CHARACTEristics.
13
Political agitation in America on the liquor question is
widespread, persistent, and powerful. The question is very
much to the front in all parts of the country; the churches
take an active part in it; anti-liquor organisations abound;
and a mass of periodical and campaign literature is constantly
being sent out. The various liquor interests are powerfully
organised upon the other side. At elections, where the liquor
question is at issue, great pressure is brought to bear by the
advocates of prohibition, especially by the clergy and women,
to induce voters to support their cause.* This part of the subject
cannot here be enlarged upon; I mention it only to emphasise
the fact of the extreme prominence in which the whole
question stands, and the extreme energy and bitterness with
which the controversy about it rages.
In "politics" it plays a peculiar part. The success with
which advanced repressive measures have been carried in
some States has been largely due to the pressure brought to
bear on one of the great political parties by a section not large
enough to carry its programme by independent action, but having
great energy, and a strength sufficient to hold the balance
at the State elections. The importance of public opinion
(and particularly of that part of it which takes the form of
political pressure)-not merely in the passing of a law, but
subsequently in the routine of its daily enforcement by officers
who hold their appointments by popular election and for short
terms—is a well-known characteristic of the American system
of government; and it is specially necessary to take due
account of it in the endeavour to follow the working of the
* At a recent election we are told that "the pastors manned the ten
polling places, and the women and children prayed in their pews. Every
church bell in the town joined in the chime heralding the election of
the no-licence candidate." There seem to be grounds for the belief
that through the exercise of active pressure the prohibitionist vote at
elections has sometimes rather over-represented the genuine desire
for prohibition. See, on this point, Rhode Island, p. 173, and Ontario,
p. 386.
14
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
various liquor laws; as will appear in some of the later
chapters dealing with individual States. It is made manifest
also in the Law and Order Leagues established in many cities
throughout the Union, which often display much activity and
exert powerful pressure towards the enforcement of laws. A
special need seems to be felt for such societies in the United
States, as embodying the active expression of public sentiment,
to which the officers of the law are peculiarly susceptible,
when it is manifested with sufficient force. The reluctance of
witnesses to give evidence and of juries to convict is another
mark of the difficulty of enforcing unpopular laws, which has
been much experienced in America.* And the legal procedure
in most States lends itself to the interposition of "dilatory
pleas" between the offender and his punishment.
It is no very rare thing to hear Americans declare them-
selves in favour of prohibition as a legislative enactment at the
same time that they express their disbelief in the possibility of
effectively enforcing it, or even in the expediency of making
any great effort to do so. A Senator from one of the more
sparsely-populated prohibition States remarked to me that,
though he did not profess himself a prohibitionist, his
experience in that State was inclining him to favour the
system, provided it was not too vigorously enforced. A
similar view was expressed by an ex-Senator of Rhode
Island in an official report on the operation of prohibition
in that State.†
* The secretary of a Law and Order League mentioned to me a case
within his experience, where, at a session of the criminal court, a prominent
liquor dealer was placed on the jury panel, who was also, either in his own
person or through his bartenders, defendant in several liquor cases coming
before the court. The secretary pointed out this circumstance to the district
attorney, who said he would put the matter right. This he proceeded to
do, not as my friend intended, by dispensing with the services of this
individual as juror, but, on the contrary, by "continuing" (postponing to
a later session of the court) the cases in which he was concerned, and keep-
ing him on the jury. For a somewhat similar case, see p. 162 note.
+ See statement of Hon. W. Sprague, p. 178.
HABITS AND CHARACTERISTICS.
15
On the whole, the foregoing observations seem to show
that, from the point of view of the advocates of strong
repressive legislation, America is at a certain advantage, as
compared with England, in respect of the general attitude of
the public towards the liquor question. Americans, also, it
should be said, are as a rule more ready to adopt experimental
legislation than Englishmen, and are less oppressed by mis-
givings as to the prospect of future enforcement. On the
other hand, it will probably not be disputed that in England
there is a greater disposition on the part of the executive
authorities to enforce a law once it is passed, because it is the
law, and without looking to external or popular guidance in the
matter. In America it does not follow that a law is enforceable
because it remains for a long time on the Statute-book ; and,
on the other hand, it is not necessarily unenforceable because
it is not in fact well enforced. It is sometimes said that the best
way to get rid of an obnoxious law is to enforce it. Whether
a general application of this method would have been more
likely to result in the repeal of some of the more repressive
liquor laws of America, or in their firmer and wider establish-
ment, is a question which inquirers must decide for themselves.*
Appended are three tables, which may be useful for future
reference :-
I. Showing consumption of liquor in the United States.
and United Kingdom.
II. Showing production of liquor, and number of persons:
paying tax as dealers in liquor, by States.
III. Giving certain particulars of growth and distribution.
of population, and statistics of crime and pauperism,
by States.
* For some general remarks on temperance legislation, see the address
delivered by Professor Francis Wayland at the Sixth National Convention
of Law and Order Leagues in the United States, printed in Appendix I…
P. 409 of this volume.
16
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
Year ending
June 30.
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1880
1885
1890
1891
TABLE I.
LIQUOR CONSUMPTION.
(a) In the United States.
Spirits.
Proof Gallous,
1.30
1.28
I'22
I '09
I'II
I'27
138
I'40
I'46
1'48
I'26
I'26
I'21
I'26
Consumption per Capita of Population.
1'32
I'40
I'42
I'50
Wine.
Gallons.
45
*45
*47
*47
*50
*56
*47
*49
*48
*37
*39
*45
*55
.61
*56
*46
*45
'44
Beer.
'45
*38
'40
.39
Gallons.
671
6.83
6.58
6.68
7:05
8.26
8.65
10:03
10'27
10'74
10'62
II 20
II.23
12.80
12.72
13967
15.28
15'10
(b) In the United Kingdom.
1'07*
*96*
I'02*
I '04*
...
27'09+
30.00†
30.16+
[For Consumption in Canada, see page 392.]
Total of all
Liquors.
Gallous.
$67
8.61
8.33
8.24
8.66
10'09
10'50
11'92
I2'21
12'60
12'26
12'90
13'99
14.67
14'60
15'53
17.16
17'04

28:44
31'42
31.60
* Ordinary gallons.
† The Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom appears to take no
notice of imported beer. The figures relate only to British beer, and some
small addition must be allowed for what comes from Germany.
Note.--The total quantity of alcohol (excluding whisky, brandy, gin,
and rum) ascertained to have been consumed in 1889 in the arts, manu-
factures, and medicine is stated in the census to have been 6,745,152 proof
HABITS AND CHARACTERISTICS.
17
gallons. According to the report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
for the year ending June 30, 1889, 10,739,734 proof gallons of alcohol
were withdrawn from bond on payment of the tax. The difference-nearly
4,000,000 proof gallons-represents a certain amount used in the arts, etc.,
and not reported at the Census Office, and also a certain amount used for
drinking. A considerable quantity of alcohol (as such) is said to be drunk
by some of the foreign elements in the population, especially in the North-
West. In New York City, fifteen barrels are said to be consumed daily
for this purpose; also a considerable quantity in the coal regions of Pennsyl-
vania. In some of the low-class bar-rooms it is probably compounded into
a low-grade whisky, but no trustworthy statistics as to this are obtainable.
STATES AND
TERRITORIES.
TABLE
II.
Amount of liquor produced, and number of distilleries, and of persons paying
tax as wholesale and retail dealers in liquor, and brewers, in the
United States, during the year ending June 30th, 1892.

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
··
...
Indiana
Indian Territory.
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
....
Michigan
Minnesota..
Mississippi
C
****
Amount of
Distilled
Spirits
Produced.
a
93,863
b2,532,464
Gallons.
9,964
.....
•
d253,440
f
g
……………
.....
....
.....
"
.....
.....
38,145,689
6,086,924
i....
.....
386
21,646
33,756,913
k684
¿ ......
82,775,686
1,893,574
….
431,858 215
h
2,007,793
k
Distilleries.*
.....
71
......
76
298
..
45
26
Distilled Spirits.
3
4
763
Retail Liquor
Dealers.†
I, 120
бо
666
9
42
794
44,054
465
2,864 бо
405
1,578
475
2,025
888
•
38 17,438
69
7,561
3
4,706
2,068
4,888
Wholesale Liquor
Dealers.
3,172 56
6
43
7 5,468
808
.....
31
15
55
16
309
94
58
16
239
117
56
7
105
4,355
13 4,918 223
8,183 58
2 3,146 69
2
1,050
30
Amount of
Fermented
Liquor
Produced.
Barrels.
36,948
……………
....
.....
...
...
b793,646
€201,092
d360,216
a
t
....
g
...
...
...
51,566
h
2,939,149
577,123
2 ....
...
...
115,212
i1,650
340,410
k262,332
2
....
8792,506
I,123,330
A
0.1
Brewers.
Malt Liquors.
543
49
3
13
15
142 232
26
151
122
8
J...
19
5
97
7
.....
: 15
19
136
48
36
34
650,823 114
384,636
k
37
I
28
8
Retail Dealers in
Malt Liquor.§
....
55
29
100
II
968
355
494
250
432
188
49
214
61
2c6
266
96 169
132
Wholesale Dealers
in Malt Liquor.
25
•
24
26
160
91
130
6
6
19
34
20
299
206
30
158
50
61
37
5
ნე
241
172
148
22
18
.
AMERICAN LIQUOR Laws.
STATES AND
TERRITORIES.
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada....
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York…...
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
......
Oklahoma....
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee...
Texas..
Utah
Vermont
Virginia..
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin...
Wyoming
…………
....
Total
•
***
.....
♦
…………..
LAWSTABLE II.-(continued).
Amount of
Distilled
Spirits
Produced.
Gallons.
3,279,148
h839
K
€4,951,553
b
134,309
737,521
a1,404
2,248,485 59
851,219 1,895
e
8,593,321
......
11269,064
7,394,232
d
..
....
....
4
……...
Distilleries.*
**
119
2
2
....
2
72
6
…………..
44,560
e......
967,009
6,354
h
Z....
341,855 1,437
m
385,275
539,474
67
……………
IO
118
48
**
334
16
3
45
2
Distilled Spirits.
Retail Liquor
Dealers.†
7,849
2,217
2,277
552
1,669
8,367
584
38,678
1,468
303
15,943
339
1,868
Dealers.Į
Wholesale Liquor
204
54
46
7
9
81
6
942
3I
•
351
6
47
427
49
16
8
12,119
1,729
970
1,079
2,704
4,807
642
419
3,474 44
2,012 44
12
1,362
8,891
III
419
9
70
73
13
.....
Amourt of
Fermented
Liquor
Produced.
...
1429,678
I,793,649
a6,835
9,558,744
Barrels.
2,047,696
406
h82,781
48
CI5I,429 25 138
b
18
6
………….
e
2,668,494
...
m234,117
3,203,632
d
6,221
...
...
•
10.0
200
...
***
...
...
...
…………
Brewers.
...
Malt Liquors.
....
e
99,115
115,393
h
ι
62,314
112
134,106
2,631,783 169
6
.C
60
o
20
52
4
304
...
2
131
38
272
5
I
SH
34
4
12
11
I
++
4
Retail Dealers in
Malt Liquor.§
4I
6
160
268
I 2
1,581
39
24
265
17
42
619
24
33
22
23
1,099
28
COO 36
387
30
38
67
399
8
Wholesale Dealers
in Malt Liquor.||
210
38
155
9
68
223
30
607
26
……..
361
23
24
476
24
17
23
36
290
14
IO
38
46
21
140
15
118,436,506 5,925 215,434 4,783 31,856,626 1,967 10,031 4,969
a Arizona included in New Mexico. & Nevada included in California. c Wyoming included in
Colorado, a Rhode Island included in Connecticut. e Dakota included in Nebraska. ƒ Delaware
included in Maryland, g Maryland includes District of Columbia; also Delaware. Montana in-
cludes Idaho and Utah. Includes Indian territory. k Mississippi included in Louisiana. / Maine
and Vermont included in New Hampshire. Washington included in Oregon.
* Distillers as such not being liable to a special tax, the number of distilleries is given as nearest
representing the number of distillers. Retail liquor dealers sell distilled spirits, wines, or malt
liquors in less quantities than five wine gallons at the same time." Wholesale liquor dealers sell
such liquors "in quantities of not less than five wine gallons at the same time." § Retail dealers in ma't
liquors sell malt liquors only "in less quantities than five gallons at one time." ! Wholesale dealers
in malt liquors sell such liquors "in quantities of not less than five gallons at one time."
HABITS AND CHARACTERISTICS.
19
TABLE III.
Statistics of Population, Crime, and Pauperism in the United States.
[Compiled from Census of 1890.]

STATES
AND TERRitories.
Georgia
Florida
North Atlantic]...
Maine
34
New Hampshire. 41
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
..
Indiana
Illinois
...
[South Atlantic]...
Delaware
Maryland
Dist. of Columbia
Virginia
West Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina..
[North Central]
Ohio
...
•
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota..
.....
...
...
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
...
...
•
...
Population per
Square Mile.
...
1890.* 1880-90. 1870-80. 1890. 1890.+ 1880.
4371amed
278
231
318
[1995] [17.96] [51] [1,221] [1,062][1,790] [2,339]
22 1.87 3'51 19 714 613 1,756 2,319
8.51 9'01 27 608
608 3,036 3,453
364
565 1,633 1,971
842 2,110 2,542
557 1,418 1,902
1,361 1,097 1.927 2,277
1,580 1,408 1,713 2,450
1,620 1,353 1,881 2,177
903 836 1,646 2,144
0'04 0'52
7
25'57 22.35 69
24'94 27.23 78
19.84 15.86
I, 109
1,016
18.
50
15'97 59
24.83
54
40
21.61
154
125
193
116
86
105
4333m
IT 300 =
4I
31
33
38
31
Increase
of Population
per Cent.
185898
90
27 74
22'77
[16:59] [29'79]
14'93 17'27
II 49 19'73
29'71
34.87
9:48 23.46
23°34 3992
30.65
41°10
15'59
15.63
7 45'24 43'54
19'14 30*24
Percentage of Pop.
in Towns over
8,000 Inhabitants.
[28'78] [33'76] [25] |
14.83 19'99 31
10.82
17.71 18
24°32 21.18 38
68
36
30 28.23
66'74
15
34
17.68
39 23'56
25'97
3 395 05 853*23
4 234 60 853*23
13134'06 267.83
17
43 27
173 35
27.92 38.25
24'73
77'57
36.06
26
Prisoners in
Penitentiaries
and County
Jails per
Million of
Population.
2 2
25
28
925
941
565
1,152 1,104
627
Paupers in
Almshouses per
Million
of Population.
818
[1,034] [931] [914] [918]
825 552 1,775 2,640
891 1,534 1,270
1,070 959 1,036
895 1,324 1,400
601 1,038 1,150
911
1,025
1,241 1,169
1,645
998
1890. 1880.
923
502
521
357
61 167
490
720
857 915
369 1,566
519
492 452 280
497 493 848
14
717
26 823 739 888 681
3
841
407 192
841 407
161
24 576 738 275 250
946. 893 416
II
356
[680]
[680] [675][1,145][1,141]
587
546 2,015 2,181
858
708
772 1,335 1,543
820 1,410 1,197
1,067
774
291
•
c 2
20
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWs.
TABLE III.-(continued).
Statistics of Population, Crime, and Pauperism in the United States.
[Compiled from Census of 1890.]

STATES
AND TERRITORIES.
[South Central]
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Texas
Indian Territory
Oklahoma..
Arkansas
··
[Western]
D
Montana
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona.
Utah
Nevada
•
...
Idaho...
Alaska
Washington
Oregon
California
··
••• •
••
...
....
Population per
Square Mile.
10000 200
2
46
1890.* 1880-90. 1870-80. 18,0. 1890.t 1880.
42
29
28
25
2
2
21
F4=
I
40'58 65.65
[71*27] [7846]
I 237'49 90'14
192'01 128.
4 112'12 387.47
28.46
30'14
47.43 318.72
44°42 65.88
26.51 46°54
(de.)
1158.77 117°41
I
1 2
I
Increase
of Population.
per Cent.
|
1203030
[23*02] [38*62]
12.73 24.81
14.60
22'55
19.84 26'63
13.96 36.68
19'01 29'31
40 44 94'45
5 365 13 213'57
92.22
54'34
Percentage of Pop.
in Towns over
8,000 Inhabitants.
79'53
39'72
Prisoners in
Penitentiaries
and County
Jails per
Million of
Population.
1,210
1,097
[1,217][1,210] [460] [412]
1,012 772 849 829
1,262
874
412
383
1,072
553 1,143
1,128
Paupers in
Almshouses per
Million
of Population.
|
1890. 1880.
1,233
109
1,950 1,960 208
4,042 1,336
1,073 403
3,278 3,196
I,742 982
1,089 940 198 131
737
407
305
132
|[1,914][1,830][1,036][1,023]
3,162 1,940
1,137 2,646
1,943 1,384
1,282
999
211
237
7
99
385
298
940 1,526
237 215
1,122 1,078 203 146
1,348 1,259 316 292
2,263 2,489 2,152 1,843
* Area reckoned exclusive of water surface. The population of the United Kingdom
averages 312 per square mile; of England and Wales 500 per square mile.
Mr. Spalding, the secretary of the Massachusetts Prison Association, in a pamphlet
entitled "Has Crime Increased in Massachusetts?" shows that, while 1890 gives a large
increase in the prison population in that State over 1880, the commitments for six offences,
viz., homicide, assault, larceny, burglary, forgery, and coining, which had increased im-
mensely in former years, increased only 25 per cent. from 1881 to 1885, and in the succeeding
five years actually diminished. There were, indeed, fewer commitments for these crimes in
1890 than in 1858. It appears, therefore, that, so far as the more serious crimes are con-
cerned, there has been a very great improvement in recent years. The great apparent
increase of crime in Massachusetts is attributable to a very large increase in the commit-
ments for drunkenness (10,962 in 188ɔ and 25,686 in 1890), and to a smaller increase in the
commitments for other crimes, exclusive of the six above mentioned. Probably, what is
true of Massachusetts is to a great extent true of other States.
2 I
CHAPTER III.
PROHIBITION.
It is important to see what "prohibition" really means.
In the programme of its advanced supporters it means
prohibition of the manufacture, importation, exportation,
transportation, and sale of all intoxicating liquors for use as
beverages. American prohibition as it exists to-day—“ The
Maine Law"-falls far short of this, being directed only
against production and sale within the particular State having
such a law. This limitation is due, not to the voluntary
action of the Legislature which enacts the law, but to the
peculiarity of the federal system of government which reserves
to each State the widest powers of regulating matters affecting
only its own citizens, but commits to Congress the power "to
regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
several States."
The complete extent of the right inherent in each State to
regulate or prohibit the liquor traffic within its own borders is
now well established. It is a part of that very wide and some-
what indefinite element of autonomy, known to constitutional
lawyers as the “police power" of the State. Many interesting
cases have come before the Federal and State courts, in which
the limits of the police power in particular directions have been
canvassed; but this is not a treatise on constitutional law, and
it is sufficient here to note that the judicial authorities have
not generally shown a disposition to contract this power when
directed by any State to setting restrictions on the liquor traffic
within the area of its jurisdiction. The right to sell intoxicating
liquors is not one of those privileges and immunities of citizens
of the United States which by the fourteenth amendment
22
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
to the Federal Constitution the States were forbidden to
abridge.*
It has, however, been held and appears to be settled law,
that a statute prohibiting the mere keeping of liquor would not
be a legitimate exercise of the police power, and would be
unconstitutional, because such an Act affects an individual only
and not the public; and the police power deals only with
men in their relation to one another. It follows that in a pro-
hibition State the individual citizen is entitled to possess and to
drink as much liquor as he pleases, though it is a crime for
anyone within the State to sell it to him. I am not aware that
a law punishing the purchaser, in cases where the sale is illegal,
would be unconstitutional; as a matter of fact, however, pro-
hibitory laws do not contain such a provision.† But if they did, he
could still get the liquor from another State not subject to pro-
hibition. This brings us to the question of inter-State commerce.
Prohibitory laws have not infrequently contained a reserva-
tion legalising the sale of wine made from fruit grown within
the particular State. Such a provision has by some courts been
held valid; but the preponderance of authority now shows
pretty clearly that such discrimination between States is un-
constitutional and void, as an encroachment on the exclusive
powers of Congress. Practically, however, nothing of much
importance has turned on this question. But two cases,
decided in recent years, had a material bearing on the subject
of inter-State commerce and the right of a State to interdict
the liquor traffic.
Both cases arose in Iowa. The first arose upon a provision
in the prohibitory law of that State which forbade any common
carrier to bring liquor into the State without having first
* For a full discussion of this subject, see Chapters II. and III. of
Black's "Treatise on the Liquor Laws of the United States." This book
(published by the West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn., 1892) is by far
the most complete legal work that has been issued on the subject.
For an exception, see p. 315, liquor ordinance of Pomona (California).
PROHIBITION.
23
received a certificate from the county auditor of the county
into which the liquor was to be transported, certifying that
the consignee was authorised to sell it in that county. The
decision in this case was that the enactment was unconstitutional
as an attempt to regulate inter-State commerce--a decision
which holds good to the present day, and which has removed
a powerful check on the introduction of liquor into prohibitory
States.* Although the law never purported to interfere with
the private possession and use of liquor, still, prior to this
decision, obstacles could be and were interposed to its trans-
portation, which affected innocent consignees as well as those
engaged in an illicit trade.†
The other case is that in which what is known as the
"original package" decision was delivered. A firm of brewers
in Illinois consigned cases and kegs of beer to their agent in
Iowa, by whom they were sold to customers without being
broken or opened. On a seizure being made, the plaintiffs
claimed protection under the Federal Constitution; but the
courts in Iowa decided against them. The case was carried
into the Supreme Court of the United States, which held by a
majority that the law of Iowa was unconstitutional and void,
in so far as it prohibited the sale of liquors by a foreign or
non-resident importer in the packages in which they were
brought from another State. The immediate effect of the
* Bowman v. Chicago and N.W. Railway Company, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep.
689, decided in 1888.
† A distinguished resident in a prohibitory State has related to me an
instance in which he was subjected to annoyance and vexatious delay in
obtaining delivery of a case of wine, which he had ordered on medical
advice for an urgent case of sickness in his own family.
It has been held in Iowa that the owner of liquor, which he has
purchased in another State, may maintain an action against a common
carrier who was bringing it to him, and by whose fault it was lost or
destroyed. And if the carrier would defend himself on the ground that the
liquor was held for an unlawful purpose, the burden is on him to show that
the ownership existed under such circumstances as to constitute the liquor
a nuisance. (Bowen v. Hale, 4 Iowa, 430.)
24
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
decision was to spread dismay in the prohibition States.
Brewers and distillers in other States set up agencies in them,
and offered for sale their products in barrels, kegs, cases, and
even small bottles. "Original package saloons" were opened,
and the State courts were flooded with arguments by which it
was sought to extend or restrict the effects of the main decision.
Nothing but the interference of Congress offered hope to the
anti-liquor party. This assistance, however, was soon forth-
coming. In August, 1890—within four months after the
Supreme Court decision-was passed the Wilson Law, restoring
matters to the position in which they had been before that
decision, and in which they remain to-day. The law enacted
as follows:-
P
"That all fermented, distilled, and other intoxicating liquors or
liquids transported into any State or territory or remaining therein
for use, consumption, sale, or storage therein, shall upon arrival in
such State or territory be subject to the operation and effect of the
laws of such State or territory enacted in the exercise of its police
powers to the same extent and in the same manner as though such
liquids or liquors had been produced in such State or territory, and
shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced
therein in original packages or otherwise."
The subject of the present legal status of prohibition need
not now be pursued further. Enough has been said to show
that each State is entitled to forbid the manufacture and sale
of liquor within its own borders, whether by its own citizens
or by the citizens of other States acting through agents; but
that every individual citizen in a prohibitory State is entitled
to obtain liquor from another State for his own use, and to
consume it, without interference from the State law.
A Kansas prohibitionist, writing to me in support of the law
in that State, after describing the conditions which led to its
passage, continues :—
"The resulting law is an absolutely logical and defensible one.
It does not prohibit any individual from drinking. It does not
PROHIBITION.
25
prohibit the sale of liquor.* It does not trespass a single step on
any field save that which is deemed by all to be illegitimate-all,
that is, except those who are directly and personally interested to
the contrary. As I have never yet met a man who was bold enough
to say that there is anything elevating, purifying, or beneficial
about a liquor saloon, so, by the same token, no objection can be
found with the law which prohibits its existence. That is all our
law does. It simply says that no man shall sell liquor for the
purpose of making people drunk. It puts that branch of the liquor
traffic on a par with opium joints and other institutions recognised
everywhere as radically illegitimate."
I give this extract both as showing what the law purports
to do and not to do, and as giving the views of one of its
supporters in regard to liquor-selling and liquor-sellers.
But it must not be supposed that this limited form of
prohibition satisfies the aspirations of prohibitionists. Any
further extension of the principle, however, can only be sought
at Washington, from Congress; and this is the direction in
which the eyes of the more ardent partisans of the movement
are now turned. One who for many years has been a leader
among them has told me (and others have said the same) that
he looks for the triumph of his cause to come as it came to the
early anti-slavery men. The old Whig party for long held
their ground by the help of the abolitionists, but always dis-
appointing them with half-hearted support. This continued
till the abolitionists became too strong to be so put off. Then
the Whigs fell to pieces, and the Republican party grew up
with the abolition of slavery in the forefront of its programme.
So, following this analogy, the triumph of prohibition is to
rise out of the ruins of the present Republican party. The
defeat of the Republicans in the presidential contest of 1892 is
held to be a step towards this consummation.
The attempts hitherto made in Congress in the direction of
*This must refer either to the right to purchase liquor and bring it in
from another State, or else to the right of sale for medical and certain
other specified purposes,
26
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
national prohibition may be summarised in a very few words.
In 1876 an amendment to the Federal Constitution was proposed,
forbidding, from and after the year 1900, the manufacture, sale,
importation, and exportation of distilled liquors. Eleven years
later this partial proposition was superseded by one of a more
thoroughgoing character, in the following (ungrammatical)
terms "The manufacture, importation, exportation, trans-
portation, and sale of all alcoholic liquors as a beverage shall be,
and hereby is, for ever prohibited in the United States and in
every place subject to their jurisdiction," a proposal which has
been brought forward more than once. Bills providing for an
investigation of the liquor traffic have been repeatedly intro-
duced from the prohibitionist side. But the only measures
of importance hitherto passed by Congress, in addition to the
Wilson Law (already noticed), have been one forbidding the
maintenance of canteens at military posts in prohibitory States,
and another forbidding the sale of liquor within a mile of the
Soldiers' Home at Washington, thereby applying prohibition in
about one-fourth of the District of Columbia.
Prohibitionists complain that the limitations which the
maintenance of the rights of inter-State commerce places
upon the complete adoption of their principle, add greatly
to the difficulty of enforcing the law.* It may be, however,
and has been, suggested that this incompleteness in the
application of the principle, unsatisfactory as it is to pro-
hibitionists, and however it may contribute to inadequate en-
forcement of the law, has at least had the effect of lightening
the weight of opposition to the passage of such a measure
*The chief of the State Police in Rhode Island, during the period of
prohibition in that State from 1886 to 1889, gave this as one of the most
important causes for the imperfect enforcement of the law, and strongly
urged the necessity of making the system national if it was ever to be
effective. (Report, January, 1889.) Some prohibitionists look to punitive
measures of increased severity as a means of securing a closer obedience
to the law.
PROHIBITION.
27
through the Legislature, and has provided a sort of safety-valve
for it when it has been once adopted.*
It is no uncommon thing for State prohibition, limited as
it now is, to receive support from men who are not total
abstainers. Such support is in many cases due to considera-
tions of party advantage in politics; and the operation of this
motive has played an important part in the successes hitherto
won by the prohibitionists. But there are those who, without
being teetotallers, really favour-as well as outwardly support―
the movement, through their hostility to the saloon as an
institution, holding it to be a nuisance, whether as regards its
effects on the health and welfare of those who frequent it, or
as regards its disproportionate and corrupt influence in politics.
Their contention is based on the existence of a great public
evil, political as well as social, and on the necessity of making
sacrifices to get rid of it. Only in prohibition do they see any
remedy for city, state, and national misgovernment and cor-
ruption. I have met men, belonging quite to the active and
strenuous section of the prohibition party, who appeared to be
influenced even more by the desire of eliminating the political
influence of the saloon, than by that of putting an end to
drinking and drunkenness. The duty of personal abstinence
is, however, in general insisted on by those who take an active
part in the movement.
But among earnest prohibitionists there exists a difference,
which sometimes becomes very acute and even embittered,
regarding the attitude to be taken in general politics. The
dispute is between the "third party" prohibitionists, forming
* It would seem that, logically, prohibition, if adopted in a country
having a single Legislature vested with full powers instead of a federal form
of government, could hardly stop short of being extended to the importa-
tion of liquor as well as to its internal manufacture and sale. In America
the rights of the vendors in a neighbouring non-prohibitory State count for
something; but how if the vendors were foreigners? In any case the delay
and difficulty attending the purchase and transit of liquor would be greater
when it had to be imported from a foreign country.
28
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
the extreme section of the party, who at national and State
elections vote the "prohibition ticket," and those who do not
thus separate themselves, but seek to further the cause from
within the ranks of one of the two great political parties. In
the North the Republican party is the one on which pro-
hibitionists of the latter type have centred their hopes; and, in
opposition to the "third party" men, they point to the services
heretofore rendered to the cause by the Republicans, and urge
that to vote with the third party is to give power to the
Democrats, the friends of the saloon. The views of those of
the other section have already been mentioned. They look for
the disappearance of the Republicans as a party and the rise of
a new great party of prohibition of which they themselves are
the nucleus.*
* In illustration of the acute hostility of the third party prohibitionists
to the Republicans, I may cite the following passage from a speech at the
Prohibition Convention of the State of Massachusetts, held at Worcester,
September, 1889:-
G
"The past record of the Republican party, which continues to pose
before us as a temperance party, will soon be repeated again, with varia-
tions, to keep up the waning courage of the rank and file of its members.
As a supplement thereto, which would not be acceptable in their Conven-
tion, I offer the following: Prohibition statutes repealed in eleven out of
fourteen States where the law was enacted before this party came into
power; constitutional prohibition counted out in Ohio, after being carried
by a large majority; constitutional prohibition being counted out in
Michigan, through treachery, cowardice, and fraudulent voting; constitu-
tional prohibition defeated by voting it down in five States, viz., New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Oregon;
constitutional prohibition refused submission to the people in nearly all the
Northern and Western States, and repeatedly so in ten or more of said
States; constitutional prohibition repealed in one State, Rhode Island; a
brewery corporation chartered by the Legislature of Massachusetts. And
all this, remember, was transacted in States that were under the control of
the Republican party.”
At a debate held at Beverly, Mass., shortly before the presidential
election of 1892, between prohibitionists representing the two sections, the
insincerity of the Republicans in their bids for the prohibition vote was
insisted on; while on the other side their past services to the cause were
enumerated, and it was argued that their defeat meant simply the triumph
PROHIBITION.
29
At the national elections and elections for the chief State
offices candidates have for some years been generally put
forward by the third party prohibitionists; and the strength
of their vote is in some degree a measure of the position held
by prohibition in the political world. The growth or diminu-
tion of the vote, however, is largely influenced by the attitude
from time to time taken up by the Republicans towards pro-
hibition, and the amount of confidence, regarding the strength
and sincerity of their attachment to the cause, with which at
different times and in different States they are able to inspire
the prohibitionists. Thus, where the Republicans have failed, or
are supposed to have failed, in acting up to their promises upon
this question, the result is an accession of strength to the third
party, an accession which may, but does not necessarily,
betoken an increase in the ranks of the friends of prohibition.*
In so far as the general growth of prohibitionist sentiment.
can be tested by the voting at elections, the figures showing
the popular votes cast at presidential contests seem to be the
best to select for the purpose, as being the most comprehen-
sive. The absolute strength of prohibition in some particular
States has been tested by the votes taken on proposed amend-
ments to their constitutions embodying it as part of their
of the Democrats. The latter speaker asserted that on the average there
was only one prohibitionist in twenty-eight in the North who believed in
the distinct ticket. Prohibitionists of the third party are divided on the
question wheher the advocacy of female suffrage should be imported into
the prohibition cause. Some hold that to mix up the cause with this or
any other subordinate issue is fatal to the prospect of success.
* Temporary local causes sometimes affect the prohibition vote.
A
prohibitionist in one Sfate told me that some years ago at the election for
governor the two great parties had very bad candidates. The Democrats,
long the dominant party, ran a man who was said to be a drunkard. The
Republican candidate was (I think) a saloon-keeper, or in some way inter-
ested in the liquor trade; at all events, he was not well looked upon by a
large number of the electors. The result was that the third party pro-
hibitionists polled an unusually high vote. At the next election the
Democrats had the best possible candidate, and carried him by a large
majority, the prohibition vote relapsing to its normal strength.
30
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
fundamental law. These two sets of figures are given in the
two following tables :—
POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT.*

1880
1884
1888
1892
Republican. Democrat.
4,454,416 4,444,952
4,851,981 | 4,874,986
5,440,708 5,536,242
Kansas
Iowa
Ohio
10,305
150,369
249,665
5,175,201 5,554,267 269,299
STATE.
Maine
…………
Rhode Island
Michigan
Texas...
Tennessee
...
Oregon
West Virginia
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania..
Rhode Island+
South Dakota
North Dakota
Washington
Connecticut
Nebraska
...
1,042,531
The prohibitionists polled o'11 per cent. of the total
number of votes cast in 1880, 1'49 per cent. in 1884, 2.16 per
cent. in 1888, and 2'22 per cent. in 1892.
•
VOTES ON QUESTION OF PROHIBITORY AMENDMENT
TO STATE CONSTITUTION.
..
••••
...
....
...
··
...
•
Year.
1880
1882
1883
1884
1886
Pro-
hibitionist.
1887
1887
1887
1887
1888
1889
1889
1889
1889
1889
1889
1889
1889
1890
For.
91,874
155,436
323,189
70,783
15,113
178,636
129,270
117,504
19,973
41,668
Green-
back.
Vote on the Amendment.
25,786
85,242
296,617
9,956
308,578
175,370
39,509
18,552
19,546
Union
Labour.
22,379
82,296
146,883
Against.
84,037
125,677
240,975
23,811
9,230
184,281
220,627
145, 197
27,958
76,555
30,976
131,062
484,644
28,315
33,456
Populist.
17,393
31,489
49,974
III,728
Vote
at Nearest
Important
Election.
201,236
292,048
721,310
142,413
26,875
380,885
357,513
303,784
54,954
159,540
90,922
344,517
997,568
43, III
77,827
38,098
58,443
153,978
214,090
* The figures are taken from the "Tribune Almanac." According to
the National Temperance Advocate (June, 1893), the prohibition vote in
1892 amounted to 270,813. If this is correct, the percentage, as given in
the text, should be raised to 2:24.
† This was the submission of the question of repealing prohibition.
PROHIBITION.
31
♡
Six States have thus passed votes adopting, and eleven have
rejected, constitutional prohibition, exclusive of Rhode Island,
which adopted it in 1886 and rejected it again in 1889. In
Iowa and Ohio, however, the affirmative vote was rendered
abortive on technical grounds.
One of the most active prohibitionists in a Southern State
favoured me with some remarks on what he thought should be
the general political attitude of that party, and, as they indicate
a different point of view from either of the two already noticed,
I will summarise briefly what I understood to be his views.
Though, as a prohibitionist, uncompromisingly opposed on
principle to licensing, it was evident that he had no faith in the
policy of forcing legislation beyond a certain point. His plan.
was that the prohibitionists should organise their forces not as
a political party, but as a body of citizens desiring a particular
thing. If they could show to the dominant party in the
Legislature, or to the Legislature in general irrespective of
party, that what they called for was the desire of a majority of
the people, it was the business of the Legislature, and the
interest of any party in it, to satisfy them. When they felt
themselves strong enough to make their demand, it was better
policy in the long run to adopt a conciliatory rather than a
threatening attitude to the dominant party administration.
Let them prove their case, and if they had support enough to
justify success they would attain it. Above all, let them not
form themselves into a separate political party. To do this
was to array all parties and persons against them, and meant
the destruction of their cause. His experience had been that
the Democrats in the South had given him and his friends all
that right and reason justified them in asking; and if they had
not got all they wanted, it was because they had not popular
support strong enough to warrant their getting it. Popular
support and not political pressure was what was needed. And
that popular support was to be cultivated and strengthened,
not on political lines or through party machinery, but by a
32
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
quiet and thorough preparation of public opinion outside of
and without reference to politics or parties. It is needless to
say that this gentleman had no sympathy with third party
prohibitionists and their ways. He pointed to the feeble show
they had always made when arrayed as a political organisation
against political organisations. The threatening and brow-
beating of the Republicans in the North had led and was
leading that party to abandon the anti-liquor movement.
They had submitted for a time, but had grown restive; and the
prohibitionists, in trying to force their cause by political
pressure on the party machine, were reaping the natural
consequences. They were crying out that the Republicans.
had betrayed them, and were insincere, which might be true
enough; but the fault was with the prohibitionists themselves
for setting to work in the wrong way. The end was one which
they would never attain by the attempt to force it as an issue
on political parties, or by making it the basis of an independent
political party; but it was, he thought, attainable through work
and organisation altogether outside politics, and when the right
time came the legislation would follow almost without
difficulty.
Prohibition has, at one time or another, been the law in
seventeen States,* in some of which, however, it can hardly be
said to have had any practical existence. At the present time
it is the law in seven States-Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Iowa, Kansas, and the new States of North and
South Dakota; four of which-Maine, Kansas, and the Dakotas
-have adopted it into their Constitutions.
The conditions of Maine, Iowa, and Kansas (which may
be considered to be the three most prominent prohibition
States) will be separately examined in some detail in subsequent
pages. The subject of prohibition also enters largely into the
* Maine, Delaware, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Michigan,
Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, New York, New Hampshire,
Illinois, Kansas, Ohio, and the Dakotas.
PROHIBITION.
33
account given of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, States
which have abandoned it and reverted to a licensing system.
Vermont, and (as regards spirits) New Hampshire, adopted
prohibition, respectively, in 1852 and 1855. In the latter State
the sale of beer has been forbidden since 1878; a proposition
to make prohibition constitutional was rejected in 1889. New
Hampshire also is peculiar in forbidding the sale only, not the
manufacture, of intoxicating liquors. Attempts to pass a
licensing measure have been made more than once in recent
years in this State and have not fallen very far short of suc-
cess, being defeated in 1889 by 144 votes to 118, and in the
following year by 166 to 148.*
The two Dakotas have been elevated to the rank of States
so recently, they are as yet so sparsely settled, and their expe-
rience of prohibition has been so short, that perhaps no great
significance ought fairly to be claimed for the effects of the
system in these States on one side or the other. In South
Dakota a movement in the Legislature during the present year
for resubmitting the question to the popular vote was defeated,
but it would seem not without difficulty.+
* A distinguished lawyer of New Hampshire has told me that prohibi-
tion was carried in that State as a party measure for the sake of securing
prohibitionist support, and that it has never been well enforced. I have
heard a similar account also from other sources, but did not visit either that
State or Vermont.
† A resident in North Dakota gave me the following account of pro-
hibition in that State :-The two largest towns are on the eastern border,
adjoining Minnesota. Prohibition works well enough in them because
just across the Red River are high-licence towns which supply all necessi-
ties. At the town in which my informant lives, a small town at some
distance from the eastern border, there are two "blind pigs," and the
apothecaries also dispense liquor to persons who know the ways. (In a
passage leading to the back premises a large bottle of whisky is placed.
People help themselves, and pay as they please.) At Bismarck, the State
capital, which is further west, drink is sold much more openly. His
experience leads him to the conclusion that if prohibition is enforced too
rigorously the spirit of resistance grows too great for the law, and the evils
of drinking become worse than under a licence system; some relaxation is
D
34
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
The other five States fall naturally into two divisions,
three of them belonging to the group of New England States,
while the other two are among the more newly settled States of
the interior. They present some characteristics to which I
desire to draw attention, without undertaking to assign the
significance, whether great or small, which should be attached
to them in connection with the question of prohibition.
If reference is made to the table on p. 19, it will be seen
that the first or "North Atlantic" group of States* comprises
New England, with New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania,
these together forming the old established States of the North.
A glance at the second column shows that the three prohibition
States are far more sparsely populated than the rest. The
third, fourth, and fifth columns show that the increase of
population has been markedly less rapid in these three States
than in all the others (in Vermont, indeed, there has been
scarcely any increase at all); and that the percentage of
"urban" population is very much smaller.
Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the most thickly popu-
lated and most "urban" of all, have both made trial of
prohibition, and have reverted to licence, with local option.
Kansas and Iowa do not hold so peculiar a position in the
Northern Central group as do the three States just mentioned in
theirs; but the States in this group are, in general, much more
newly settled and less thickly populated than those in the
former group. Iowa, it will be seen, has just the same number
necessary as an escape valve. The farmers, he says—including those who
are not total abstainers-favour prohibition. When they come into town,
instead of finding open saloons, and neglecting their business, and getting
drunk, they buy a bottle of whisky and take it home with them.
I give this statement as I heard it. My informant was a representative
man and must have been well acquainted with the circumstances. He did
not appear to have any very strong predilection, but was inclined to fav our
the law so long as it was not enforced too much.
* The grouping of the States is that adopted by the authorities of the
census.
PROHIBITION.
35
of inhabitants to the square mile as Vermont, while Kansas
has only half that number. And a reference to the fifth
column shows that, even in their own group, the urban section
of the population in these two States is lower than in the rest,
except the Dakotas, and far below the average of the
group.*
Turning to the columns in the same table relating to the
prison population, we find that in the first group the three
prohibition States are again distinguished for their low rate of
crime, a circumstance which, it has been suggested, is wholly
or partly attributable to the sparsity of their population and
the absence in them of large cities. Iowa, also, stands in this
respect below the average of its group; but Kansas is far above
the average, showing, indeed, the highest ratio of all the
Northern Central States.
As regards pauperism, Vermont has a lower ratio of indoor
paupers than the average, and Maine slightly lower than the
average; while New Hampshire has the highest ratio of all.
Iowa and Kansas both give a low return of paupers. †
Upon the subject of the enforcement of prohibition little.
will be said in this chapter. This important subject can
best be studied in connection with the particular States
which have chosen to adopt prohibition, and the reader is
referred to subsequent pages dealing separately with Maine,
Iowa, and Kansas, and with the ex-prohibition States, Rhode
Island and Massachusetts. The largest town now under State
prohibition is Des Moines, the capital of Iowa (population,
*The falling off in the increase per cent. of population during the
decade 1880-90, as compared with 1870-80, was greater both in Kansas
and Iowa than in the other Northern Central States.
† Statistics of pauperism are apt to be extremely misleading, unless
due allowance is made for differences of practice in administering poor
relief. In the Northern Central Group, Ohio shows by far the highest
ratio of paupers. For some strictures on the way in which the poor law is
administered in Ohio, see p. 285.
D 2
36
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
50,000).*
The town in which it is most strictly and suc-
cessfully enforced (among those of any considerable size) is,
perhaps, Topeka, the capital of Kansas (population 31,000).
The wide gulf which sometimes separates the will to pass a
prohibitory law, or to oppose its repeal, from the determination
to give full practical effect to it is elsewhere noticed. As was
once said by the governor of a State in which prohibition was
undergoing a not very successful trial: "Laws may represent
public opinion, but their enforcement is dependent almost
wholly on the public will as contradistinguished from public
opinion." I have myself met with prohibitionists who have
attributed to official misfeasance the whole blame for failures
to enforce prohibition. However that may have been in
particular cases, it was certainly not the view of the majority
of the supporters of this system with whom I conversed. The
more general opinion among them was that the successful
vindication of the law depended in no small degree on the
existence of a substantial body of popular feeling behind it.
Not only has this in very many instances been wanting, but
officers have been elected on the distinct understanding that
they should wholly or partially close their eyes to breaches of
the law. Some prohibitionists have expressed to me in strong
terms their sense of the difficulty of securing-unless for short
periods and under pressure of an exceptional impulse-the
active participation of private citizens in the work of finding
and prosecuting offenders. Zealous officials, and a pre-
ponderating public sentiment-strong, steady, and active-
are, I think, according to the view of most thoughtful pro-
hibitionists, necessary elements for success in cities and
populous places; and it would be difficult to point to more
than a very few cities of any considerable importance where
these conditions have as yet prevailed. Some who are in
complete sympathy with the principle of prohibition have
* Two or three larger towns in Massachusetts are under prohibition by
local option.
PROHIBITION.
37
expressed to me their entire disbelief in the possibility of
suddenly and peremptorily cutting off the supply of drink from
people determined to have it, and their conviction that the de-
sired goal can only be attained by a gradual advance side by side
with the progress of a preponderating public opinion in that
direction. In rural districts I found no evidence, in the decla-
rations of either friends or foes, of any glaring and widespread
resistance to the law. How far this is due to the force of the
law, and how far to the weakness of the demand for liquor, I
do not undertake to estimate. The active pressure in support
of prohibition comes mainly (apart from special organisations)
from the farmers.
Even while recognising the difficulties of enforcement, and
admitting the failures, prohibitionists argue that, taken at its
worst, it is better than any other system. The open saloon is
the head and front of the mischief: drive out the open saloon
(they say), and you have done much, whatever surreptitious
drinking may go on. Young men who have not acquired the
habit of drinking will not seek their way to foul places for the
sake of acquiring it: let drinking be made disreputable, and
the more so the better. If people cannot obtain drink without
doing something which they are ashamed to do, they will in the
great majority of cases go without it.* And it is maintained
* I have heard it urged in depreciation of this argument, that the fear
of doing anything which might shock "respectability," though extremely
strong in some classes of society, has less force in others, and that the
driving of the business into holes and corners can only have demoralising
results among the latter.
Prohibitionist writers and speakers cannot on the whole be fairly
charged with remissness in the endeavour to make the liquor traffic appear
odious and disreputable. The vocabulary of invective has, by the extreme
section of the party, been plentifully poured, without respect of persons, on
all connected with the production or distribution of alcoholic drinks; and
those who venture in public to dissent from the statements and conclusions
of the prohibitionists may confidently expect to have their moral obliquity
pointed out. An American deeply interested in social questions, who has
given special attention to the liquor problem, and is as far as possible
38
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
with confidence that prohibition has in fact greatly diminished
the consumption; while at the same time its mere existence in
the Statute-book is of value in educating the popular mind to
a more perfect recognition of its merits.*
Upon the question of the amount of consumption, a few
words have to be said. In the first place, it is, so far as any
particular State is concerned, an unascertained quantity. There
are no official figures, and no trustworthy figures that are not
official, which give this information. The quantity produced.
in the several States is known; and the quantity exported from
the country is known; the difference between the two, added
to the amount of liquor imported, gives the total consumption
in the country. But, when once a keg of whisky has paid the
Excise or Customs duty, it is impossible to trace it further.
Trade organisations do indeed issue tables purporting to show
the consumption of beer or distilled liquor by States. Such
figures are probably based on the examination of the books of
brewers or distillers; but it is more than doubtful whether the
result of any such examination can be accepted as a complete
removed from hostility to the principle of prohibition, has told me that he
has been the object of vehement denunciation for expressing his doubts as
to the universal applicability of the principle, and as to the validity of
some of the arguments and statements of prohibitionists; and in particular
for some unorthodox remarks which he made about high-licence in large
cities. A professor in a State university, with whom I had some conversa-
tion, complained strongly of the way in which this and other economic
questions were handled, being always dealt with from partisan points of
view on one side or the other. Facts (he said), so far as they were examined
at all, were made to yield just such inferences as the inquirer wanted. A
scientific study was rarely undertaken, and he who undertook it was
exposed to all the bitterness and hostility of politicians the insecurity of
whose "
platform" might be revealed by the flash-light of truth. He
found himself very much hampered in university work and in delivering
public lectures, and publishing anything in print, upon public questions
relating to social or political science, by the tyranny of "politics" and
politicians.
* With respect to legislative prohibition as an educator of public senti-
ment, see Kansas, pp. 141-143.
PROHIBITION.
39
and accurate return. In the absence, therefore, of positive
evidence, conclusions are necessarily matters of opinion, based
on personal observation, or collateral evidence (such as statistics
of crime,* wealth, and pauperism), or on reasoning by pro-
babilities; sometimes, perhaps, on prejudice pure and simple.
As regards crime and social statistics something has
already been said, and more will be found in connection with
individual States. Statistics of arrests for crime, and par-
ticularly for drunkenness, naturally and rightly attract attention
in connection with the question of the efficacy of liquor
laws. They have their value; but are not unlikely, sometimes,
to lead to false conclusions if too much reliance is placed on
bare figures. An increase in the number of arrests may mean
more crime; or it may mean a sharper administration; or it
may mean a change of law, either making acts criminal which
before were permitted, or rendering crimes more easy of
detection. Variations of administration are specially apparent
in the treatment by the police of drunkenness in the streets: a
mere alteration in the instructions given to the patrolmen on
their beats may produce a most marked effect on the returns of
arrests for drunkenness at the end of the year, without indi-
cating really any change whatever in the habits of the people,
or in the law, or in their respect for it. Under prohibition,
it has been stated, as being the experience of some police.
authorities, that a diminution in the amount of drunkenness in
the streets has been wholly or partly due to the greater secrecy
with which drinking is carried on, the liquor-seller being afraid
of detection if he allows a drunken man to reel out of his
premises. Due allowance should be made for these and the
like considerations in drawing inferences from returns of crime.
The value of statistics of wealth, as bearing on the subject.
of prohibition, is extremely difficult to measure in a country
* See Note on Drink and Crime at the end of this chapter.
† See, as to drunkenness in Providence, R.I., while under prohibition,
p. 186.
40
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS,
advancing by leaps and bounds as America has advanced
during the last few decades. Moreover, the methods adopted
in the valuation of property for taxation are very unequal in
their results. The value as assessed is generally far below the
true value, but the assessments are not uniform.*
Among a large number of persons holding all shades of
opinion, with whom I have conversed, not a few (outside the
ranks of the pronounced prohibitionists)—some even who
decidedly did not favour legislative prohibition-have ex-
pressed with much confidence their belief that that system
had greatly diminished the whole volume of drinking; and
some claim to have themselves observed a marked improve-
ment in the circumstances of working-men and their families
arising from the removal of the saloon.†
On the other hand, evidence is forthcoming from equally
untainted sources to a different effect. I have been told by
one, who as a parish clergyman had lived in three different
States under prohibition, and who, though not a prohibitionist,
was a strong "temperance man," that he had always noticed
that system to be accompanied by an increase of home drinking
and an increased tendency among young men to take to liquor.
As minister of a church in the poorest part of a large town, in
which the success of prohibition was being loudly proclaimed
by its advocates, he found drunkenness still the great evil
against which he had to contend. In another State, in which
he was in charge of a parish at the time when prohibition came
* The assessed valuation of Chicago, as returned in the census, was
greater in 1880 than in 1890, the reason assigned being that the assessed
value was 50 per cent. of the true value in the former year, and only 25 per
cent. in the latter.
+ See, as to effect of prohibition in Atlanta, p. 322. An architect, who
for a time immediately preceding and succeeding the introduction of pro-
hibition in Iowa was engaged in some work at Des Moines, told me that he
found a marked change in the circumstances of some of his workmen to
have resulted from it. During the winter these men would be apt to
require charitable relief, but after the saloons. were closed they got through
the winter without assistance, saving the money that used to go for drink.
PROHIBITION.
41
into force, his experience was that it distinctly led to drinking,
developing the drug store saloon, and leading people to take
liquor home with them. It was, he said, a general rule, rather
than an exception, that a stock of liquor came into houses
where none had previously been kept.
The results alleged to have followed prohibition in Atlanta,
Georgia, are noticed elsewhere, and supply a striking instance
of one of the charges most frequently brought against
prohibition by its opponents.*
The allegations of fact on which these two conflicting views.
are based are not necessarily inconsistent with one another.
It is easy to imagine that prohibition might contract the
whole volume of liquor consumed, while at the same time it
produced certain ill results of greater or less magnitude. It is
argued that the extent of the evils of drink cannot be measured
merely by reference to the whole amount consumed; that if
ten men have a bottle of whisky among them, it will on the
whole do less harm if they all share it equally, than if nine of
them take nothing, while the other one drinks half the bottle
and spills the rest. Many prohibitionists would rejoin that
the nine, as long as they abstained, were safe, while if each
drank his share they would all be travelling dangerously near
the road to ruin; if, therefore, prohibition reduces the total
consumption of alcoholic liquor, that means that it increases
the number of people who drink none; and this is a sufficient
justification for it, even if it is true that certain bad results
have also followed its adoption. It is unnecessary for the
present purpose to follow these arguments further. My object
is rather to note the fact that both these two views of the
results of prohibition-contraction of the whole volume of
liquor consumed, and increase of drinking in certain particular
directions are confidently and honestly held by persons who
have seen the system in operation; and it can hardly be doubted
that there are substantial grounds for both of them.
* See also Massachusetts, p. 190; Iowa, p. 168.
42
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
Connected with the question of the amount of liquor
consumed is that of the extent to which illegal selling goes on.
This must be considered in detail, in relation to individual
States. Reference, however, may here be made to the table
printed on pp. 17, 18, in which the number of liquor-dealers
paying, as such, the United States tax in each State is given.
The United States Government collects a tax from every
person (irrespective of the State laws) who manufactures or
deals by wholesale or retail in intoxicating liquors. Obviously,
in prohibitory States, the payment of this tax is of itself in
many cases strong primâ facie proof of a breach of the law.
And by the law of those States it is generally so regarded.
The proportion of tax-paying retail liquor-dealers to population
is as follows in the prohibitory States and in a few other non-
prohibitory ones, which are added for the sake of comparison :--
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Iowa
Kansas
North Dakota
South Dakota
...
•
...
PROHIBITORY STATES.
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Minnesota
Nebraska
Georgia
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
···
...
...
...
···
...
..
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
..
NON-PROHIBITORY STATES.*
I to 437
I to 413
I to 208
...
···
•••
...
··
...
...
...
...
···
...
··
...
•
...
...
I to 647
I to 205
I to 742
I to 386
I to 571
...
I to 559
I to 299
I to 393
I to 438
I to 864
Average
I to 428
Average
I to 352
* Of these six States, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are old States
with large urban populations, high-licence, and restriction on the number
of saloons, the former having also local option. Illinois contains Chicago,
which has a very large drinking population and a great many saloons.
Minnesota and Nebraska are high-licence States of the interior, their general
conditions being not dissimilar from Iowa and Kansas. Georgia is taken as
a representative local option State of the South.
PROHIBITION.
43
The disparity is perhaps less marked than the difference
in their liquor laws would have led one to expect. The six
selected non-prohibitory States do indeed show a lower average
of taxpayers than that for the whole country, which is I
retail liquor-seller to 278 inhabitants. A single State, however,
If California is
is largely responsible for this high ratio.
omitted, the average for all the remaining States and territories.
is 1 to 339; and if New York is also left out, there remains
an average of I retail liquor-seller to 393 inhabitants in the
whole country, exclusive of those two States—a ratio lower
than that of the six States in the above table, and not much
higher than that of the prohibitory States.
Whether a larger number of persons who sell liquor shirk
the United States tax in prohibitory than in other States is a
question to which a decisive answer cannot be given; but the
allegation that this is the case would at least seem to be not
devoid of probability. The only persons who can legally
retail liquor in the prohibition States are those who are
authorised under stringent regulations to do so for medicinal,
mechanical, and the like special purposes. In Kansas and
Iowa this business is allowed to be carried on by druggists.
holding permits for the purpose, which are granted only in
accordance with a procedure such as attends the granting of a
licence under a strict licensing law. In Maine and Vermont a
different plan is adopted, and liquor required for the excepted
purposes can be sold only by an agent whom the local
authority of each city and town may appoint if it thinks fit.*
I have no information of the number of these permit-
holders and city and town agencies, but I believe there is no
doubt that they do not nearly correspond with the number of
United States liquor taxpayers. Many druggists in Maine
pay the tax,† and I endeavoured to ascertain with what legitimate
* Some account of the mode in which business is conducted in the City
Liquor Agency of Portland, Maine, will be found on p. 107.
† See, as to druggists in Portland, p. 106.
44
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
object they might pay it. They clearly may not sell for the
excepted purposes, since only the authorised agent may do
that. I at first thought that perhaps the keeping of liquor, not
for sale as such, but for use in compounding drugs might render
a druggist liable to the tax, though not amenable to the State
law. A lawyer in Maine, however, from whom I sought counsel,
writes as follows:-"The answer to your question-' For what
purpose, requiring payment of United States liquor tax, but
not illegal according to State law, do apothecaries keep intoxi-
cating liquors ?'—is that the law of the United States requires
persons engaged in the retail liquor business to pay a special
tax. Apothecaries who simply use intoxicating liquors for the
purpose of compounding medicines are not retail liquor dealers
under the statute, and consequently are not required to pay
the special tax. It is not illegal under the State law for
apothecaries to keep liquor for the purpose of compounding
medicines. It is only when apothecaries keep liquor for
sale as such that they must pay the tax or are liable to the
penalties of the State law."
I am quite unable to say why apothecaries in Maine (or in
any other prohibitory State if they are not permit-holders) should
pay the retail liquor tax unless they intend to sell liquor in
defiance of the State law.
It should be noted also that the number of retail dealers
who pay for malt liquor only is not inconsiderable in the pro-
hibition States, as also of wholesale dealers (who are not
allowed to sell in quantities less than five gallons at a time);
and most of these States are not entirely devoid of breweries
and distilleries.*
The necessity of allowing the traffic in alcoholic liquors.
for medicinal, mechanical, and other purposes for which they
are required for use otherwise than as a beverage, has been one
of the difficulties in prohibitory legislation. The limitation by
medical prescriptions, or sworn statements made to specially
* See table on pp. 17, 18.
PROHIBITION.
45
authorised apothecaries, has often been found to be much
abused, notwithstanding the elaborate restrictions under which
the sales are required to be made. The town agency might
appear more likely to be strictly conducted, but municipalities
have certainly not always exercised great vigilance over the
conduct of the agencies. Some laws allow only pure alcohol
to be sold for the excepted purposes. And in examining the
special prohibitory laws affecting particular counties or towns,
so common in the Southern States, I have found a good many
instances where the permission to sell for the excepted purposes
either has not been given, or has been withdrawn by a sub-
sequent Act as being found impossible to be kept clear of
abuse.
There appears to be good reason for the statement (which
primâ facie seems probable) that prohibition is more readily
made effective against malt liquor than against spirits, and that
the average quality of the liquor surreptitiously sold under
prohibition is inferior. Beer barrels are too bulky to be easily
handled where secrecy and concealment are required. The
experience of the "Rum Room" of Portland (Maine), where
seized liquor is stored before being destroyed, gives direct
evidence of this fact, as also of the low quality of the whisky.
There was also evidence that on the repeal of prohibition in
Massachusetts a diminution of the trade in distilled spirits
ensued, owing to the increased consumption of beer.* And,
if exigencies of space render it difficult-where the civil
power is inquisitive-for the drug-store saloon and illicit drink-
shopt to dispose of malt liquor, it is still more evident that the
stock-in-trade of that most pertinacious and elusive violator or
99.66
* See p. 197.
" "blind
"
†The names for places where drink is surreptitiously obtained are
""dives," "kitchen bar-rooms,'
many. "Joints,
speak-easies,
pigs,' "blind tigers," "holes-in-the-wall "—these are some of the terms in
common use in different parts of the country. The existence of such places
is, of course, not confined to areas under prohibition. The peculiarity of
the "hole-in-the-wall " is that the seller and buyer do not see each other.
46
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
prohibitory laws-the pocket peddler or "bootlegger "must
be as concentrated and portable in form as possible.
For purposes of sale, liquor has been concealed in eggs,
in receptacles made to resemble books (especially Bibles, or
works whose titles-such as "History of the Bourbons,"
"History of Oporto," etc.—suggest the true nature of their
contents), and in a hundred other ways, more or less ingenious.
Some considerable evasion of prohibitory laws must un-
doubtedly be imputed to the sale, especially by druggists, of
pseudo" temperance" drinks, under such names as "bay rum,"
"essence of peppermint," "essence of Jamaica ginger," "spirits
of camphor," "Johnson's anodyne liniment," "sweet cider,"
"crab apple cider," "hop tonic," "hop tea," "maltase," "ex-
tract of hops," and the like, some of which are highly intoxi-
cating. "Jamaica ginger," for instance, is said to contain a
considerably higher percentage of alcohol than is contained in
whisky. Whisky also is itself sold as "cold tea," "white ink,"
and under other aliases; and beer as "ginger ale,” etc.
As to the extent and methods of the injurious adultera-
tion of liquor, it is difficult to come to a clear conclusion.
Adulteration, so far as it exists at all, is not, of course, re-
stricted to places where prohibition reigns; but the liability to
seizure and confiscation of the liquor (not to mention the
seller's chances of fine and imprisonment) obviously supplies a
strong motive for keeping the outlay on stock as low, and the
profits of the business as high, as possible. I have often heard
disbelief expressed in the existence of much injurious adultera-
tion. In Boston and other places, at different times, samples
of whisky taken for analysis have revealed much dilution with
water and a certain amount of adulteration with colouring
matter, but little or nothing absolutely hurtful. At the same
time, the belief that great mischief is done by impure liquor is
very general. Much, no doubt, is due to the pernicious effects
of the fusel oil inherent in new spirit; but in the face of the
strong popular belief, and the stringent laws in some States
PROHIBITION.
47
against adulteration, it is difficult to doubt that it is practised
to a serious extent.*
* In the law of Illinois the following adulterants are specifically
mentioned :-Cocculus indicus, vitriol, grains of paradise, opium, alum,
capsicum, copperas, laurel water, logwood, Brazil wood, cochineal, and
sugar of lead. I have been told that an immense quantity of very inferior
stuff is sold, having a basis of "high wines" or alcohol, with colouring and
flavouring matters added; the mischief is done by the fusel oil. Whisky
ought to be kept not less than four years, to let the "snakes"
snakes" evaporate.
The following extract is in point, but I know nothing as to the accuracy of
the report or of the witness's statements :-
WASHINGTON, February 6, 1893.-To-day's session of the Sub-
Committee of the House Judiciary Committee investigating the Whisky
Trust was devoted to watching the experiments by Veasey in producing
liquors by adulteration. Taking spirits worth $1.30 per gallon and adding
essential oils, essence, and colouring matter worth one cent and a half, he pro-
duced in a few minutes whiskies, rums, and gins, such as sell in the market
for as high as $4. He declared half of the goods sold were adulterated.
Veasey urged that certain witnesses, names not given, be called as soon as
possible, as some of them would find it convenient to go to Europe."
NOTE ON DRINK AND CRIME.
The proportion of crime due to drink is often stated by ardent
prohibitionists, with more emphasis than accuracy, to be nine-tenths of the
whole. Those of a more cautious temperament admit this estimate to be
exaggerated, and recognise the difficulty of ascertaining the true proportion.
One specially conversant with the criminal statistics of the State in which
he holds office, and by no means hostile in principle to prohibition, has told
me that many wild statements of this kind go uncontradicted, because
anyone who demurs to or refutes them is set down as an enemy to
temperance; that he himself receives letters, which he does not care to
answer fully and openly, asking him to confirm such allegations out of his
official knowledge; but he has no doubt that crime in general is very much
less the effect of drink than many people suppose. A temperance lady
goes and delivers a sympathetic address to the prisoners in a jail, dwelling
on the terrible evils of drink, and its awful consequences in turning good,
respectable men into criminals. Then she calls on those who were brought
to their present unfortunate condition by this cause to hold up their hands.
Nearly everyone holds up his hand. Therefore, nine-tenths of crime is the
result of drink. There is, as I have been repeatedly told by persons with
prison experience, a strong tendency among convicts to "put it on the
drink." A man determines to commit a crime: he fortifies himself with
48
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
a dram; he is caught, and says he was brought to it by drink. As a
matter of fact a large class of criminals could not carry on their profession
if they were drinkers. Liquor has enough crime to answer for without
any need for exaggerating it. The proportion can, of course, be greatly
increased by including drunkenness itself (unaccompanied by any other
offence arising out of the drinking).
The most systematic attempt that I have heard of to ascertain the
relation of drinking to crime was undertaken in Cumberland County
(Mass.) in 1879-80, under the direction of Colonel Carroll D. Wright,
when it appeared that (the offence of mere drunkenness, which comprised a
large majority of the whole number of cases, being excluded) 45 per
cent. of the offenders were in liquor when the offence was committed; in
assault cases (minor), 56 per cent.; in robbery, felonious assaults, and man-
slaughter, 60 per cent.; in higher offences against property, 26 per cent.;
in lower offences against property, 40 per cent. A large number were said
to have had drinking antecedents in themselves or in others which induced
the crime; 25 per cent. were teetotallers, and 28 per cent. excessive drink-
ers. (As to drinking habits of criminals in Canada, see pp. 395–397.)
In the present year this question was again before the Legislature of
Massachusetts, and it was hoped that a new inquiry on an extended scale
would be undertaken, under the direction of the bureau of labour statistics.
In the United States Census of 1890 (Census Bulletin, No. 182,
"Homicide in 1890 "), an exceedingly elaborate analysis is made by the
Rev. F. H. Wines of the returns relating to prisoners charged with homi-
cide, numbering altogether, throughout the United States, 7,386. This
figure comprises as well those under sentence of death or serving a sentence
of imprisonment, as those awaiting trial, the latter class comprising little
more than one-eighth of the whole number. It comprises also those charged
with manslaughter as well as those accused of the various degrees of murder.
The law of New Mexico recognises as many as five different degrees of
murder; Florida, Wisconsin, and Minnesota three degrees; while compara-
tively few States treat murder as a single offence, without subdivision. In
some seven or eight States, two, three, or even four degrees of manslaughter
are recognised; while in others this crime is divided into voluntary and
involuntary. Rhode Island, Michigan,* and Wisconsin are the only States
which have struck the death penalty out of their code; but several others
permit a sentence of imprisonment for life as an alternative for capital
punishment. In Kansas the execution of the death sentence is required to
take place at such time as the governor in his discretion may appoint; and
the result has been that a large number of murderers have been kept
indefinitely in confinement awaiting a date which is never fixed. Execu-
tions have of late been rarely carried out in this State. In 1890 forty-nine
* Michigan has, in 1893, reintroduced capital punishment. In the same year its
abolition in Nebraska was proposed.
PROHIBITION.
49
States and Territories.
convicts were then awaiting execution, some of whom had been sentenced
years previously.
In considering the following figures, it has to be remembered that a
murderer who suffers the capital penalty disappears from the list, while one
who is sentenced to penal servitude, or over whom execution of the
death sentence is pending, is included in the return so long as he remains in
confinement; and the increased ratio of homicides in 1890 over 1880 may,
in part at least, be accounted for by the fact that the returns for the later
year included persons whose crimes were committed more than ten years.
previously.
The table following shows, by States, the ratio of homicides to
population, the figures representing the number of homicides per million
inhabitants:

[North Atlantic.]
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut...
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Delaware
...
[South Atlantic.]
...
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
...
...
...
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa ...
...
Maryland
District of Columbia
Virginia
West Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
...
[North Central.]
...
...
...
...
...
1
...
...
...
::
Ratio.
1890 ! 1880
[62]
64
BTW 888A ON MANCAUNU
[123] [87]
55
103
5I
98
[50] | [North Central, cont.]
Missouri
45
49
33
47
40
74
55
56
42
[80]
59
52
46
87
121
115
[73]
43
103
79
95 87
84
States and Territories.
60455
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Kentucky
Tennessee
...
[South Central.]
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Texas...
Oklahoma
Arkansas
···
···
...
...
...
**
...
...
Montana
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico...
Arizona
Utah...
Nevada
Idaho...
Washington
75
50 67 Oregon
60 57
California
...
[Western.]
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
..
:
...
...
...
...
...
…….
...
Ratio.
1890
87
66
64
66
I21
222
168
340
82
[232][165]
236
168
184
358
906
1880
96
896
308
120
108
172
346
22
179
293 189
327
281
176
135
88
133
[276] [273]
26
II2
117
138
241
237
117
371
28
739
215
266
109
354
It appears from the foregoing table that of the three prohibition States
E
50
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
in the North Atlantic group, Maine and Vermont have a ratio of homicides
in excess of the average in that group, while in New Hampshire the ratio
is below the average. In each case there is an increase over 1880. In the
case of New Hampshire this increase is but slight, but in Maine and
Vermont it largely exceeds the average increase for the group.
In the Northern Central group, Iowa shows a ratio below, and Kansas
above, the average; but both show an increase over 1880. The Dakotas,
also prohibition States, have a lower ratio, but a large increase over 1880;
these States, however, are so newly formed that their conditions, perhaps,
hardly approximate to those of the other States in the group.
In the prohibition States of New England the negro element hardly
comes into account: in Kansas about one-fifth, and in Iowa one-eleventh,
of the homicides are charged to negroes.
It seems that in Iowa seven, and in Kansas five, executions took place
in 1890; in the three New England States none.
In the same bulletin an analysis is made of the habits of prisoners
charged with homicide as to the use of intoxicating liquors, from which it
appears that throughout the whole country those returned respectively as
total abstainers and as drunkards were almost identically equal in number,
with a very slight preponderance of the former. "Occasional" and
"moderate" drinkers numbered about three times as many as either of
the others; while about one-eighth of the whole number were returned as
"unknown." Thus,
1,282 were total abstainers.
703
3,126
1,267
973
In commenting, at the conclusion of the bulletin (which covers 76
pages), on the “demonstration which it furnishes of the erroneous nature
of certain prevalent beliefs," the writer remarks: "Intemperance is a
cause of crime, though a less active and immediate cause than is
popularly supposed. But 20'10 per cent. were total abstainers, and only
19.87 per cent. are returned as drunkards.”
""
moderate
drunkards.
""
unknown.
""
occasional drinkers.
""
""
5I
CHAPTER IV.
LOCAL OPTION.
ATTENTION was drawn in the last chapter to the fact that,
though there are many Americans who object to prohibition on
principle, as being an undue interference with personal freedom
and a piece of pernicious sumptuary legislation, it is, on the
whole, remarkable how large a proportion even of those who
are opposed to the system are unaffected by any such con-
siderations. Over and over again I have found men (and not
teetotallers only) saying that they would vote for prohibition if
it could be enforced, but that they are convinced it is useless
or worse than useless, except where it is strongly supported by
local popular feeling. Among the advanced prohibitionists.
themselves there are not a few who consider such support to be
indispensable for a really efficient enforcement; who admit that
under existing conditions, even if prohibition be carried in any
State by a large majority, it is not likely to be well enforced in
any particular locality in the State which does not want it.
Such an admission, it is urged, supplies a powerful argument
for local option as against State prohibition; and the principle
of local option is very widely accepted as being reasonable, and
as promising, in many places, beneficial results, by enabling
prohibition to be adopted in just those places where it can
be enforced.
Thorough-going prohibitionists have little liking for local
option, which they hold to be "too local and too optional."
Some go further and say that it is positively injurious to the
cause of temperance, entrenching the liquor trade in the cities,
and making people indifferent to the only true remedy.*
* A prohibitionist writer and lecturer, Mr. Axel Gustafson, in giving
evidence before the Canadian Royal Commission, declared local option to
be a tissue of "illusions, elusions, and collusions." According to his view,
E 2
52
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
'
Others, again, support it with more or less zeal, on the ground
that it is, at least, a step in the right direction, and a measure
calculated to have a salutary effect in educating and preparing
the public mind to welcome what they consider a better and
more thorough solution of the liquor problem.
Local option in the most commonly understood meaning of
the term-the power to close all liquor shops within a given
area by vote of the inhabitants (the "direct veto")—forms
part of the liquor law in a large number of States in all parts
of the country; but its chosen habitat, where it flourishes with
the greatest vigour, is the South. Though legally enacted in
several of the northern States, there is, I believe, only one of
them—Massachusetts-in which it has at the present time
any really extensive operation. In several others, indeed, a
vigorous effort has been made to give effect to it, but without
lasting success. In the South, however, it seems to be firmly
established, and has driven the open saloon out of a large
proportion of the rural districts; and in principle, at least, if
not in practice, it receives much support in the North. In
Minnesota, for instance, there has been recently a disposition
to move for a wider recognition of it by the Legislature, and in
*
it implies the treating of the question as one of mere expediency, and
injures the moral side of it; it can be enforced where the traffic is weak;
where enforced, it is at the expense of other areas; it is never enforced
except in a rural area (unless as a nine days' wonder); it makes its
supporters the opponents of prohibition, as has been proved in the United
States, where those who have voted for local option have voted against a
State law of prohibition; much more liquor (he affirmed) is sold in the
States which have adopted local option than in the same States before they
adopted it. Drink, in his view, is not a local but a national question; the
thing to be suppressed is not the liquor traffic or the saloon, but drink.
"With all that can be said in its favour, it must nevertheless be
confessed that local option affords an opportunity for the saloon to become
the most active, offensive, and corrupt factor in politics."—(Rev. H.
Montgomery: "Open Letters to the Citizens of Massachusetts.")
* See especially the account of local option in Michigan and Missouri,
in subsequent chapters. Illinois, also.
•
LOCAL OPTION.
53
Pennsylvania an unsuccessful attempt has been made in 1893
to pass a local option law.
In Canada the local option law passed in 1878 by the
Dominion Parliament appears, after a short period of activity
to have fallen out of favour with the anti-liquor party, who are
now turning their attention more particularly to an agitation for
complete prohibition, either by provinces or throughout the
whole Dominion. An older and less comprehensive local
option law, however, extending only to Quebec and Ontario,
has had a steady operation in the former of those provinces,
and within the last two or three years has shown signs of
renewed vitality in the latter. But the failure of the Scott
Act in Ontario has struck a severe blow in Canada at public
confidence in the efficacy of local option.*
In comparing the methods adopted by different Legislatures
which have embraced the principle of the direct veto, some
important variations of detail present themselves. First, as
regards the area of adoption, opinions differ whether the
county or a smaller division should be taken. The more
ambitious spirits among the optionists favour the county as the
unit, reserving (perhaps) the larger towns or cities for separate
treatment. In support of this view it is argued that, where
prohibition is adopted in a very small area, the chances are
great that it cannot be made effective, because people can so
easily get drink at no great distance. Moreover, it is said that
the towns where "no licence" is voted are in danger of losing
trade, because the country people, where they have the choice,
are apt to come to market and seek their supplies in towns
where liquor is sold, and will travel a somewhat longer distance
for that purpose, avoiding the prohibition town where they
would naturally find their market.
The objection to the larger area is the probability of a
less efficient administration. The Scott Act, which had so
* For some account of local option in Canada, see Chapter XX.
54
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
unsuccessful a career in Ontario, was local option by counties
and cities; and its failure has by some been in part attributed ·
to the too great extent of the area of adoption. The older Dunkin
Act, which can be adopted by townships, has in the long run
shown greater vitality than the Scott Act, and is now in force in
a considerable portion of the province of Quebec. In Michigan.
and Missouri States, where local option, after attracting much
attention a few years ago, does not exhibit an encouraging
aspect at the present time, the area of adoption is the county.
On the other hand, Massachusetts, in which the principle
shows far more vigour than in any other State in the North,
applies it to every city and township, and thus comprises three
hundred and fifty independent divisions in a territory about as
large as Yorkshire and Lancashire.
In the South the local option area is commonly the county.
In that section of the country, though State prohibition has
not gained a footing, the local option and licensing laws are in
general of an extremely restrictive character.* The conditions.
of the South are peculiar. The large negro element (in three
States forming an absolute majority of the population) imports
a distinct feature into the liquor question in that part of the
country, where it is largely a question of police and good
order, and where the prevalence of pistol-shooting rowdiness
and of crimes of violence, especially among the negroes, has
In the southern States it has been very much the custom to deal
with the matter by special legislation, which is in fact, though not in form,
a species of local option, since such laws are passed by the State Legis-
lature at the instance of the localities concerned (see pp. 317, 336, 356,
367). Some advantage is claimed for this mode of procedure as compared
with that of a vote under the general local option law (see p. 319). But
at present there is a disposition to check special legislation. Kentucky has
by its new Constitution put a stop to it for the future. In some places
the sale of liquor is forbidden by special clauses in deeds of conveyance,
or in charters of incorporation-as, for example, in Colorado Springs
(p. 304), and Evanston near Chicago (p. 295). Landowners who are large
employers of labour sometimes enforce prohibition in the area under their
immediate control (e.g., Pullman, Illinois, and Marysville, N.B.).
LOCAL OPTION.
55
contributed greatly to promote repressive liquor legislation.*
Some of the southern States are now under prohibition to the
extent of much more than half their geographical area, though
probably not that proportion of their population. In the larger
towns it is not often adopted, but in the rural districts the
closing of the "cross-road doggery" I found to be generally
regarded as an object which merited, and very frequently was the
means of securing, a preponderating "dry" vote. The negro
has generally little self-control, and is therefore specially liable
to the evils of drink. He will spend his money for it, then
neglect his work, starve and ill-treat his family, begin to pilfer
his employer, finally become a thief and a criminal. In his
downward course he will take others with him, treating them,
and giving them a taste for liquor. And the village saloon, the
"cross-road doggery," is more than anything else the cause of
the trouble. All the dangers of drink to the white man apply
with added force to the negro. And while these positive
reasons exist in the South for increasing the severity of the
liquor laws, the negative fact that the tide of immigration from
Europe sets comparatively little in that direction removes a
source of powerful resistance to such legislation. The negro
vote has a tendency to be "wet," though the anti-liquor
agitation is carried on among the coloured people with not a
little success; but where the whites approach to unanimity, as
perhaps they sometimes do on this question in rural counties,
they generally prevail. In the larger centres of population the
white vote is generally divided, and here the negro vote carries.
no little weight. In the great local option campaign in Atlanta
it was canvassed with much vigour on both sides.
To return to the variations of detail in the application of
* The ratio of prisoners charged with homicide, per million of the
population, was stated in 1890 as follows:-
North Atlantic States
North Central
South Atlantic
South Central
""
19
""
···
...
•••
...
::.
...
...
...
...
...
...
··
62
80
123
232
56
AMERICAN LIQUOR Laws.
the direct veto. The power of initiation--the right of requiring
that a vote be taken-rests usually with a certain number or
proportion of the voters in the area of adoption, who signify
their demand to the proper authorities. The frequency of the
elections is usually limited by a provision that the decision
adopted at one election shall not be questioned by a subse-
quent election until after the lapse of a certain time, usually
two, three, or four years.* In Massachusetts, however, and in
one or two States in the South (Arkansas, for example), it is a
strict requirement of the law that the question of "licence" ΟΙ
no licence" shall be put and voted on regularly every year ;
and until an affirmative vote has been given no licences can be
issued. In the rural parts of Illinois there is no requirement
to take an annual vote, but licences are not allowed to be
issued except in pursuance of a petition from a majority of the
voters. In such cases local option takes a form the converse
of the direct veto, and has an exceptionally restrictive aspect.
(6
But the principle is not always applied through the medium
of a direct popular vote. In some cases it has quite a real, though
an indirect, enforcement through the agency of a licensing
authority elected on this particular issue—a board of Excise
Commissioners as they are usually called. This is the method
adopted in New York State and in Nebraska, and it has its
advocates who deem it to be a more efficient method of apply-
ing popular opinion to the question of the grant of licences.
than that by the direct vote. † It is certainly the fact that a
good many instances could be given of places where an existing
local option law of the usual type has been neglected, and
licences have simply been refused by the local licensing authority.
In some States municipal and other local authorities are
allowed a wide discretionary power of prohibiting or regulating
the liquor traffic, unfettered by the general laws of the State.
This method prevails throughout California, which gives
* In Rhode Island a vote may be taken yearly.
† See p. 255 (Nebraska).
LOCAL OPTION.
57
*
practically complete autonomy in the matter to counties, and
even townships.* In a good many States, city councils are
allowed, within certain limits defined by the general law, to
pass ordinances regulating the drink traffic, and, in particular,
to raise the licence fees above the fixed minimum. In the
South, wide powers of this kind are sometimes conferred by
special statutes, either incorporating municipalities with general
powers of self-government, or relating exclusively to liquor. +
+
Sometimes the local veto may be put in force in country
districts by a direct vote, and, in incorporated municipalities,
by the local authority. §
Again, to take another type of local option, the popular
judgment is sometimes taken, not upon the general question,
but upon the question of the issue of a licence to a particular
person. In this case the applicant, before he can obtain his
licence, has to produce a petition signed by a certain number
of persons, sometimes even by a majority of all the voters in
the election district or licensing area. This is the case (for
example) in the rural portions of Missouri and Nebraska,
in Florida and several of the southern States, and in Ontario.
There are instances where, under special legislation, the sup-
port of two-thirds of the freeholders within the licensing area
or within three miles of the premises is made requisite. This
obligation to obtain a measure of popular support as a condition
precedent to the obtaining of a licence has sometimes a modi-
fied recognition in cities, and the application is required to be
supported by a petition from a certain number or, sometimes,
from the majority, of the owners or occupiers of premises in the
same block, or in that portion of it which fronts upon the same
* See p. 308. One or two counties and some thirty or forty small towns
and districts in California are under prohibition (pp. 313–314).
† In Wisconsin the fees can be raised by a direct popular vote. See
p. 295.
Georgia, pp. 317-318.
§ Ohio, pp. 279-280.
|| Georgia, p. 318.
58
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
street.*
The law of Nova Scotia carries this kind of local
option to an unusual length, requiring every applicant for
a retail licence to have the support of two-thirds (in Halifax,
three-fifths) of the ratepayers in the polling district. In New
Brunswick one-third is substituted for two-thirds; but a licence
cannot be granted if the majority of the ratepayers in the city,
town, or parish petition against it.†
Sometimes special restrictions are set on the opening of
liquor shops near churches and schools. In Arkansas a majority
of the voters, within three miles of a church or school, may by
petition call on the county court to prohibit the sale of liquor
within that area for two years.
The object of the foregoing paragraphs is not so much to
present a complete summary of the various local option laws
(in which respect they would be found deficient), as to indicate
generally the variety of forms in which the popular will is
required or empowered to intervene between the liquor-
seller and his licence. The laws themselves, or a complete
analysis of them, can readily be obtained in other works :‡
several of them also are summarised with some detail in
subsequent chapters of this volume.
+
Upon the important question of the enforcement of local
option in places which vote "dry," it is difficult to generalise.
While it is true that this system has the merit of enabling
prohibition to be adopted just where it is possible to enforce it,
this does not prevent the drinking portion of the community
in places which have given a "no licence" vote from taking
* See Missouri, p. 268; Denver, p. 307; San Francisco, p. 310;
Atlanta, p. 327; Baltimore, p. 337: Connecticut, p. 363.
† See pp. 401, 403; also Quebec law, p. 403; Ontario, pp. 404-405;
and Manitoba, p. 407.
See, for example, the "Cyclopædia of Temperance and Prohibition "
(Funk and Wagnalls, New York, 1891) under the title "Legislation.
A condensed analysis of the liquor statutes in the United States, by
Mr. William C. Osborn, appeared in the Harvard Law Review for October,
1888, and was subsequently issued in pamphlet form.
در
LOCAL OPTION.
59
every means, legal or illegal, open or secret, to get all the
liquor they want; and, consequently, it by no means follows.
that the law is well enforced in every place which adopts it.
Perhaps it would be difficult to point to any town of consider-
able size where " no licence" has as yet been steadily enforced
for any length of time, and has ultimately gained a permanent
footing, in the face of determined opposition from a strong
minority. Cambridge might be quoted as an instance; but
Cambridge, Somerville, and Chelsea are in fact suburbs of
Boston, and it is difficult to gauge how matters would stand
if it were not for that proximity, or if Boston (as seems not
altogether unlikely) should some day vote "no licence."
So far as I am aware, the safeguard of requiring a two-third
majority before the local veto can be put in force nowhere
appears in American legislation, though instances of such a
requirement, as a condition precedent to the issue of a licence,
have been already referred to.
I often put the question of enforcement in a general form
in reference to some individual State, and the usual answer
was that the local option law was made effective in those places
in which the local sentiment was sufficiently strong in its favour.
Such places are generally of a rural character, and I think that,
so far as the South is concerned, this law may be said to give
satisfaction on the whole in rural areas. It is not pretended
that it has much effect as regards those who will take the
trouble to provide themselves with liquor at their homes; but,
on the whole, outside the towns the demand is not very great, and
the closing of the village saloons appears to be considered as
generally beneficial. The case of Atlanta* is a notable instance
of an attempt to establish local prohibition in a large southern
town; and while dissatisfaction is no doubt still felt and ex-
pressed in some quarters with the present state of affairs in
Atlanta, there is, I believe, little prospect, so far at least as the
* See pp. 321-326.
60
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
near future is concerned, of a departure from the existing licence
law, for which a considerable measure of success is claimed.
The druggist difficulty has been seriously felt both in Massa-
chusetts and the South. The evasion of the law, under colour
of the sale for medicinal purposes, has induced not a few
places to withdraw altogether the right of selling for these
and all other purposes whatever- a course which may be prac-
ticable in isolated instances, but which, perhaps, could hardly
be applied to a large area.
Boston, with its high returns of arrests for drunkenness, and
its high percentage of non-residents among those arrested,
furnishes a striking illustration of the effect of local option,
under certain conditions, in concentrating the liquor trade in
particular localities.
61
CHAPTER V.
HIGH-LICENCE AND NUMERICAL LIMITATION.
THE adoption of high-licence as a means for regulating the drink
traffic is of comparatively recent date. Nebraska appears to
have been its birthplace, or, at all events, the place of its first
elevation to the rank of a general State law. Since 1881, and
down to the present time, it has in an increasing degree
found favour with American legislators; and it has now, in
different forms and varying degrees, a place in the laws of many
States. Indications of its probable further extension are not
wanting.* The agitation for its adoption in New York State
has been in progress for some years, and has, indeed, on more
than one occasion been defeated only by the application of the
Governor's veto to a measure which had received the assent
of both Houses of the Legislature. In San Francisco, which
or all American cities is the most thickly sown with saloons, a
movement for high-licence has shown itself, and seems to be
gaining strength. In the accumulating mass of special legisla-
tion in the southern States the same tendency is repeatedly
apparent, and is sometimes pushed to evidently prohibitory
lengths. And States which have made trial of this system
do not, as far as I am aware, generally show signs of desiring
to abandon it.
It has roused the keen hostility of many prohibitionists—
indeed, it may be said, of the prohibition party generally—
though there are exceptions. It is objected to by them on
general moral grounds, as being (in common with all licensing
measures†) a compromise with sin, and on the ground that
* In the present year the fee for retail licences in Washington, D.C.,
has been raised from $100 to $400.
+ It is strange to note how frequently in prohibitionist literature licensing
laws are denounced on the ground that they legalise the liquor traffic—as if
62
AMERICAN Liquor Laws.
it has the special vice of corrupting the public mind with a
large revenue. There is, perhaps, nothing else in the whole
range of the liquor laws which many of them hold in such
abhorrence; for they regard it as the most deadly of all obstacles
to prohibition. "Until the high-licence craze has run itself
out," said a late candidate of that party for the Presidency,
"there is little to be hoped for by prohibitionists."
I may summarise in a few sentences the views of a
prohibitionist with whom I had some conversation on the
subject of high-licence, and whose utterances may, I think, be
taken as fairly representative from this point of view. High-
licence (he said) is a device of the longer-headed among the
liquor men, invented after the strong tendency exhibited during
the 'seventies towards prohibition. If this continued, they saw
their business doomed. They therefore warned the Republican
party that a change of front was necessary, and high-licence
was the policy adopted. The prohibitionists were flattered
with the assurance that it was a step in their direction. The
rank and file of the liquor men, at first opposed to it, found in
it their ally, and are become its staunch supporters. Its effect
has been to strengthen the trade; because the elimination of
the poorer and weaker traders has concentrated the business
in the hands of those who are best qualified to work it for
their own advantage, and confirms the political position of
the saloon. High-licence (he urged) does not of itself, in the
long run, even reduce the number of saloons; in places where
the adoption of the system was at first succeeded by a large
diminution of licences, the number has since shown a constant
tendency to rise again. It is plausibly argued that a reduction
the traffic were the offspring of these laws, and would not have had any
lawful existence without them. Whether or not prohibition is preferable
on moral or practical grounds to licensing is a question on which it is no
the purpose of this book to formulate any definite conclusion. But to say
that a law-placing under exceptional restrictions a business which, in
the absence of special legal restraint, would be free to all the world—
"legalises" that business is clearly not quite correct.
HIGH-LICENCE AND NUMERICAL LIMITATION.
63
in the number of licences will reduce the volume of drinking;
but this he declared to be untrue, or, at all events, untrue
in towns and centres of population, which are the points at
which the evil is really urgent. The brewers and distillers
are themselves favourable to high-licence; their trade is not
restricted in quantity, while they have a better and more solvent,
though a less numerous, circle of customers among the retail
traders. But the most insidious and the most dangerous result
of high-licence is the appeal which it makes to the sordid
interests of the taxpayer, and the additional and most powerful
barrier which consequently it thrusts in the path of the
temperance reformer. A city having a high-licence law makes
millions of dollars by the licence fees. In Boston those fees
pay the whole cost of the police force, and in other cities, where
the number of licences is less strictly limited than in Boston,
the profits are yet greater. The loss of revenue is a potent
argument against any plan involving material curtailment of
the liquor trade which the deluded temperance reformers may
propose, when the imposture of the high-licence system has
made itself manifest to them.
:
This, perhaps, is a fair summary of the prohibitionists'
argument against high-licence. Their objections to it amount
to these that it does not diminish drinking, and, in the long
run, does not even materially curtail the number of drink-shops ;
that the actual commercial strength of the trade is increased by
it; that it increases the political power of the saloon with all its
corrupting influences; and that it sets up a new obstacle to
true reform by appealing to the sordid interests of the taxpayer.
The plea that it is supported by manufacturers and sellers
of intoxicating liquor, and must therefore be injurious to
temperance, is a favourite one with some prohibitionists, who
assume that the promotion of drunkenness must be a design as
well as a result of the trade. It is certainly true that brewers
and distillers in Nebraska, and, probably, in other high-licence
States, have spoken in favour of the system as an alternative
64
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
and a practical bar to prohibition, and have declared that their
business had not in fact been injured by it; but it would be
going too far to assert that it was favoured in a general way by
the majority of those interested in the trade. A perusal of the
Wine and Spirit Gazette and the Brewers' Journal would lead
to the opposite conclusion, though, undoubtedly, as an alterna-
tive to prohibition, high-licence would find favour in these
quarters in cases where choice had to be made between the
two. Some among the large dealers, also, would probably be
glad to see their smaller rivals driven out by an increased fee.
And just as it is said that high licence must be bad because
it has received support from the liquor trade, so it is argued
that the opposition of the trade to prohibitory laws is the best
proof of their excellence. It will, however, perhaps be generally
admitted that, whether prohibition be effective or ineffective
as a measure designed for the public welfare, it can hardly be
expected to receive support from the persons carrying on the
trade which is outlawed by it, even if they find means to carry
it on in the face or behind the back of the law.*
The advantages claimed for high-licence traverse most
of the objections of the prohibitionists. Reserving, for the
moment, the question of its effect on the general amount of
drinking and drunkenness, I may summarise in a few lines the
good results alleged to proceed from it. They are, briefly :-
First and foremost, the extinction of a great number of the
worst and lowest dramshops, sinks of vice, and hotbeds of crime.
Secondly, better police control, owing to the diminution of
numbers and the concentration (to some extent) of the trade
in the business centre of the town, where it is most profitable.
Thirdly, better observance of the law by licence-holders, from
fear of the pecuniary loss involved in the forfeiture of their
licences. Fourthly, suppression of unlicensed liquor-sellers by
* Indications, indeed, are not altogether wanting of a disposition among
liquor-sellers to acquiesce in a prohibitory law which they are able to
violate with impunity. See Iowa, p. 167.
HIGH-LICENCE AND NUMERICAL LIMITATION.
65
the licensed, as an act of self-protection. Fifthly, contraction
of the saloon influence in local and State politics.
As already noted, it is sometimes denied that, in the long
run, the high-licence fee has much effect on the number of
licences issued. The case of Plainfield (New Jersey) has been
repeatedly quoted in support of this somewhat paradoxical
position. The following figures were supplied to me in reference
to that town, and are, I presume, correct. During the period
1883-90, the population increased (as I am informed) from
12,500 to 16,000 :–

Year.
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
Licence Fee.
S
300
400
400
500
500
700
700
700
Number of Saloons.
63
8
ΙΟ
12
14
14
17
18
These figures appear, if anything, to prove too much; as
the number of saloons not merely did not decrease under
successive additions to the fee, but were largely augmented
during the eight years; and I am not aware that an increased
number of dramshops has ever been seriously alleged to be the
result of a heavier tax upon them. I am not acquainted with
the special circumstances of this place; but it is impossible
to avoid the suspicion that some cause other than high-licence
has led to the results shown in the table, and that the growth
of saloons, though concurrent with, occurred in spite of, the
raising of the fee. The figures themselves show that, while
saloons were exceedingly scarce in this town in 1883 under low-
licence, their ratio to the population was still decidedly low in
1890, on a comparison with other places.
F
66
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
That an increased tax should lead to a diminished number
of persons paying the tax seems to be a natural process of cause
and effect, operating in a more marked degree in proportion as
the amount of the tax is further raised. And it is easy to give
facts in support of the a priori supposition. Here are figures
for Chicago :—

Year.
1881
1882
1891
Year.
1886
1888
1892
1880
1890
Licence Fee.
S
52
500
Chicago, however, though it does show an appreciable
falling off in the number of dramshops, is a weak instance.
It is often cited as an example of the failure of high-licence,
but it is hardly a fair example; an immense and rich popula-
tion, largely of foreign origin and, perhaps, somewhat reckless
character; a licensing authority which exercises no discretionary
power worth mentioning, and a licence fee which, after all,
ought hardly to be called "high" in such a place, just one-half
of what is paid in Omaha or St. Paul, much smaller cities.
Let us see what has been the effect in them of high-licence.
OMAHA.
Licence Fee.
$
100
1,000
1,000
;
ST. PAUL.
100
1,000
1,000
Proportion of Retail Licences
to Population.
I to 155
I to 200
Proportion of Licences to
population.
I to 267
I to 560
I to 600
I to 152
I to 318
I to 368
HIGH-LICENCE AND NUMERICAL LIMITATION.
67
Instances might easily be multiplied of individual places
and of whole States where similar results are shown as directly
due to this system. In other cases the elimination of dram-
shops has been carried to a still further extent by the action of
high-licence combined with other more direct modes of
limitation, which will presently be noticed. High-licence is a
somewhat indefinite term; there are many gradations between
the highest and the lowest ; and a rate high enough to suppress
a large proportion of the applications for licences in one place
will have comparatively little effect in another. But that a
material increase in the rate of taxation has in general a marked
effect on the number of taxpayers, is a proposition for which
corroborative evidence is not wanting.*
That such an effect is in itself desirable is, I think, the
opinion of a large majority of Americans who take an interest in
the liquor question; that it is the strongest argument for high-
licence is probably the opinion of most of those who favour
that system, for it is urged that the smaller and poorer saloons
which disappear under it are precisely those which do the most
mischief. To the objection that the poor and not the rich are
interfered with, it is answered that it is the poor themselves
who are most benefited by the disappearance of the low dram-
shops.
The directly restrictive effects of high-licence are less
marked in crowded centres of population, than in more
sparsely populated areas where the trade is smaller and, there-
fore, less able to bear a heavy tax; and it often operates with
prohibitive force in rural districts. For the same reason it
tends to drive the trade out of the outlying and residential
quarters of cities and to concentrate it in the business
quarter, where probably it may have little or no effect in
diminishing the number of saloons. From a police point of
* See also Minnesota, p. 250; Illinois, p. 295.
+ See Nebraska, pp. 254-5.
F 2
68
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
view this concentration is generally considered to be greatly
beneficial, inasmuch as no small part of the energies of the
police has to be devoted to the suppression of disorders for
which the saloon is directly or indirectly the nucleus, and
which cannot be adequately dealt with over a widely extended
area.
I have found it sometimes disputed that liquor-sellers are
more inclined to observe the law under high- than under low-
licence, or that those who have paid heavily for their privileges
are on that account in the habit of giving much practical
assistance in enforcing the law against their natural enemies,
the illicit traders. It is urged that a saloon-keeper who has
paid 1,000 dollars for his licence is driven to push his business
by all possible means, legal or illegal, in order to recoup
himself for his outlay. There is a certain force in this con-
tention, and some opponents of high-licence attach much
weight to it. I do not pretend to gauge the extent to which it
is supported by actual facts. It would, however, seem reason-
able to suppose that, generally speaking, the tendency indicated
would be to a large extent, if not wholly, counterbalanced by
the effect of reduced numbers on competition. A saloon-
keeper in a town containing a large number of illegal dram-
shops once told me that he would gladly pay a fee of 1,000 or
1,500 dollars a year as the price of a well-enforced licensing
law.
It must be remembered that an American liquor-dealer
convicted of a breach of the law is generally liable to the
forfeiture, not merely of his licence-money, but also of a large
sum under the bond which on receipt of his licence he is
required to give by way of security for his good behaviour.
Where the provisions of the law regarding forfeiture are strictly
enforced, licence-holders are under strong obligations to comply
with the conditions of their licences.
Whether or not they are generally disposed to assist in
HIGH-LICENCE AND NUMERICAL LIMITATION.
69
enforcing the law against others, is largely a question of police
experience. The superintendent of police in one large town
told me that he was in the habit of receiving vague complaints,
but little definite information, from licensed dealers respecting
illegal liquor selling.* Others, however, have assured me
distinctly that in their towns the men who had paid heavy
licence fees were by no means tolerant of unlicensed com-
petitors, and in self-defence were not slow in putting the police
on their track.
The question of the political influence of the saloon has,
fortunately for us, commanded hitherto less practical interest
in England than in America, where under existing conditions
it is a matter of pressing importance. The argument on this
ground for high-licence is a strong one. The American saloon-
keeper, even the small one, commonly controls the votes of
at least a few hangers-on. Any considerable reduction in the
number of saloons, therefore, it is urged, detracts largely from
the sum total of the liquor vote. Municipal corruption is
well known to be a weed of strong and frequent growth in
American cities, the eradication of which has in some places
been greatly promoted (as I was more than once informed by
leading citizens) by the contraction of the saloons under high-
licence.
The very large increase of revenue which follows the
adoption of high-licence is a bone of bitter contention between
the friends and foes of the system. To the prohibitionist, who
by no means regards its restrictive features as supplying an ade-
quate legislative solution of the drink question, but would be
disposed only to favour or tolerate them as indicating in some
degree an advance towards the entire suppression of the trade,
the pecuniary allurements of high-licence cannot fail to appear
as a serious stumbling-block. The appeal to the baser instincts
But the fee in that town is only $400, hardly high-licence.
70
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
is sufficiently obvious; there is no need to dwell on it; and
from the point of view of the thorough prohibitionist (unless he
is inspired with a more than usually sanguine faith in public
virtue) the objection is perhaps almost fatal, so far as the larger
cities are concerned. But those who, whether or not they
approve of absolute prohibition in theory, do not believe in its
practicability (at all events at the present time), and accept
high-licence as the best available measure of restriction, may
fairly argue (as they do) that, inasmuch as the liquor traffic is
the cause of a certain degree of inconvenience, poverty, and
disorder, it is fair that the trade should be specially, and even
heavily, taxed to defray the expenses which it entails on the
public. From this point of view the argument in justification
of the augmented revenue is at least a reasonable one. It
should be recollected also that low-licence, as well as high-
licence, produces revenue; the difference is only in the amount;
and, without any licence fee at all, a house let as a saloon will
generally command a higher rent, and therefore will contribute
more to the taxes, than if it were used for any other purpose.
So that the "revenue motive" is not altogether confined to
places where high-licence operates.
But where the authority exercising the licensing and taxing.
power represents the very area which has the benefit of the
tax, the appeal of high-licence to the taxpayer's pocket is direct
and, doubtless, potent. It is evident, however, that the motive
of self-interest may be made to apply with diminished force by
diverting a portion of the revenue to objects wholly or partly
external to the licensing area. In the American States the
whole of the licence fees, or at all events the lion's share of
them, is as a general rule appropriated by each individual
locality which controls its own licensing. But there are
exceptions. Some of the larger cities of Pennsylvania, under
the Brooks Law as originally enacted, took only two-fifths of the
revenue from their licences, the remainder going partly to the
HIGH-LICENCE AND Numerical LimitaTION.
71
State and partly to the county; but this provision was amended,
and now the city takes four-fifths, the county one-fifth, and the
State nothing. Kansas City, though not, strictly speaking, an
independent licensing area (since it has a board of Licence
Commissioners appointed by the Governor), may be supposed
to exercise a certain influence, through public opinion, in the
licensing of its own dramshops, and receives only 250 dollars
out of the 800 dollars paid by each licence-holder.*
In
Ohio there is no licensing power at all, but the tax paid by
liquor-sellers is split up into a number of shares, which are
allotted to the State and to certain specified county and local
funds; and there seems to be nothing to preclude a similar
division in cases where a discretionary licensing power is
locally exercised.
The difficulty in an American State of removing from the
taxpayers, who control the local licensing body, the tempta-
tions placed in their way by high-licence is probably greater
than it would be in England, where a portion of the tax might
be appropriated by the central government for imperial
purposes, in which the individual taxpayer would feel his
pocket to be less intimately concerned.
In rural districts and small country towns these considera-
tions have less importance, because the expenses of local
government are lighter than in cities; and the experience of
the southern States shows that high-licence is not antagonistic
(at all events outside the more important centres of population)
to a free use of the powers of local prohibition. It sometimes
happens, indeed, that the licence fee itself is deliberately made
prohibitory. There are counties in the South in which the fee
has been fixed at 5,000 and even 10,000 dollars. †
* A division which the city contemplates with some dissatisfaction.
The State takes $50, and the county $500.
† See Georgia, p. 318. In Shiloh, S.C., under its Act of incorpora-
tion, no retail licence might be issued at less than $20,000.
72
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
To the question-the first, perhaps, which the inquirer
concerning the results of high-licence would be likely to ask-
Does it diminish drinking and drunkenness?—I regret that I
can return no compendious and conclusive answer. That it
does have this effect is certainly the opinion of many Americans
who have lived under it and watched its operation; but it
cannot be denied that this is still matter of controversy, and it
is impossible to demonstrate it, by means of half a dozen rows
of figures, as an absolute fact. I will ask a moment's atten-
tion to the following table, which illustrates the difficulty of
proving statistically the relative merits of different methods of
dealing with the liquor traffic. To begin with, it is impossible
to obtain a perfectly uniform basis for a comparison between
different places. We may be told that one city has a licence
for every 500 inhabitants, while in another the ratio is 1 to 750.
But it may be that wholesale licences are included in the one
case and not in the other, or that grocers' "off" licences are
issued in one city and forbidden by law in the other. Returns
of drunkenness are made up in almost countless different ways,
varying not only with differences in the State laws and
municipal ordinances, but also according to the practice of
the police and of the legal procedure in each particular
place. A tipsy man is arrested in one place who in another
would be left alone or merely sent home. A man commits
an assault or other offence while under the influence of drink ;
in one place the intoxication will appear in the charge,
in another it will not. The comparative significance of the
figures in the fourth column of this table must be largely
discounted by a due consideration for these circumstances,
as well as for the special points mentioned in the notes
to the table.
1
HIGH LICENCE AND NUMERICAL LIMITATION.
73
Cities.
Population in 1890.
Cambridge (70,000)
Somerville (40,100).
Portland (36,400)
Council Bluffs (21,500)
Boston (448,500)
...
Philadelphia (1,047,000)..
Pittsburg (238,600)…………………..
St. Paul (133,000)
Minneapolis (165,000)
Omaha (140,000)………..
Atlanta (65,500)
Kansas City (132,700)
Detroit (206,coo)....
..
St. Louis (451,80n)……………..
Chicago (1,100,000)
Providence (132,000)
Indianapolis (105,400)
Baltimore (434,500)...
Cincinnati (297,000)
New York (1,505,300)
Charleston (55,000)………..
Brooklyn (806,300)...
San Francisco (299,000)..
Licence Fee.
[Prohibition]
""
""
"
Dollars.
1,000 to 1,500
500 (beer)
300 (grocers)
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000 (retail)
250 (retail beer)
25 (wholesale)
800
800 (whosale. & ret.)
500 (retail only)
300 (beer)
550
500
400
382'50
250
250
50 to 250
30 (beer)
100 to 150
50 to 100
84 [164] ¶
Ratio of Licences
to Population.
I to
[Prohibition]
""
""
——
""
500 (all kinds, ex-
cept druggists &
clubs)
754 (retail)
about 800 (retail)
340 (all kinds)
601 (all kinds)
560 (all kinds)
886 (all kinds)
420 (retail)
160 (retail)
about 235 (retail)
about 200 (retail)
337 (retail only)
247 (retail)
207 (retail)
about 136 (retail)
169 (all kinds)
200 (retail)
200 (all kinds)
94 (retail)
Ratio of
Arrests to Pop.!
Drunk
enness,
etc.*
I to
78
33
40
31
13t
40
19
64
77
84
122
73
53
30
25
11000 100
81
29
66
431
een
65
36
20
Ratio of
Police
All Of to Pop.
fences. I to
I to
30
24
14
9
1 2 2
0 2 1000 σ 5
20
12
25
28
19
22
24
20
18
19
26§
14
18
17
824
1,000
1,000
467
544
785
748
732
493
560
549
579
612
941
553
632
413
18
32
ΤΟ 656
544
611
CC
* Returns are differently made up in different places. "Drunkenness" in this column
includes offences in which drunkenness is stated as an element (e.g., common drunkards"
and "drunk and disorderly "). In some cities (e.g., Minneapolis, Cincinnati, Pittsburg,
and St. Louis) there is a return of "disorderly." but not of "drunk and disorderly." In
such cases I have taken three-fourths of the "disorderly" offences to be due to drink, and
have included that proportion in the computation of this column. The returns are not all
for the same year.
I have in all cases taken the last year for which I had the figures,
varying from 1890 to 1892, and have taken the population as given in the census of 1890,
since which time there must have been in some cases a considerable increase.
+ The conditions of Boston are peculiar, see pp. 60, 221-2.
The figures for Chicago are taken on the year 1890, when there were about 5,500
dramshops. There are now over 7,000. No returns are published in Chicago for drunken-
ness; the figures in the fourth column give the ratio of "disorderly" to population. The
large majority of them were doubtless more or less under the influence of liquor, though
probably not all. But nearly 2,0co intoxicated persons were assisted home by the police
in Chicago in 1890.
§ The return of arrests in Indianapolis, on which the above figures are based, is for
ten months only (March-December, 1891). I have assumed a proportionate number for
the other two months.
|| New York shows 15,339 arrests for "disorderly conduct," but I have not included
them, as it has also a return of arrests for "intoxication and disorderly conduct,” as well
as for "intoxication" simply.
Those whose business amounts to $15,000 per quarter are required to pay the higher
fee. As a matter of fact, nearly all the dramshops pay on the lower scale.
74
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
The twenty-three cities comprised in the table include a
majority of the largest cities in the country and a few smaller
ones. If 500 dollars be taken as the low-water mark of high-
licence, they may be thrown into three groups, viz. :—
Low Ratio of Arrests.
Prohibition:
High-Licence:
Turning to the fourth column of the table, we find that II of
these places have a lower ratio of arrests for drunkenness to
population than 1 to 40, while I have a ratio of 1 to 40 or a
higher ratio, the distribution among the three groups being as
follows:
Cambridge I
4 prohibition cities.
II high-licence
8 low-licence
...
St. Paul
Minneapolis
Omaha
Kansas City
Detroit
St. Louis
Low-Licence:
Indianapolis
Cincinnati
New York
Charleston
6
4
در
II
در
High Ratio of Arrests.
Prohibition:
Somerville
Portland
Council Bluffs
High-Licence:
Boston
Philadelphia
Pittsburg
Chicago
Low-Licence:
Providence
Baltimore
Brooklyn
San Francisco
3
[4
4
II
I leave the reader to draw from this analysis and from the
table any conclusions which they may appear to him to warrant.
I do not suggest that they supply any argument in favour of
either high-licence or prohibition. So far as I am aware, the
particular cities included in the table are as fairly representative
as any others would be. At all events, they were not selected
for the purpose of proving or disproving anything. The
HIGH-LICENCE AND NUMERICAL LIMITATION.
75
conditions of Cambridge and Somerville appear to be very
similar. Both are suburbs of Boston, and both have held
consistently to prohibition for a considerable series of years.
Yet their returns of arrests for drunkenness differ in the pro-
portion of more than two to one. Of the state of affairs in
Portland and Council Bluffs a particular account is given in
other pages. * In Portland the number of persons arrested for
drunkenness during the year ending March, 1892 (the year
which, as regards this place, is taken for the purpose of the
above table), was smaller than it had been for many years. †
+
The account of St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Omaha in a
later chapter will perhaps be held to justify the claim on behalf
of those cities, that they rightly appear in the table with a low
return for drunkenness. Kansas City, I believe, stands fairly
well in this respect; but it can hardly be pretended that the
figures in the fourth column indicate its true degree of sobriety
in comparison with other places, and the explanation of its
unique position must be sought in some administrative
peculiarity. Boston, on the other hand, which makes the worst
show of all, is placed at a disadvantage by the juxtaposition of
a number of large suburbs which allow no saloons; and the
Boston police, moreover, are more than usually alert in arresting
drunken men.§ Atlanta makes no returns for drunkenness, but
shows an extraordinarily large proportion of arrests for all
offences. Yet evidence is not wanting that the liquor laws are
exceptionally well enforced in Atlanta.||
Where figures fail, recourse must be had to opinions based
on experience and distorted as little as may be by interest
or prejudice. And in public opinion it is undeniable that
high-licence receives much solid support. This was a point.
* Maine, pp. 103-110; Iowa, pp. 157–159.
† See p. 109.
‡ Minnesota, p. 249; Nebraska, p. 257.
§ Massachusetts, pp. 195, 221-2.
|| Georgia, pp. 328-9.
76
AMERICAN Liquor Laws.
on which I addressed many inquiries in all parts of the country;
and I do not hesitate to say that among all the persons of
different classes-clergymen, judges, lawyers, officials, business
men, police, and others-with whom I talked on the subject,
putting aside those who either were interested in the trade,
or else were extreme and uncompromising advocates of pro-
hibition, the great majority favoured high-licence as a measure
of regulation; by which I mean, not that they necessarily
preferred it to the total exclusion of the traffic where it could
be excluded, but that, believing general prohibition to be
impracticable, they found in high-licence the most satisfactory
method of dealing with the business wherever it existed.* That
there were exceptions I do not deny; but I have no doubt-
so far as my inquiries went-how the balance of opinion lay.
Local option and high-licence-that is to say, prohibition where it
can be enforced, and high-licence where it cannot-these are the
forms of liquor legislation which I found, more than any other,
advocated by Americans all over the country. Many also, who
either have little belief in, or are actually opposed to, general pro-
hibition and the local veto, are strong supporters of high-licence.
The general grounds on which it finds favour have already been
Here, by way of an example, is my note taken after a conversation
with one who held the strongest anti-liquor views, but was not, politically,
a prohibitionist :—“Mr O
is a teetotaller, and would like prohibition
if it was effective, but he is convinced that it is worse than useless. He
thinks high-licence the best check, and I gather that he would make it very
high indeed; he mentioned $5,000 for this city. He advocates high-licence
for the sake of reducing the number to the lowest point possible. The real
evil, he says, is the temptation to the young who haven't yet developed a
thirst for strong drink. They go and play billiards together, and gradually
get to playing for drinks. Therefore make the number of liquor shops as
small as you can. As for preventing people who want drink from getting
it, it is utterly impossible, at all events till the mass of habits and of
sentiment has undergone a great change, which can only be the result of
time. If the rising generation could be kept clear of getting the taste, a
general prohibitory law might be passed a generation hence, and might be
effective."
HIGH-LICENCE AND NUMERICAL LIMITATION.
77
indicated; its advocates are not unanimous on the question of
its effect on the whole volume of drinking and on drunkenness.
A system which gives a better police control and tends to check
law-breaking (if it be admitted that high-licence has these
merits) would naturally be expected to diminish, in some degree,
the prevalence of inebriety; and it is certainly the opinion of a
large number of observers, resident in high-licence cities, that
it has actually had this effect. For an examination of its results
and the estimation in which it is held in particular places, the
reader is referred to other chapters, and especially to that on
the States of Minnesota and Nebraska.*
Other methods, additional to the indirect operation of high-
licence, are sometimes adopted for reducing the number of
licences. Massachusetts has a fixed maximum ratio of licences
to population-1 to 500 in Boston, and 1 to 1,000 in all other
parts of the State, with a certain elasticity allowed to places
which, as summer resorts, have a large influx of strangers during
a short period of the year.
This direct statutory limitation of number applies, so far as
I am aware, in no other State, though I repeatedly found it
approved of in other States; but the province of Ontario has
a somewhat similar law,† and a municipal ordinance has still
further restricted the number of licences in Toronto.
Another mode of limitation is through the discretionary
power of the licensing authority. This method has been
more sweepingly applied in Pennsylvania than elsewhere. The
Brooks Law, passed in 1887, created a strong licensing body of
judges, with the widest power to refuse applications—a power
which was intended to be, and has been, very freely exercised.
In no other State has the number of licences been kept
down, by the exercise of the discretionary power of refusal,
to the same extent as in Pennsylvania. But, as has been
* See also figures relating to Philadelphia, p. 230.
† See p. 405; also New Brunswick, p. 403.
78
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
mentioned in the previous chapter, in connection with local
option, effect is often given by the licensing authority to the
popular will, demanding that licences should not be given
to particular persons or in particular places, and this sometimes
largely reduces the number issued.
In Minneapolis, a similar result has been obtained by a law
forbidding the issue of any licences whatever outside the central
business quarter of the town. The operation of that law and
the excellent results claimed for it are mentioned on pp. 242-5.
As previously noticed, high-licence has by itself a certain
tendency to concentrate liquor shops where the population is
thickest; in Minneapolis this tendency is carried to its extremity
by direct legislation. Atlanta has a similar system; but there
beer licences are allowed in a wider circle.*
English experience is sometimes said not to support the
theory that fewer licences cause less drinking. Much would
seem to depend on the question how, and particularly how much,
they are reduced. If at the intersection of two streets there is
a saloon at each of the four corners, little effect will be produced
by shutting up one, or perhaps two, or even three of them;
because every man can as easily get his drink in one as another.
But if the average distance which a man must traverse before
he comes to a dramshop is increased, then, it is argued, the
chances are that, on the whole, he will find his way to it rather
less frequently in the course of the year. In America, re-
ductions in the number of licences have sometimes been carried
out in a very sweeping way. Boston made a reduction in one
year from 1,780 to 780; Philadelphia, in one year, from 5,770
to 1,740 (70 per cent.); Minneapolis, in three or four years,
from 535 to 230, notwithstanding a rapid growth of population
-and all without a dollar of compensation.
In some States-with a view to encouraging the consumption
* See pp. 326, 329.
+ See p. 244.
High-licencE AND NUMERICAL LIMITATION.
79
of light drinks in preference to hard liquor-beer receives
differential treatment in the matter of the licence fee. Experience
has not always proved the efficacy of this method. The dis-
position to pay the lower fee, and then, under cover of it, to
deal in all kinds of intoxicants, is strong and not easily kept
in check. In Chicago a reduced fee on malt liquor was tried
and abandoned-its abandonment being due, as I was informed,
to the representations of saloon-keepers who held the full licence,
and complained that they were subjected to an unfair com-
petition by beer-sellers dealing in whisky. In Detroit (a city
which has not been famous for its close observance of the
liquor laws) this kind of evasion notoriously went on to a very
great extent; and a single uniform tax on the retail trade has
in the present year been substituted. The secretary of the Law
and Order League in Boston told me that considerable difficulty
was found in preventing a general business from being done on
a beer licence; it had in fact been found impossible, in that
city, altogether to put a stop to it. Some years ago, when a
proposal was made in the Legislature to encourage beer-drinking
by a further reduction of the licence fee on beer, he had raised
this objection, the validity of which was questioned. He sent
out some of his agents, who succeeded in procuring hard liquor
in twenty-two beer-shops in the city. Search warrants were
afterwards obtained, and whisky was found in sixteen out of
the twenty-two.
Americans not infrequently have expressed to me their
approval in principle of the plan of discouraging the use of
strong spirits by lightening the tax on the retailers of malt
liquor; but have felt themselves pressed by the great difficulty
of controlling this kind of fraud. At the same time, the
differential tax has not been abandoned in Massachusetts. A
good deal of attention is paid in that State to the enforcement
of laws; and I am not aware that much active dissatisfaction
has been excited regarding the operation of this tax. Though
it may not be possible entirely to suppress evasions, it is,
80
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
perhaps, a question of vigilance or laxity of administration,
whether they are allowed to run to scandalous lengths. In
Atlanta, which also has a reduced fee for beer-sellers, I found
little or no indication of much abuse.
.
""
I am not, however, able to offer any evidence that this
expedient has been the means of largely promoting a demand
for beer on the part of the consumer, and thereby weaning him
of his taste for ardent spirits. The proportion of "Class 2
licence-holders in Boston is not great enough to have much
effect on the facility of obtaining the stronger liquor. In
New York city (where the whole scale of fees is very much
lower) there is a rule that no new saloon licence is given
except on the withdrawal of an old one; and, as a matter
of fact, when a beer licence lapses it is almost always replaced
by a general one.
81
∞
CHAPTER VI.
SOME DETAILS.
I PROPOSE in this chapter to examine in some detail certain
features of American liquor legislation. First, as to the licensing
authorities and their powers.
Licences are granted either by the municipal authority, or
other body in which the general powers of local government are
vested, or by a body specially constituted for this particular
purpose, or by the police, or by a judicial body. Owing to causes
connected with the prevalence of municipal corruption, which
has been recognised by Americans as a blot on the efficiency
of their political system, a marked tendency has been shown in
American cities to move in a direction the very reverse of the
general approximation elsewhere observable towards complete
local self-government. This tendency takes form in the with-
drawal from the municipality of its control over the police, and
the licensing of dramshops. That the progress of reform should
take this direction is striking and sufficient evidence of the
mischievous effects which ensue when the liquor power is able
to gain a controlling influence over municipal affairs. And it
is evident that where the municipality has control of the liquor
trade, either directly or through a board appointed by it (as,
for example, in New York city, where the Excise Board is
nominated by the mayor, subject to confirmation by the Board
of Aldermen), those interested in that trade have the strongest
motive to obtain control, if they can, of the municipality. If
American experience proves anything, it proves the danger of
giving licensing powers to the elective body which is vested.
with the general management of local affairs.
What are the alternatives? The popular control may be
maintained through a special body, specially elected for the
G
82
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
purpose of dealing with applications for licences. This is the
course taken in New York State (except in the cities), where it
operates as a local option measure, licences being altogether
refused in a good many townships, in which the Excise Com-
missioners are elected on that issue. In the cities of this
State, however, the commissioners are nominated by the mayor,
an arrangement open to much of the objection felt to the
exercise of the licensing power directly by the municipality.
But, in some cases, the principle of popular control has
been given up altogether so far as licensing is concerned,
that duty being committed to officers appointed by the Governor
of the State, to whom also is still more frequently entrusted the
control of the police. This course has been adopted in Boston,
where the police board is the licensing authority, and in
Baltimore, where the Governor appoints three Licence Com-
missioners.* In St. Louis, public opinion, long dissatisfied
with the municipal control, has just succeeded in obtaining a
similar change. The system, though obnoxious to the prin-
ciples of local self-government, is generally accepted as a relief
after the grave practical inconveniences which it was designed
to remove.
Finally, there remains the plan of committing the duty to
judicial hands, as is done under the Brooks Law in Pennsylvania,
where the licensing authorities are the judges of the Courts
of Quarter Sessions.
The importance of the question, to what authority should
be entrusted the performance of this duty, depends much on
the extent of the discretionary powers to be attached to it. In
Ohio anyone who pays the tax may keep a dramshop, and there
is, properly speaking, no licensing power. In other places
* The " metropolitan "system of police management has been adopted
in a good many cities besides Boston; among them, Cincinnati and St.
Louis. In prohibition States there is commonly a power to appoint a
special police for enforcing prohibition; and in Connecticut and several of
the Canadian Provinces special officers are entrusted with the execution of
the liquor laws. See pp. 365, 384, 400, 403, 407.
SOME DETAILS.
83
(Chicago for example) the power to refuse applications exists
only where the applicant's character is unsatisfactory, and prac
tically is not exercised except in rare cases, the municipality
granting a licence to almost anyone who is ready to pay the fee.
Where the power of veto is to be exercised by the licensing
authority, there are evident advantages in having a body
specially constituted by popular election, so that the princip'
of local option may be maintained. But, where local option.
either does not exist, or operates by means of the direct popular
veto, and the licensing authority is intended to exercise discretion
in the grant and refusal of individual applications for licences,
there is force in the argument that those who are clothed with
such powers ought to be free from external influences, and above
all from the danger of pressure through the votes or manoeuvres
of persons interested. And on this ground the adoption of a
nominated or judicial licensing board receives support in many
quarters in preference to one dependent on a popular vote.
The chief merit claimed for the present law of Pennsylvania is
the strength and independence of the licensing courts. Those
courts have acted with much energy in dealing with applications
and reducing the whole number of licences, and appear on the
whole to have fulfilled the expectations of those who promoted
the passing of the Brooks Law, though it is said that there has
recently appeared a disposition to somewhat greater laxity, and
some of the Judges, I believe, would gladly be relieved of this
duty. On the whole, perhaps, it may be said that no American
licensing bodies have done their work more efficiently or given
more general satisfaction than the Quarter Sessions Judges of
Pennsylvania.
Both in Philadelphia, however, and other places I found a
disposition in some quarters to consider that the selection,
from among a long list of applicants, of those to whom a
limited number of licences should be granted was a system of
necessity invidious and unfair, and that the better plan would
be to settle-whether by decision of the licensing court or by
G 2
84
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
F
popular vote-the whole number of licences to be issued, and to
let them be offered at auction, or assigned by lot, or in any
other way rather than by selection. Such a plan, however, has
not, so far as I am aware, ever been adopted or even much
pressed, and I need not further allude to it in connection with
American laws.* On the assumption that the licensing authority
is to have discretionary power to grant or refuse applications,
those who favour the view that such a power is better vested
in an independent than in a local elective body may fairly claim
support from American precedents. And this view is not in-
†
consistent with the acceptance of the principle of local option
through the direct popular veto, or, indeed, with the further
extension of that principle to the determination of the licence
fee, and a limitation on the total number of licences.
The power of refusing applications for licences varies in
different States; sometimes (as already mentioned) they can be
refused only for cause, such as bad character or previous convic-
tion, but in the majority of cases the power is a wide one; and,
where popular sentiment requires or allows it, it is often exer-
cised with great freedom. In Massachusetts a case is mentioned
of a town where all applications for licences were refused, though
the local option election had given a majority for "licence."
And, as noticed in Chapter IV., much attention is commonly
paid (whether by requirement of law or as a matter of practice)
to the wishes of the public in dealing with applications.
In some cases a licence is not to be given unless the licensing
authority is satisfied that it is required for the accommodation
of the public; and in Pennsylvania this question is to be deter-
mined with due regard to the number and character of the
petitioners for and against the application. In Michigan,
+
+
* The CC
single tax" law of Ohio finds favour in some quarters, on the
ground that the absence of any discretionary power to grant or refuse
licences rids that State of a dangerous inducement to political corruption.
+ See also Ontario, p. 384.
‡ Baltimore, p. 337; Pennsylvania, p. 226; Kentucky, p. 347.
SOME DETAILS.
85
there is, in form, no licence; but the liquor-seller must first pay
the required tax and enter into the required bond, approved
by the local authority, which approval is to be withheld if he is
known to be one whose character and habits would render him
an unfit person to conduct the business of liquor selling.
The frequent requirement of support from the public or the
occupiers of neighbouring premises to applications for licences
has been noticed in Chapter IV., in connection with the subject
of local option.* Frequently, also, it is forbidden to issue a
licence for premises within a certain distance of a church or
school.† As regards the licences themselves and the limitations
attached to them, there is also much variety. Some laws make
no distinction between wholesale and retail, "on" and "off;
but fix a single fee, and a single course of procedure in all
Massachusetts, on the other hand, has six different
classes of licence; and other States classify to some extent, and
fix their fees at varying rates, according to the class of licence.
cases.
The feeling of antagonism to the mere dramshop has led to
the requirement in some laws that all licensees shall provide a
certain amount of sleeping accommodation,‡ or at least food
as well as drink.§ In one case it has even been sought to
abolish the bar altogether, and allow only sales by the bottle
for removal before consumption, and in hotels to guests.||
Grocers' licences are sometimes regarded with special dis-
favour, as tending to secret drinking, and to the promotion of
the habit among women, who procure liquor in the grocery
""
* In Missouri, if a petition for a licence is supported by two-thirds of
the taxpayers, it can be refused only on the ground of character. In San
Francisco the application must be granted if supported by twelve owners of
real estate in the same block.
+ Massachusetts, p. 196; Denver, p. 307; Georgia, p. 335; S. Caro-
lina, p. 356; New York, p. 360; Nova Scotia, p. 401.
Ontario, p. 405.
§ Massachusetts, p. 195.
Nova Scotia, p. 401. See also p. 329, for proposal in Georgia to
allow only wholesale licences.
86
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWs.
when they would be ashamed to enter a saloon. The feeling
in some quarters is extremely strong against the corner
grocery." Evidence of its mischievous effects was given before
the Royal Commission sitting in Montreal.* The obligation
on grocers to sell by the bottle only, for consumption off the
premises, has been found to be greatly violated in some places,
and much dram-drinking is said to go on in these shops. In
Pennsylvania grocers' licences are prohibited. In Ontario the
grant of off-licences can be limited by municipal bye-law to
those whose business is solely the selling of liquor.
The licence money, or the greater part of it, is most com-
monly appropriated by the municipal or other local authority
of the area in which the licence is granted; but a portion of it
is in many cases reserved to the State and sometimes also to
the county.
In Ohio the greater part of the tax is divided
among certain county and local funds in specified proportions.
In Wisconsin the licence fees are appropriated for the support
of the poor.†
American liquor laws invariably require the licensee, in addi-
tion to the payment of the fee, to give a heavy bond with sureties
by way of security for his compliance with the conditions of
his licence. The amount is commonly $1,000, sometimes less,
sometimes much more. The law of Michigan allows the local
authority to fix it anywhere between $3,000 and $6,000. In
Pennsylvania and Minnesota it is $2,000; in Illinois, $3,000;
in Nebraska $5,000. The sureties are generally required to be
freeholders of the same city or county, and, as a check on the
multiplication of "tied houses," it is sometimes provided that
no one may be surety on more than one bond. In Penn-
sylvania no one engaged in the manufacture of liquor is eligible.
+
* See also, as to groceries in San Francisco, pp. 311, 312.
+ In some States the licensee has to pay an additional ad valorem tax
on the turn-over of his business.
‡ Nebraska, p. 253; Connecticut, p. 364. A similar provision was
proposed in Pennsylvania, but was struck out of the Bill.
SOME DETAILS.
87
Sureties occasionally find their liability to be a serious matter,
when their principal has been cast in heavy damages under the
"civil damage clause," presently to be noticed.* Under at
least one law, on proof of any breach of the conditions of the
bond, the whole amount of it is declared to be liquidated
damages, and is recoverable by action on behalf of the local
authority. In Texas the sum of $500 is recoverable on the
bond on breach of any condition.
Licensees who fail to obey the law are commonly liable to
forfeiture of their licences and to future disqualification, in
addition to other penalties. The licensing authority, as well
as the legal tribunals, has often a power to cancel a licence on
being satisfied that the liability to forfeiture has been incurred, ‡
and in some cases is required to do so.§ In Wisconsin, on
sworn complaint that a licence-holder has violated the law, the
licensing authority has no option, but is required to summon
the person charged, hear the evidence, and on proof of
the offence revoke the licence, whereupon the offender is
disqualified for a year from obtaining another.
In some cases the court convicting of a particular offence
is required to declare the licence forfeited. In others, when
the court has convicted, the question of forfeiture is left at the
* The full liability of the sureties to the extent of the bond seems to
be established by a number of legal decisions. They have been held liable
for exemplary as well as compensatory damages.
† Atlanta, p. 327. See also Rhode Island, p. 184.
See Illinois, p. 287; Minnesota, p. 240. In Rhode Island the
licensing authority may cancel a licence on being satisfied that the licensee
has allowed his premises to become disorderly, so as to annoy and disturb
his neighbours.
§ Baltimore, p. 337; Missouri, p. 269.
|| Pennyslvania, p. 227. Missouri, p. 269. The holder of a beer licence
in Illinois, on conviction of selling other liquor, is thereupon to forfeit his
licence; and the court must declare the forfeiture. In Rhode Island a
licensee convicted of illegal selling forfeits his licence and is disqualified
for five years; and the local authority is required to bring suit for the
amount of his bond. See also Atlanta, pp. 327-8, and p. 420 (s. 909 of
Atlanta ordinance).
3
88
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
discretion either of the court* or of the licensing authority.†
In Minnesota, the licence becomes ipso facto void on convic-
tion for selling to a minor, habitual drunkard, or intemperate
person after notice. In Ontario a licence is in general
revocable after a third conviction.
+
A person who has been convicted within a year, or within
three or five years, of any breach of the liquor laws is in some
States ineligible for a new licence. In Atlanta such a convic-
tion involves perpetual disqualification; every applicant for a
licence being required to make an affidavit that he has not
previously been convicted. And in Missouri a licence may
not be granted to any one whose licence has previously been
revoked, or who has been convicted of any violation of the
liquor law, or has had any such person in his employment.
Sunday closing is the rule nearly everywhere in America,
but it is a rule much violated in the cities, in many of which
nothing more is attempted than the closing of the front door,
while there are some in which not even this form is observed.
Complaints that it has been used by the police as a means of
levying blackmail have not been infrequent in some of the
larger cities; and in others, where the police would seem to
have done their best to enforce it, the difficulty of obtaining
convictions is said to have rendered their exertions useless.§
Boston and Philadelphia, however, are instances among the
larger cities where the law is administered with vigour and not
without success. In Atlanta, also, I believe it to be well
enforced. The law of Massachusetts allows an exception in
favour of guests in hotels; but in Pennsylvania the rule is
absolute, and is not openly disobeyed in Philadelphia. The
law of Ontario forbids the sale of liquor between 7 o'clock on
Saturday evening and 6 o'clock on Monday morning, during
which period bar-rooms must be closed.
* Massachusetts, pp. 197, 210.
+ Nebraska, p. 253; Massachusetts, pp. 197, 210.
Minnesota, p. 239; Rhode Island, p. 184.
+
§ See, as to Cincinnati, p. 282.
SOME DETAILS.
89
The closing of bar-rooms on election days is general.
Liquor is never allowed to be sold to minors,* or to
habitual drunkards. There is, perhaps, no provision in the
licence laws to which Americans generally attach more im-
portance than this, or which there is a greater disposition to
enforce with severity. This is the point to which the Law and
Order Leagues common in American cities devote the best part
of their energies, and their attention to which earns for them
the largest measure of public favour. The Chicago League
attempts nothing else but a vigilant campaign against all who
supply drink to young people and to drunkards. In Atlanta
every saloon is obliged to have posted over the door the words
"No minors allowed in here." To employ a minor in a dram-
shop, or even to permit him to frequent or enter it without
the written permission of his parent or guardian, is equally
prohibited.
The penalties for this class of offence are severe. In Mis-
souri the fine ranges from $50 to $200, and, in addition, the
parent may recover damages to the extent of $50 for each of-
fence. This provision is no dead letter; and it happened while
I was in Kansas City that a woman there obtained judgment
for $2,000 against a saloon keeper for supplying liquor to her
son, a lad. The offence was alleged, and proved, to have been
committed on forty different occasions. The secretary of the
Law and Order League of a large city in another State related
to me a case where a woman got a verdict for $6,500 in a
similar case, proving sixty-five offences, for each of which she
was entitled to $100, the amount fixed by law. The convic-
tion in that case was quashed, on the ground that the statute of
limitations had run; but the law was afterwards amended so
as to extend the time during which such actions might be
brought. In Michigan both actual and exemplary damages
are recoverable by a parent or master for this offence.
* In California the prohibition extends only up to the age of 18 years.
90
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWs.
In a few instances the sale to women is also prohibited either
altogether, or for consumption on the premises. In Denver a
city ordinance provides that liquor is not to be supplied to
females, nor may females be permitted to be in saloons for the
purpose of drinking, or be employed in the liquor business.*
A provision, found in most American laws, for the greater
protection of the habitually intemperate, and their families, is
that which enables the relations of a drunkard to give notice to
liquor-sellers that they are not to supply him with liquor, and
attaches a heavy penalty to anyone who violates the terms of
the notice within a year. The following, which is taken from
the Massachusetts law, may be given as an example of such
clauses, though they often vary in detail :—
"The husband, wife, parent, child, guardian, or employer of a
person who has, or may hereafter have, the habit of drinking
spirituous or intoxicating liquor to excess, may give notice in
writing, signed by him or her, to any person, requesting him not to
sell or deliver such liquor to the person having such habit. If the
person so notified at any time within twelve months thereafter sells
or delivers any such liquor to the person having such habit, or
permits such person to loiter on his premises, the person giving the
notice may, in an action of tort, recover of the person notified such
sum, not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars,
as may be assessed as damages: provided, that an employer giving
such notice shall not recover unless he is injured in his person or
property. A married woman may bring such action in her own
name, and all damages recovered by her shall inure to her separate
In case of the death of either party, the action and right of
action shall survive to or against his executor or administrator."+
use.
In Wisconsin the notice may be given by the municipal
or Poor Law authorities as a protection to the public against
See also Rhode Island, p. 183. New York State passed a law in
1892 prohibiting the employment of women as barmaids.
† Under a subsequent enactment the notice may also be given in a
city by the mayor, and elsewhere by one of the selectmen. In Rhode
Island the limitation on the amount of the damages is omitted. See also
Pennsylvania, p. 228; Missouri, p. 269; Kentucky, p. 347; Ontario, p. 407.
SOME DETAILS.
91
2
;
liability for the support of the drunkard or his family.*
Clauses of this kind have been found to have practical effect
use has been made of them, and cases in the law courts have
tested and established their validity. Their operation is to
some extent impeded by an unwillingness to give the notice,
and by the difficulty or distastefulness of serving it in a number
of saloons. This latter obstacle to the effectiveness of the
clause is, however, easily surmounted in places having a Law
and Order League, by an application to that body, which is
generally ready to undertake the work.
The foregoing provision may be considered as part of what
is known as the Civil Damage Law; but the enactment to which
that name is usually given is one which makes the liquor-seller
liable in damages for any injury which a person under the
influence of liquor supplied by him may do to himself or
others. The following is a fair example of such a law :-
“Every husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, employer, or
other person, who is injured in person, property, or means of
support by an intoxicated person, or in consequence of the intoxi-
cation, habitual or otherwise, of any person, shall have a right of
action in his or her own name, severally or jointly, against any
person or persons who, by selling or giving intoxicating liquor,
have caused in whole or in part such intoxication."+
The following is another form of clause, less comprehensive
than the preceding one :—
(C
'If any person in a state of intoxication commits any injury to
the person or property of another, the person who furnished him
with any part of the liquor which occasioned his intoxication, if the
same was furnished in violation of this chapter, shall be liable to
the same action by the party injured as the person intoxicated
would be liable to; and the party injured, or his or her legal repre-
sentative, may bring either a joint action against the person
* See p. 296.
† See laws of Illinois and of Massachusetts, Maine, and other States.
In Illinois, if the damages claimed do not exceed $200, proceedings for
their recovery may be taken before a magistrate.
92
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWs.
intoxicated and the person who furnished the liquor, or a separate
action against either.”*
The law of Ontario, in addition to a clause similar to the last,
contains also one in the following terms, dealing with cases
where an intoxicated person commits suicide or sustains
fatal injury :-
"Where in any inn, tavern, or other house or place of public
entertainment wherein refreshments are sold, or in any place
wherein intoxicating liquors of any kind are sold, whether legally or
illegally, any person has drunk to excess of intoxicating liquor of
any kind, therein furnished to him, and while in a state of intoxi-
cation from such drinking has come to his death by suicide, or
drowning, or perishing from cold or other accident caused by such
intoxication, the keeper of such inn, tavern, or other house or place
of public entertainment, or wherein refreshments are sold, or of
such place wherein intoxicating liquor is sold, and also any
other person or persons who for him or in his employ delivered
to such person the liquor whereby such intoxication was caused,
shall be jointly and severally liable to an action as for personal
wrong (if brought within three months thereafter, but not other-
wise), by the legal representatives of the deceased person; and
such legal representatives may bring either a joint and several
action against them, or a separate action against either or any of
them, and by such action or actions, may recover such sum not less
than $100 nor more than $1,000, in the aggregate, of any such
actions, as may therein be assessed by the court or jury as
damages."+
The Civil Damage Law of Nebraska is very wide, rendering
the liquor-seller responsible for all damages sustained by
individuals or the public in consequence of the traffic, in-
cluding the support of paupers, widows, and orphans. Thus,
if a person becomes a pauper through intemperance, the Poor
Law authorities may sue on the bond of any licensee who was
in the habit of supplying him with liquor. And in such suits
it is only necessary to prove that the defendant supplied liquor
*Laws of Rhode Island.
+ Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1887, c. 194, s. 122.
SOME DETAILS.
93
to the person on the day, or about the time, when the acts were
done or the injuries received, which gave rise to the suit.
In this latter respect Civil Damage Laws vary, some requiring
proof that the intoxication was caused by drink supplied by the
defendant, while others merely require it to be shown that the
individual was intoxicated, and that the defendant supplied
some of the liquor.
In Wisconsin the existing Civil Damage Law operates only in
the case of an habitual drunkard in respect of whom notice
has been given not to sell, a limitation which is said to render
it almost inoperative. In Ohio there is a similar limitation;
but anyone serving liquor so as to cause intoxication is liable
to compensate one who takes charge of the intoxicated person,
a provision which occurs also in the laws of some other States.*
Whatever may be thought of the Civil Damage Law, there is
no doubt that it has operated in not a few cases with practical
and exemplary force. Of its operation in Nebraska something
is said in a later chapter.† In other States also I found
evidence that it was by no means a dead letter.‡ The Law
and Order Leagues are ready to give advice and assistance to
persons desiring to take proceedings; and lawyers are not
wanting who, from less disinterested motives, are quite willing
to promote litigation of this kind, in view of the heavy damages
* Kansas, p. 129; Iowa, p. 153.
† See pp. 258-9.
↓
For instance, in New York there was a case where a man, after
drinking heavily in a saloon, left with a bottle of whisky in his pocket and
a pipe in his mouth. He fell over the kerb-stone, the bottle was broken
and the spirit took fire from the pipe. The man lost his life, and a jury
awarded his widow heavy damages against the saloon-keeper. Here are
some other cases :-"In the suit for $10,000 damages brought by Mrs.
E. H. against S. D. V., of the jury last night awarded $1,000. Mrs.
H.'s husband was killed some months ago by G. P., who, it was claimed,
was drunk on whisky obtained at V.'s drug store in
"The
County (Pa.) Court has awarded $1,625 damages against J. S., a saloon-
keeper of the borough of on the suit of Mrs. S. W., whose husband,
it is claimed, got drunk in S.'s saloon, and while drunk was run over by
the cars and killed."
"
""
•
94
AMERICAN LIQUOR Laws.
to which it may lead. The persons entitled to take these pro-
ceedings are, in a large proportion of cases, women whose
husbands have gone to ruin in the saloons. The secretary of
the League in a large city told me that the reluctance of many
women to follow up their cases was the chief obstacle to the
enforcement of this law. A woman would come to the
League's office, would be prevailed upon to institute pro-
ceedings, and afterwards, bullied or persuaded by her husband
or others, would abandon them. But, in his opinion, the risk
to saloon-keepers was real enough to operate with considerable
effect in deterring them from anything likely to bring them
within the grasp of the Civil Damage Law.
The penalty for intoxication is commonly a fine with or
without liability to imprisonment, but the latter punishment is
more often reserved (except in default of payment of the fine)
for a second or third conviction; and, as it is comparatively
rare for previous convictions to be charged and proved, the
offender has nearly always the option of a fine. The ques-
tion of the punishment for drunkenness has lately received
much attention in Massachusetts, where the fine has been
abolished. Further reference to this subject will be found
in Chapter XI.*
The tendency of legislation, however, is to treat the seller
of liquor with more severity than the consumer, and accordingly
it is sometimes provided that the punishment for drunkenness
may be wholly or partly remitted on the offender giving sworn
information, when, where, and from whom he received the liquor
which made him drunk.† The law of Michigan goes still
further, and provides that a person, alleged on sworn informa-
tion to have been intoxicated, is to be summoned and called on
to give evidence against the liquor-seller. In several States
habitual drunkards may be committed to places established
* See p. 211.
† See Iowa, p. 152; Nebraska, p. 254; Atlanta, p. 328.
See pp. 263-4.
++
SOME DETAILS.
95
for the cure of intemperance. In Massachusetts a special
State hospital for the purpose has recently been opened.*
By the law of Illinois, habitual drunkenness for two years is
a cause for divorce, and proceedings can also be taken, as in
cases of insanity, for the appointment of a conservator of the
person and property of a drunkard.
For illegal selling the punishment is generally a heavy fine,
and imprisonment, under some laws for as much as a year.
And the court has sometimes no option but to imprison.
In some States the most effective weapon against illicit
liquor shops is found to be the provision declaring every such
place to be a nuisance, and authorising proceedings to be taken
for an injunction to abate it. The procedure in these cases is
more speedy, and avoids the risks of failure with the jury; and
the American courts seem to have supported a wide application
of this equitable jurisdiction. The following section is from
the law of Massachusetts :-
"The Supreme Judicial Court and Superior Court shall have
jurisdiction in equity upon information filed by the district attorney
for the district, or upon the petition of not less than ten legal voters
of any town or city setting forth the fact that any building, place,
or tenement therein, is resorted to for prostitution, lewdness, or
illegal gaming, or is used for the illegal keeping or sale of intoxicat-
ing liquors, to restrain, enjoin, or abate the same as a common
nuisance, and an injunction for such purpose may be issued by any
justice of said courts.” †
In Nebraska all fines under the Liquor Law are paid to the
School Boards.
Vendors of liquor are by many laws required to keep their
doors and windows unobstructed by screens or other obstacle
to a clear view of the premises from the street. Tables and
*
66
>>
Large numbers of persons voluntarily submit themselves for treat-
ment at Keeley Institutes," and places where other special "cures are
administered. The Keeley cure, in particular, has spread widely over
America.
† See also Pennsylvania, p. 228; Kansas, p. 129; Iowa, p. 152.
96
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
chairs are also in some cases forbidden. Charlottetown, in
Prince Edward Island, has a specially stringent law of this
kind.*
The sale of liquor in theatres and places of amusement is
sometimes forbidden. And some laws prohibit musical and
other performances in saloons. In Missouri, a dramshop keeper
may not allow the use of any musical instrument, nor any contests
or exhibition on his premises, nor any billiard-table, gaming-
table, bowling alley, cards, or dice.
In Nebraska "treating" is forbidden, but not prevented.
The sale of liquor by druggists for medicinal, mechanical,
scientific, and sacramental purposes is a matter which has
received much legislative attention in America, especially where
prohibition prevails. The elaborate provisions regulating or
attempting to regulate this business in Iowa and Kansas are
noticed in the chapters dealing with those States. Commonly,
but not invariably, licensing laws provide for the conduct of
this business by druggists on payment of a reduced fee. Special
exemptions are sometimes allowed for medical prescriptions.
Great abuses have gone on in the "drug store saloon." But
this is one of the difficulties peculiarly attendant on prohibition.
Other provisions, common in licensing laws, such as clauses.
for search and seizure, penalties on officers who neglect
their duty, penalties for adulteration, etc., call for no special
remark.
A subject still remaining to be noticed is that of "Scientific
Temperance Instruction," which, in one form or another, hast
in the course of the last ten years been made compulsory in
the public schools of a large number of States. Vermont was
the first State to adopt such a law, and by 1890 more than
thirty States had given statutory recognition to this branch of
teaching, the introduction of which as a compulsory subject of
Page 380. See also Atlanta ordinance, ss. 898-9, p. 419. See also
laws of Michigan, Nebraska, etc.
SOME DETAILS.
97
instruction in the schools has been pressed by its advocates on
the State Legislatures with very great vigour and much success. *
The terms of these laws vary in different States. Commonly,
the study of "physiology and hygiene, with special reference to
the effects of alcoholic drinks, stimulants, and narcotics upon
the human system" is required of all pupils in all public
schools. In many, if not the majority, of the States it must
be pursued with text-books in the hands of pupils able to read;
in some, the text-books used in primary and intermediate
schools must give one-fourth of their space to temperance
matter, and those used in high schools not less than twenty
pages. Generally, also, no teacher who has not passed a
satisfactory examination in this subject can be granted a
certificate or be authorised to teach.
The enactment of the law was followed by a vigorous war
on the subject of the text-books. The advocates of the views
just mentioned insisted that prominence should be given to
an uncompromising exposition of the necessity of complete
abstinence, in order to "so popularise the science of tem-
perance that the smallest pupils may understand from their
school manuals why they should neither drink alcoholic liquors
of any kind, nor use tobacco." The adoption by some States
of the requirement that the books must devote one-fourth of
their space to the effects of alcohol and the other narcotics
marked a victory for this side in the dispute.
The promoters of the movement frankly stated their object
in a petition addressed to publishers of "temperance text-
books," in the course of which the following passage occurs :—
"This is not a physiological but a temperance movement. In
all grades below the high school this instruction should contain
only physiology enough to make the hygiene of temperance
H
* A history of the movement, from the point of view of those who have
pushed it on, has been published in the form of a pamphlet by Mrs.
Mary H. Hunt, the superintendent of that department of the Women's
Christian Temperance Union which undertakes this particular work.
98
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
and other laws of health intelligible. Temperance should be
the chief, and not the subordinate, topic, and should occupy at
least one-fourth of the space in text-books for these grades." The
gist of the objection to the older books was that they were
directed against "the abuse and not the use of alcohol."
"The object of all this legislation " (as stated in the preface to
one of the recognised text-books) "is not that the future
citizen may know the technical' names of bones, nerves, and
muscles, but that he may have a timely and forewarning
knowledge of the effects of alcohol and other popular poisons
upon the human body, and therefore upon life and character."
A great variety of elementary text-books have been issued
within the last few years, the chief object of which is to teach
that all drinks containing alcohol in large or small quantities are
poisons, and have a peculiar property of leading the consumer
on from a moderate to an excessive indulgence. It is also
declared to be "the nature of alcohol to make a person not
care if he does wrong." The functions and organs of the
human body are successively described, and the ruinous effects
of alcohol on each organ are graphically set forth. The
positive evil, as well as the probable risk, of even the smallest
use of alcoholic liquor is particularly emphasised*; and the
superiority of the total abstainer in all the physical and mental
operations of life is repeatedly inculcated.
The thick speech, bloated appearance, and rolling gait, and
CC
* "Whenever a man takes a glass of beer or other liquor that has alcohol
in it, the blood carries the alcohol to his brain. If this alcohol were like
water it would not harm the brain, for the brain needs water. But alcohol
is a sharp, biting poison. It will shrink the brain and do it much other
harm . . A man poisons his brain a little, if he takes only the alcohol
there is in a little beer or cider." Cider, beer, wine, or any liquor that
contains alcohol, deadens the nerves that give us the sense of taste. One
who drinks any of these, or uses tobacco, soon becomes unable to taste
delicate flavours." "While this appetite is not formed as readily in some
persons as in others, no one can be sure how soon alcohol will become his
master if he takes it in any form,"
SOME DETAILS.
J
99
all the other signs of bodily and mental weakness, and moral
depravity, which mark the drunkard, are set forth as the ordinary
alternatives to total abstinence. The use of alcoholic liquor in
cooking is strongly condemned.
The contention of the W.C.T.U.-that one-fourth of the
space in the text-books should be required by law to be devoted
to temperance matter-appears to have prevailed, in the year
1890, in about six States. Elsewhere a vigorous contest was
carried on by the extreme party for the adoption of books
embodying their views, but they were not always successful.
In one State, a member of the board by which the selected
text-book had to be sanctioned told me that the agitation on
the question had been keen, but the board had decided in
favour of a physiology primer of a less controversial character,
in which the effects of alcohol were described, but not with the
particular force of colour desired by the extremists.
He was
strongly of opinion that, if they had gained their point, the law
would not long have continued in force.
"The Standard for the Enforcement of a Temperance
Education Law," issued by the W.C.T.U. to superintendents of
public instruction in the several States, lays down that "the
pursuit of the study of physiological temperance by all pupils in
all schools, as the law demands, requires at least three lessons
per week for fourteen weeks of each school year below the
second year of the high school "—twenty minutes being allowed
to each lesson.
H 2
100
CHAPTER VII.
MAINE.
(Prohibition.)
THE Maine Liquor Law was enacted in 1851. The proposal
had been unsucessfully brought forward in the previous year;
but in 1851 the Bill was rapidly passed through all its stages
without amendment, and almost without discussion. In 1856
the law was repealed, but, two years later, was re-enacted, and
continues in force at the present time, amended by various
enactments increasing, for the most part, the stringency of
its provisions. In 1884, a proposal to make it a part of the
Constitution of the State was submitted to popular vote, and was
carried by a large majority.
The following is a brief summary of the law as it now
exists:
The following things are prohibited
(a) Selling intoxicating liquor (except as especially provided)——-
punishment, $50 and 30 days' imprisonment; and, on subsequent
convictions, $200 and 6 months' imprisonment.
(b) Being a common seller-$100 and 30 days'; ($200 and
4 months? on subsequent convictions).
(c) Keeping a drinking-house and tippling-shop-$100 and
60 days'.
(d) Depositing or having in possession liquor with intent to sell
in violation of law, or with intent that any other person shall sell,
or to aid any person in such sale—$100 and 60 days'.
(e) Travelling from place to place, carrying or offering for sale,
or obtaining or offering to obtain, orders for the sale or delivery
of liquor-$20 to $500, and, in default of payment, two to six
months' imprisonment.
(f) Knowingly bringing into the State, or transporting from
place to place in the State, liquor with intent as above-$500 and
one year's imprisonment.*
* See note †, next page.
MAINE.
IOI
(g) Manufacturing for sale any intoxicating liquor except cider
$1,000 and 2 months'.
All places used for the sale or keeping of intoxicating liquors,
or where intoxicating liquors are sold for tippling purposes, and all
places of resort where intoxicating liquors are kept, sold, given
away, drunk, or dispensed in any manner not provided by law, are
declared to be common nuisances, and the penalty is a fine not
exceeding $1,000 or a year's imprisonment.
It will be seen that the penalties in the above cases vary
considerably in severity, but that the law generally requires
both fine and also imprisonment.* The object of the prohibi-
tionists has been to increase the penalties all round. As
regards illegal transportation (see ƒ above), they have, by a
recent amendment of the law, succeeded in their object; but
it is desired to extend this heavy punishment to other offences. †
In some cases prosecution must be by indictment, others may
be dealt with by courts of summary jurisdiction; but the
defendant can always appeal to a jury.
Wherever the law prescribes both fine and imprisonment,
the latter is doubled if the former is not paid. The punish-
ment for a single act of transportation, therefore, may be two
years' imprisonment, irrespective of the amount of liquor
transported.
+
* By a law of 1893, however, the courts are allowed more discretion
in this respect.
† Since the above was written, the law fixing the penalty for illegal
transportation has been altered by the Legislature in the Session of 1893;
a penalty not less than $50 nor more than $100, and 60 days' imprisonment
(in case of a railway, steamboat, or express company, a fine not exceeding
$200) being substituted for the very heavy punishment mentioned in the
text.
I was told that certain cases of this offence were pending before the
Supreme Court of the State on appeal, and that it was thought possible
the court might decline to enforce the punishment, as being unreasonably
severe. It is difficult, however, to see how the express language of the
statute can legally be evaded.-But, as stated in the preceding note, this
punishment has in the present year been mitigated by Act of the
Legislature.
102
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
Payment by any person of the United States tax as a liquor-
seller is prima facie evidence that he is a common seller.
G
Provision is made for enabling the officers of the law, under
authority of a magistrate's warrant granted on Sworn in-
formation, to search for and seize liquor and arrest the person
keeping it.
Any person found intoxicated in any street, highway, or public
place (or in his own house or elsewhere, if he is quarrelsome) is
liable to a fine not exceeding $10 or imprisonment not exceeding
30 days.
Anyone injured in person, property, means of support, or other-
wise by an intoxicated person, has a right of action against anyone
who caused or contributed to his intoxication.
Until recently, sales of liquor in the original packages in
which it was imported were allowed; but a recent statute has
brought such sales under the general prohibitory law.
~
In order that liquor may be provided for medicinal, mechanical,
and manufacturing purposes, the local authority of each city and
town may annually appoint an agent to ell it for those purposes
only. These agents obtain their supply from a commisioner
appointed by the Governor of the State in Council.
There are two, and may be three, sets of officers charged
with the duty of enforcing these laws; viz. :—Firstly: The
marshal and the ordinary police of each city and town. Secondly:
The county sheriff and his officers, whose duty is not only to
enforce the judgments and decisions of the courts and carry
out legal process, but also to see that the laws are obeyed and
to cause proceedings to be taken against offenders. This duty
is theirs as regards the enforcement of the laws in general, but
is particularly enjoined upon them with regard to those relating
to the sale of liquor and the suppression of disorderly houses.
Thirdly: On petition of thirty taxpayers in any county, repre-
senting that the liquor laws are not faithfully enforced by the
county or local officers, the Governor of the State is required,
if the representations appear to be well-founded, to appoint
special officers to enforce these laws.
In practice, however, the mode in which the law is enforced
MAINE.
103
depends in general chiefly on the action of the county sheriff
and his deputies.
The chief city of Maine is Portland, in Cumberland County,
a considerable seaport, having a population of 36,400. The
prohibitory law, to which it has been subject for forty
years, has been enforced during that period with varying
severity;* but during the last two years, since the beginning of
1891, it has been enforced with exceptional vigour ; † indeed,
it is said that probably at no other time and in no other part of
the State have such determined efforts been made to put an end
to the liquor traffic. Frequent domiciliary visits are paid by
the sheriff and deputies to suspected places, and large quantities
of liquor have been seized and destroyed. It would seem that
there is no city in the United States better situated than
Portland to throw light on the question of how much success
may be looked for from prohibition in an important centre of
population, which has had a long experience of such a law, and
has formed such habits of mind and action in regard to
abstention from liquor as result from that experience. ‡
+
As regards the general habits of the people, it is impossible
to form anything approaching a precise estimate of the prc-
portion which teetotallers bear to the whole population; ncr
is any information obtainable showing the amount of liquor
* In the early days of the law, the contest between the "ramrods"
(prohibitionists) and the "rummies" was carried on with a good deal of
vigour. During 1856-7, the State relapsed into a licence law; but then
reverted to prohibition. During the secession troubles the question fell into
abeyance.
+ In Portland the city government is Democratic, and is said not to
favour the new régime. The sheriff appoints his own deputies to carry out
his orders; he has no control of the municipal police.
It is sometimes said-and the suggestion is, perhaps, not groundless
that prohibition has had a specially favourable field in Maine, which
lies somewhat out of the general track of affairs, and has been subject to
On
fewer disturbing influences and circumstances than many other States.
the other hand, Portland itself is a foreign-trade seaport, though not one
of first-rate importance.
104
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
brought into the State, either legally, for home consumption, or
illegally for sale. There is, however, no doubt that a large
proportion of the people are total abstainers; and, while it is
probable that this fact is due, in a great measure, to religious.
and moral influences independent of the prohibitory law, it is
generally admitted by its opponents that prohibition-by tending
to drive the traffic into bye-ways and disreputable "dives," by
removing the visible temptations offered by open bars and
saloons, by making it relatively, if not absolutely, difficult to
obtain drink, and by throwing a general atmosphere of
subterfuge and disrepute about the trade-has been a material
agent in suppressing a demand which is not only regarded by
many as morally wrong and physically ruinous, but is rendered
by the operation of the law disreputable. These tendencies,
receiving support from the general voice and sentiment of the
women, have so influenced manners that, whatever share in the
result ought to be assigned to the effect of prohibition, it is a
fact that the demand for liquor or the desire for it, in large
quantities or small, proceeds only from a limited section of the
population. Even taking the wealthier class alone-whom the
prohibitory clauses of the law would not much affect, since the
introduction of liquor into the State for private use is not
interfered with-it is probably safe to estimate that in the
residences of at least one-half of them no alcoholic liquors are
in use. The law of Maine also requires temperance teaching
to be administered daily to all the pupils in all public schools
in the State.* Allowances have to be made for these circum-
stances in forecasting the effects of applying a prohibitory law
*The text-book used in the schools of Portland is Dr. Thayer Smith's
"Primer of Physiology and Hygiene," which describes, chapter by chapter,
the structure and functions of the different parts of the human anatomy,
and the evil effects produced on them by alcohol and tobacco. A supple-
mentary chapter on stimulants and narcotics is added, in which the mischief
caused by smoking and drinking (moderate as well as excessive) are set
forth. About five minutes a day are given to this study.
MAINE.
105
to other places, where the general habits of the people are
different.
The good order of the town appears to be preserved easily
enough by a force of no more than from thirty-five to forty
constables-about one to every thousand of the population.
Drunkenness has, however, by no means been stamped out;
and those who are best able to judge do not think that, with
the utmost vigilance, it is possible entirely to suppress the illicit
supply of liquor. The "Rum Room" in the basement of the
City Hall the receptacle for the liquor seized by the authorities
-bears evidence confirmatory of this opinion; the liquor here
received is periodically destroyed, but a new supply soon
comes in-though, after two years during which the law has
been strictly enforced, the accumulations are less voluminous
than they were at the commencement of that period.
*
Except at the City Agency (to be mentioned later) and in
some of the hotels, where wine and beer can still be obtained
by guests in their rooms and even in the public dining-room,
a stranger in Portland would probably have difficulty in
purchasing liquor.
In the lower parts of the city there are haunts where drink
is secretly consumed on the premises by those who frequent
such places, and from which proceed most of the drunkenness
seen on the streets. These "dives" are the points to which
the sheriff's attention is chiefly directed, and he and his deputies
are sometimes baffled by the ingenuity with which the object of
their search is concealed† Much of the spirits found at these
((
* A law of 1893 provides that seized liquor containing more than 20
per cent. of alcohol is to be redistilled and utilised at the liquor agencies,
or disposed of for the benefit of the county in which it was seized.
+ Contrivances for disposing of liquor to evade search (technically called
dumps ") are various. Sometimes a corner of the floor, with the carpet
attached, works on a hinge, the liquor being concealed below it; or it may
be kept behind the framework of a door. Sometimes there is a hole behind
the bar, down which the liquor can be thrown into a receptacle below, the
bottles being broken in their fall and the liquor mingled with water and
106
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
places is of a vile character, and produces the worst forms of
intoxication.*
*
"Pocket-peddling" is another mode in which the traffic is
conducted. The pocket-peddler loiters about the streets and
wharves in the lower quarters of the city, and serves his
customers from the bottle. This business, it is said, accounts
for a good deal of drunkenness, and it has been found im-
possible entirely to suppress it. A recent estimate, by one who
is said to be well acquainted with this class of people, rates the
number of pocket-peddlers in Portland as high as 300. This
seems incredible; but another informant, who thinks this
estimate too high, tells me that there is certainly a very large
number of young men engaged in this business.
The apothecary's store is another place where liquor-selling
is, probably, to no inconsiderable extent still carried on.
Apothecaries usually sell syrups, soda water, etc., and it has
been a common practice for them to supply whisky. The
severity, however, with which the law is now enforced in
Portland has done much to check this practice, and in 1892 it
was difficult, if not impossible, for a stranger to purchase
whisky from an apothecary; but I was repeatedly assured by
residents that a considerable sale was still carried on in this
way to regular customers. It is certain that the apothecaries,
almost without exception, pay the United States special tax
on alcoholic liquor, and although it may be argued that this
payment need not necessarily involve a violation of the law, it
is by the State law made primâ facie evidence of illegal sale.
other ingredients which render it unrecognisable. Liquor is often con-
ducted from a distance in carefully concealed pipes; in one case it was led
into the ordinary water-pipe, and by an arrangement of valves either
whisky or water could be drawn from the same apparently innocent tap.
I was shown a barrel which had been buried several feet in the ground and
connected with the surface by a pipe, the end of which was just covered
with earth and exposed when liquor was required to be drawn.
* Such spirits are sold at $1.25 per gallon. The United States Excise
duty is 90 per cent. per gallon.
MAINE.
107
It shows that the means for violating the law are ready at hand;
and it is hard to see for what legitimate purpose the payment
can be made, since the mere keeping of alcohol and use of it in
compounding medicine would not involve a liability to the tax,
and the sale of alcohol, as such, for medicinal purposes is by law
restricted to the City Liquor Agency. The number of persons
in Maine who paid the retail liquor-dealers' tax for the year
ending June 30, 1892, was 808, besides 214 who paid the tax
on retail dealers in malt liquor; and I was informed, on official
authority, that there was only one druggist in Portland who had
not paid the tax.
Another quarter from which a very considerable quantity of
liquor must be obtained is this City Agency, which is kept
as already described, "for the sale of intoxicating liquors for
medicinal, mechanical, and manufacturing purposes, and no
other." The official agent is required to record the kind and
quantity of the liquor sold, and the date of sale, price, and
name of purchaser. Any person who knowingly misrepresents
the purpose for which he purchases liquor is liable to a fine of
$20; but the law does not require any further assurance that the
purchase is bonâ fide made for one of the above-stated purposes.
As a matter of fact, in Portland, the question "Medicine?"
and the answer "Yes!" seem to be held sufficient, and a small
throng is commonly seen in the agency of persons waiting their
turn for a flask of whisky as "medicine." The profits of the
City Liquor Agency of Portland for the past year have, as I am
informed, amounted to about $20,000.
Of the actual condition of Portland, as compared with other
cities in regard to drunkenness, it is difficult to judge; and it is
a question on which, probably, there would be much difference
of opinion among residents. Undoubtedly, the sight of a
drunken man is no great rarity, and, occasionally, when the
pocket-peddler has been plying a brisk trade, a group of men may
be seen together under the influence of drink. The smallness
of the police force may be taken as evidence of the orderly
108
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
character of the population. A stranger perambulating the
town at night would probably be struck by the imperfect
lighting of the streets, the rare appearance of a policeman, and
the general quiet which prevails. Groups of men and boys
would be seen lounging at the corners of the streets in the lower
quarters; and it is said that such loungers are often posted to
give warning in the "dives" of the approach of danger.
As regards the general character of the liquor sold, the
evidence of the sheriff's officers, and of the "Rum Room " itself,
shows that the vigilance of the authorities has almost put a stop
to the sale of beer in Portland; nearly all the stuff seized is
* The following cuttings from Portland newspapers were taken in a
few days in October, 1892, and are probably a fair average sample :--
"The Telegram says that about midnight, Saturday, seven cases of
beer were carried into the vacant lot on Cross Street, below the American
Express Company's Stable, and the beer peddled out to the great crowd
that gathered there. Was there no policeman on that beat?
·October 15.
"There were twenty-one arrests last week, of which ten were for
drunkenness."—October 17.
""
"The patrol wagon went on an expedition after drunks on Kennebec
Street yesterday afternoon. Three men were gathered together from one
place or another, and all taken to the station at once."-October 18.
"MUNICIPAL COURT.-Before Judge Gould.
Wednesday.-Thomas
Gibbons, James McGlynn, Patrick Flaherty, and Eugene F. Cunningham.
Intoxication. Each fined $3 and costs.
*
*
*
*
*
*
"James A. Facey. Common nuisance. Bound over to the grand
jury in the sum of $500.
"Patrick J. Cady, Edward J. Cady, and James E. Cady.
seizure. Edward discharged. James E. and
one-half costs and 60 days in the county jail.
"Edward J. Cady and Patrick J. Cady.
charged."-October 19.
Search and
Patrick each fined $100 and
Both appealed.
Search and seizure. Dis-
Yesterday morning Mary Sullivan was brought before the Municipal
Court by the sheriffs. She was charged with being a common drunkard,
This was the
and was sentenced to 30 days in the House of Correction.
only business."—October 20.
"SEIZURES THIS MORNING.-The sheriffs made a seizure of hard stuff
this forenoon at the place on York Street kept by John and Ellen Howley.
They also got a quantity at Mary Welch's, 51, Centre Street."— October 20.
MAINE.
109
Year
ending
March 31.
"hard liquor" (spirits), and some of it is of the vilest quality.*
A comparison of police-court statistics is not altogether to
be relied on, since a high return of arrests may be the result of
a strict enforcement of the law as well as of an excess of law-
breaking. No return is published of the cases of drunkenness
dealt with summarily in the municipal court of Portland.
The following figures are, however, received from the best
authority :-
CITY OF PORTLAND, MAINE.-ARRESTS.
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
Drunkenness.
1,558
1,431
727
2,011
1,931
1,585
1,359
I, 170
1,221
890
606
589
558
636
534
421
379
605
534
454
279
;
Drunken-
ness and
Disturbance.
203
191
195
389
387
279
249
215
322
557
601
855
788
790
864
603
682
820
660
603
551
Total.
1,761
1,622
922
2,400
2,328
1,864
1,608
1,385
1,543
I,447
I,207
I,244
1,346
1,426
1,398
1,024
1,061
1,425
I, 194
1,057
830
Common
Drunkards.
9
5
38
22
gencies
30
56
60
22
12
2TS
II
5
27
57
64
SI
136
174
154
87
All Crimes.
2,538
2,44I
1,374
3,087
3, 143
2,716
2,421
2,440
2,433
2,213
2,065
2,336
2,219
2,250
2,281
2,038
2,098
2,363
2,169
1,922
1,500
* There seems, however, to be little direct evidence of the adulteration
of liquor with injurious matter. The reports of analysts that I have met
with show that water is the chief ingredient of adulteration, though
colouring and flavouring matters are also used, which, however, do not
appear to be particularly hurtful. New spirit is, of course, very poisonous,
and the violently evil effects sometimes produced appear to be often
attributable to this cause rather than to the introduction of poisonous
adulterants. The belief, however, is prevalent that much injurious adultera-
tion of spirits is practised.
T10
AMERICAN Liquor Laws.
These figures appear to show that the energy of the present
sheriff in putting down drink-shops has borne fruit in a con-
siderable falling off of drunkenness. Those arrested for
drunkenness only are simply held in custody, and when sober
discharged; those for drunkenness and disturbance are sup-
posed to be put before the court and sentenced. It has been
alleged that for political reasons many offenders have been
simply discharged after a night in the police station, without
any proceeding being taken against them or any record being
kept of their arrest. cannot tell to what extent this charge
may be true, but I have been told on what appeared to be good
authority that it was not altogether without foundation. Many
intoxicated persons, of course, come upon the streets who are
not arrested.*
The following is a return of the number of prosecutions on
indictment for violation of the liquor law in five of the most
populous counties, and also in the whole State, in several years :
Year Cumberland,
erding Pop. (1890)
Nov. I.
91,000.
1881 174
1883 155
1884 156
1885 198
1889 154 (242)
1890 66 (167)
1891 202 (286)
Andro-
scoggin,
Pop. 49,000.
66
40
133
44
95 (129)
81 (116)
84 (101)
York, Pop. Penobscot, Kennebec,
62,000. Pop. 72 000. Pop. 57,000.
III
116
63
62
47 (84)
13 (58)
67 (92)
37
59
IOI
IIO
85 (145)
91 (129)
49 (96)
T
135
57
229
142
Whole State.
646
628
818
798
244(289) 786 (1,231)
179 (232) | 649 (1,122)
154 (199) | 810 (1,203)
The figures in brackets against the years 1889-91 show
the total number of indictments for offences of all kinds. It
will be seen that these liquor cases form generally a majority,
and often a very large majority, of the whole number.
The published returns of indictable offences show a small
number of prosecutions for drunkenness, but such cases are
*For a comparison of arrests in Portland and other cities, see p. 73.
MAINE.
III
generally dealt with summarily in the lower courts, for which
no returns are published.
According to the official prison report, in the year ending
November 30th, 1892, 1,714 persons were committed to the
county jails for drunkenness, and 348 for selling liquor.
One of the points in which the advocates of prohibition
find the law defective is the opportunity which the forms of
procedure offer for delay in the final adjudication. Some of
the offences under the liquor laws can be tried only on indict-
ment, others are triable by the municipal courts, but in these
cases the defendant may always appeal to a jury. When the
indictment is presented* the defendant's attorney may, and
generally will (unless he has a good case for an acquittal),
demur on some technical ground to the indictment, whereupon
the trial has to be postponed; or, instead of taking that
course, he may, after a verdict, move to stay sentence; in either
case the defendant may not be finally sentenced till a full year
or more has elapsed since he committed his offence. It is true
that the Attorney-General has a right to apply in a summary
way to the Supreme Court to dispose of a demurrer if it is
frivolous; but this power seems to be rarely exercised.
The statistics published with the annual report of the
State's Attorney-General appear to show that nearly every one of
these liquor cases is taken to the Supreme Court, where the
exceptions are almost invariably overruled. Attempts are
* Indictable offences are tried in Cumberland and in two other
counties before what is known as the "Superior Court "-a court especially
appropriated to the county, and having full criminal and limited civil
jurisdiction. In counties which have no Superior Court, the cases are tried
before a judge of the Supreme (State) Court on circuit. Sessions of the
Superior Courts are held in January, May, and September.
+ For example, a man is brought up in September before the municipal
court; he appeals to a jury; the matter goes before the grand jury in
January and comes on for trial. Exceptions are taken to the indictment;
the case stands over till July, when the Supreme Court sits to deal with these
The exceptions are overruled and the case is finally disposed of at
the September session of the Superior Court.
cases.
と
​II2
AMERICAN LIquor Laws.
being made to amend the law by requiring a defendant who
adopts these dilatory tactics to find sureties in substantial
amounts for his appearance.
It is said that there is no difficulty in getting juries to
convict in liquor cases. Indeed, I was told that when a
Portland liquor-seller comes up before a Cumberland county
jury composed largely of farmers, there is more danger of some
prejudice being manifested against him than any undue feeling
in his favour.
Bangor (population nearly 20,000), the third largest town in
the State, is a contrast to Portland. Bars are open in the
hotels, in eating-houses, and grocers' shops, and liquor is
freely sold by apothecaries. The bar is set behind a curtain
or partition running across a portion of the back part of the
shop; but no particular trouble is taken to make the screen
effective to prevent the liquor being seen from the street, and,
wherever the screen appears, it is as sure a sign of what is
within as a Red Lion swinging over the door. The customer
walks in and is served without any concealment. Beer is very
commonly called for, but every kind of drink is to be had.
It is said, however, that not much drunkenness is seen in
Bangor, except during a short time in the spring, when there
is an influx of lumbermen (many of them French-Canadians),
who come down at that period from the backwoods, where
they have been living a hard life without access to liquor. A
portion of the drunkenness which exists is ascribed to the
villainous stuff sold under the present conditions of the trade.
The number of liquor shops has been estimated as high as
300 or more; whether or not this is an exaggeration, the
number is certainly very large. In one part of the town they
are crowded together, and they occur at frequent intervals in
other parts, from the superior restaurant to the low "dive.”
Apothecaries serve out drink in the back part of their shops,
where they compound their medicines.
* See note on p. 114.
MAINE.
113
A few years ago an attempt was made by the State to
enforce the law in Bangor by means of the provision authoris-
ing the Governor to appoint special officers. I had some
conversation with an officer (now a private detective) who was
appointed for this purpose. He told me that he was a strict
abstainer and favourable in principle to prohibition. In the
state of opinion in Bangor, however, he found it utterly impossible
to enforce the law. Both the citizens and the municipal author-
ities were opposed to him; he could obtain no support, and his
position soon became so odious that he abandoned his task,
and things in Bangor went back to their usual condition. One of
the prominent prohibitionists of the place, while he did not
appear to realise the full extent to which the law is openly evaded,
admitted to me that local public opinion did not support a
strict administration, and he even said that he thought a high-
licence law combined with local option preferable in practice
to prohibition, in cases where public sentiment allows the
prohibitory law to be flagrantly violated.* The opinion in
favour of high-licence and local option seems to be general in
Bangor. A restaurant keeper told me that he would willingly
pay 1,000 or even 1,500 dollars a year in duty, if there
were properly enforced licence laws. At present it seems
that the liquor-sellers have generally to pay what is virtually
a licence duty varying from 110 to 60 dollars. It is
levied as a fine. The United States liquor tax is strictly
collected, and the county officials occasionally inspect the
collector's books, and bring up before the courts those who
have paid the tax, who are thereupon fined for violation of the
State law. They never know when the law will come down
IIO
* This gentleman's first remark to me, when I had explained that the
object of my visit was to obtain information, in view of the possibility of a
stringent liquor law being proposed in Great Britain, was, "Keep it away
from politics." Politics, however, seem to have a double effect in Maine,
weakening the opposition to the law itself, as well as weakening the
enforcement of the law.
I
[[4
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
upon them, but experience leads them to expect a prosecution
about once a year. *
In other parts of the State the law is enforced, so far as the
towns are concerned, with varying vigour and success. In
Androscoggin county the traffic is driven into secret places,
and I was told that the new sheriff recently elected for this
county was likely to act with vigour. The chief city, Lewiston
(population, 21,000), is said to contain as many as fifteen
active "beer clubs," with an average membership of fifty. All
such clubs are illegal, since every place of resort," where
intoxicating liquors are kept or drunk in any manner not
provided for by law, is declared to be a common nuisance.†
In some other counties greater laxity prevails; as for example,
in Augusta and Gardiner in Kennebec county, and in Belfast
in Waldo county, etc. Nowhere, however, is the law quite
so flagrantly and openly violated as in Bangor, unless there
may be some other places in the same county (Penobscot)
where a similar state of things exists. ‡
Some of the towns contain a considerable number of
((
* The law imposes imprisonment as well as fine for most liquor
offences. In these cases in Bangor no imprisonment is inflicted. The
offence charged may, perhaps, be that of keeping a common nuisance,
which does not necessarily involve imprisonment. In the Brewers' Journal,
March, 1893, I read that one of these raids had just taken place, when
297 liquor-sellers were indicted in one day.
† At clubs in Maine the members have private lockers, in which each
can keep his own supply of wine, etc.
A correspondent in Portland (one likely to be well informed, but no
friend of prohibition) wrote to me, in April, 1893 :-"In Cumberland
county the law is enforced exactly as it was when you were here. We
have our regular crop of drunken labouring men on Sundays. The liquor
is of the kind you saw in the 'Rum Room' under City Hall. In other
counties in the State, I am informed that the enforcement is even less rigid
than it has been for some time past. In all the coast counties, except
Cumberland county, practically, liquor is sold as freely as in Bangor. At
the Augusta House this winter, during the session of Legislature, the bar
was as open as a like bar would be in Chicago." (See Note at the end of
this chapter-" A Liquor Raid in Maine.")
MAINE.
115
*
French, who seem less generally than the English-speaking
population to have adopted the habit of total abstinence.
A feature peculiar to Maine is the succession of places, all
along the coast-line, which are frequented as holiday resorts
during the summer months by visitors from New England and
more distant parts of the United States, and from Canada.
At some of these places certainly, and, according to my
information, at the great majority of them, the prohibitory law
is practically inoperative, so far as the summer visitors are
concerned, and it is evident that the profits of hotel-keeping
in the short season during which such places are frequented
might be seriously affected by the diminution, both in the
number of visitors and in the sources of profit, which would be
likely to result from a strict enforcement of the law. The
popularity of these summer resorts is regarded as an important
element in the general prosperity of the State.
Turning from the towns to the country districts which
contain the great bulk of the population,† there seems to be no
doubt that here prohibition is very generally effective. It is
admitted on all sides that the consumption of liquor outside
the towns is extremely small, except, indeed, in some parts in the
north and east near the Canadian frontier, where many French
are found, and where liquor is easily brought across the border.
With this exception, the law seems to be easily enforced, the
consumption being small and the demand small.
The custom, once general, of supplying workmen with
* At Bar Harbour, at least, drink-shops (apart from the hotels) are not
unknown. I was told that it had been the practice at one of these watering-
places for the authorities to "discover" at the end of the season that the
law had been evaded, and to confiscate to their own use the remainder of
the stock, which was carefully regulated so as to be neither too large nor
too small.
†The population of Maine is about 600,oco, of which only about
185,000, or two-sevenths of the whole, live in nineteen towns having a
population exceeding 3, 5co. The State contains an average of twenty-two
inhabitants to the square mile.
I 2
116
AMERICAN LIQUOR Laws.
spirit rations at harvest time and on other occasions is now
unknown; and in much of the agricultural portion of the
State, comprising a large portion of the whole area and
population, the demand for drink seems almost to have dis-
appeared, and the supply to be rarely met with.
There is said, however, to be, to a limited extent, a
consumption of cider and a sale of cider for drink. The
exception in the prohibitory law in favour of cider is made in
the interest of the farmers, who in other respects are the most
uncompromising advocates of prohibition. Apples are one of
the leading crops in some of the best agricultural districts in
the State; the selected fruit being exported, and a portion of
the remainder pressed into cider. The law does not permit its
sale “as a beverage or for tippling purposes;
"* the vendor,
however, is not bound to be inquisitorial, nor does he usually
ask questions. No very active steps seem generally to be taken
for checking the illicit sale of cider, but it does not appear to be
thought that the law is violated to any serious extent.
In attempting to ascertain the working of the Maine Liquor
Law, one point which it is necessary to take into account is its
relation to politics. The law itself is a matter of State politics;
its enforcement is a matter of local politics. The prohibition
party, though comparatively small, is extremely active, and
wields an influence disproportionate to its numerical strength,
inasmuch as the great political parties are equally enough
divided to render the support of the prohibitionists a matter of
great importance to the maintenance of the existing Republican
majority. Thus the prohibition movement has received much
support from motives of political expediency, but I was assured
that a large number of Republicans are in their own mind
strongly opposed to it. The party managers, however, tell
* Cider is used for making vinegar and for cooking purposes.
† The belief was confidently expressed to me that among voters of
the more intelligent and socially higher class as many as 90 per cent.
MAINE.
117
them that in the interest of the party they must vote for it, and
they vote accordingly. Prohibition is favoured by some who
are not total abstainers, but who are influenced by a sense of
the social evils resulting from the retail liquor trade. The
farmers, however, are the backbone of the movement.
Through its alliance with the Republicans the prohibition
party has been enabled not merely to maintain the law, but to
make it part of the Constitution of the State, and to secure the
passing of a series of amendments of increasing severity to the
original statute.
The State Legislature, however, which makes the law, is not
concerned in enforcing it; and it has been commonly said that
many people are in favour of the law and against its enforcement.
As already explained, the county sheriff is the officer on whom
this duty devolves, and accordingly the election of the sheriff,
once every two years, is an occasion which calls up the local
forces favourable to a more or to a less strict administration in
each county. It is well understood by the electors that this is
the issue when they are called upon to vote for this or that
candidate for the office; and, therefore, a sheriff who exercises
to the full his powers for the suppression of the drink traffic is
not likely to be found in a county where the prohibition party
is not both numerous and energetic. The Republican party,
having supported the law to please the prohibitionists, is often
inclined to conciliate the liquor-dealers by not pressing them
too hard.
Another obstacle to a strict administration of the law is
found in the great temptations to corruption to which the
officers are exposed.
From these considerations it will appear that the question
of the success or failure of the Maine Liquor Law is not to be
judged solely by reference to the fact of its long existence and
increased severity, and to the degree to which experience
disapproved of prohibition, although certainly one-half, and probably not
less than two-thirds, of them used no alcoholic liquors in their own houses.
118
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
shows it can be enforced where the officials are zealous, honest,
and capable; but account must also be taken of the operation
local public sentiment (particularly as evinced at the election
of sheriffs), which in extreme cases has resulted, as at Bangor,
almost in the establishment of a free trade system by local
option, in defiance of the State law. The consideration of
this question suggests the further (speculative) question: "If
prohibition were vigorously enforced by an adequate staff of
officers, irrespective of local sentiment, how would the majority
in the State Legislature in favour of the retention of the law
be affected?" To this, no positive answer can be returned;
opinions certainly would widely differ; one official of much
experience declared to me that, in his judgment, prohibition
would bear the strain of strict enforcement undoubtedly
many would look for the opposite result.
An illustration of this side of the question may be taken
from the last election of the sheriff for Cumberland county,
which includes the city of Portland.
The ordinary practice is that the sheriff, at the close of
his first term of office, is re-elected for a second term,
after which he retires. The present sheriff, who has brought
about the rigid enforcement of the law during the past two
years, was, in the autumn of 1892, put up again as the official
candidate of his party, according to custom. He carried his
election, but carried it only by a narrow majority-the normal
majority of his party being at the time, as shown in the
election of other officers, much greater. This fact proves that,
after a fair allowance made for cross-voting (some Democrats
being ardent prohibitionists),* a considerable body of Repub-
licans found their hostility to an uncompromising enforcement
:
* I was told also that a number of anti-prohibitionists voted at this
election for the present sheriff, on the ground that as long as the law
existed it ought to be enforced; that the proper object of attack was the
law itself 'and not its administration; and in the belief that a vigorous
administration would result in strengthening the movement for repeal.
MAINE.
119
of prohibition stronger than their party allegiance. The
opinion was confidently expressed to me that the party
organisation would not a second time stand such a strain, and
that the Republican managers will, on the next occasion,
be careful not to select a candidate likely to rouse hostility in
the party by his known determination to give full effect to
the law.
On the other hand, I have heard the opposite opinion held,
that the re-election of this sheriff, even by a narrow vote, in
the face of the personal enmities which his administration had
aroused, and the strong anti-prohibition spirit prevalent in
Portland (stronger, probably, than in any other county, except
one, in the State), is evidence of the possibility of making
prohibition permanently effective.
Time alone can decide between these views; much will
depend on the future increase or decrease in numbers and
influence of the active section of the prohibitionists.
1884
1888
1892
The past strength in Maine of this active section-which,
n fact, comprises the whole prohibition party, properly so-called,
viz. those who at popular elections vote for a prohibition
candidate in preference to a Republican or a Democrat-is
shown in the following figures, giving the votes cast for the
prohibition candidate at the last three presidential elections :-
...
...
...
2,160 out of 130,460 votes cast for all candidates.
2,690
3,060
128,250
116,420
""
""
""
""
""
""
The prohibition vote in Maine is smaller than in some
other States; but this, doubtless, is due to the fact that Maine
already has legislative prohibition, and the supporters of that
system are therefore free, so far as their own State politics
are concerned, to vote as Republicans or Democrats. State
prohibition does not meet all the aspirations of prohibitionists,
but, naturally, takes off much of the keenness of prohibitionist
agitation in States which have adopted it.
I20
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
The most conflicting statements have been made regarding
the general questions of crime, insanity, and pauperism in
Maine. The opponents of prohibition draw attention to the
great increase of crime since 1850, statistics showing it to have
increased in a much higher ratio than the population. On the
opposite side, it is claimed that prohibition has done much to
check crime, and that if the law were repealed crime would
increase. No attempt will be made here to draw inferences—
which must be largely speculative-from such facts as can be
established on one side or the other. I am content to give
a few figures taken from official sources, and to leave it to
others to form their own conclusions on this subject.
NUMBER OF PRISONERS IN STATE PENITENTIARY AND COUNTY JAILS.
State penitentiary
County jails
...
...
...
...
...
...
1880.
213
185
June 1,
+
1890.
170
302
--
November 30,
1892.
135
400
The figures for 1880 and 1890 are from the United States
census, those for 1892 from the Reports of State officials. The
chaplain of the State Penitentiary,* in his Report for the
last-mentioned year, states that 46 per cent. of the prisoners
were, according to their own statements, teetotallers. It will
be observed that the penitentiary return shows a steady
diminution of prisoners, and the jail returns a steady increase.
Taking the two classes together, the following figures show-
(1) the ratio of prisoners per million inhabitants in Maine, and
(2) the average ratio for all the nine States included in the
* In Maine it is not called the Penitentiary, but the State Prison.
The term "penitentiary "is here used as being the usual name in the United
States for the institution corresponding to our convict prisons, to which
the more serious cases are sent.
MAINE.
I2I
North Atlantic division in the census (Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania).

...
Ratio of penitentiary and county
prisoners per million of population
(a) in Maine
...
(b) on the average of the nine
north-eastern States
Number of juvenile offenders in Re-
form School, Maine...
Ratio of inmates of Reform School
per million of population, Maine
Average ratio for the nine north-
eastern States
1880.
JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
...
...
613
1,062
June 1,
1880.
The census of 1890 showed Maine to have a penitentiary
population very largely below, and a county jail population
slightly above, the average of the nine States in proportion to
population. The above figures give Maine a comparatively
low prison population, though a decidedly increasing one—the
increase having been greater from June, 1890, to November,
1892, than during the whole of the previous ten years. It need
hardly be said that an increase of convicts does not always
imply a corresponding increase of crime. Fresh legislation and
increased executive efficiency may account for much.
116
179
469
1890.
714
I,221
June 1,
1890.
169
256
425
November 30,
1892.
832*
November 30,
1892.
100
151
* Based on the census population of 1890. The increase of popula-
tion in Maine was less than 2 per cent. from 1880 to 1890.
I 22
American Liquor Laws.
The statistics from the Insane Hospital show a great and
progressive increase of patients :-
1850-1
1855-6
1860-1
...
...
...
...
...
···
...
...
...
...
?..
...
...
''
...
...
•••
1865-6
1870-1
1875-6
1880-1
1885-6
1890-1
1891-2
The following statistics of pauperism are taken from the
census returns. Maine shows a very slightly lower ratio than
the average of its group:—
...
...
...
••
...
•••
...
•••
•••
...
...
...
...
···
...
...
...
Number of paupers in almshouses, Maine
Ratio per million of population, Maine
Average ratio for the nine north-eastern States
...
...
...
...
...
""
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Daily average number
of inmates.
..
...
...
···
...
***
...
...
...
•••
75
167
248
...
277
363
398
442
506
649
685

1880.
June 1,
1890.
1,505
2,319
1,161
1,756
2,339. 1,790
In regard to "outdoor" paupers, the census attaches to
Maine a number very considerably in excess of the average.
NOTE. A LIQUOR RAID IN MAINE.
The following extract from the Boston Herald describes a raid which
occurred at Lewiston several months after my visit to Maine. Whether or
not it be accurate in all respects, I give it in extenso as a somewhat
picturesque description of the sort of thing which might very well, and
probably would, happen on a determined raid being made on the liquor-
sellers in a place where the law was being violated as flagrantly as it has
been in at least one or two, if not more, of the larger towns in Maine:—
"RAMRODS" CAUSE A PANIC.
RAIDS IN THE TEMPERANCE TOWN OF LEWISTON, ME.
Nearly $10,000 worth of Liquors seized from about 40 Saloon-keepers—
Dealers unable to hide bottles pass them out to Loafers, who get
free "Jags."
[Special despatch to the "BOSTON HERALD.”]
LEWISTON, Me., March 28, 1893. -The liquor-sellers of this city were.
MAINE.
123
Nearly
to-day surprised by the most remarkable raid ever made in Maine
$10,000 worth of intoxicating liquors were confiscated.
For three months the saloons of Lewiston have been run openly, and
liquor has been hauled through the streets as freely as groceries.
At seven o'clock this morning there were at least 250 places in this
city where liquors might be secured at retail.
The policy High Sheriff Hill intended to pursue has been a matter of
speculation ever since the county honoured him with the office, January 1,
1893. Some said he intended to enforce the liquor laws, while others
persisted that he had been supported by the saloon element, and would be
lenient.
Week after week passed, excitement over the election subsided, the
Law and Order League and the Women's Christian Temperance Union
were "mum," county officials and the police department closed their eyes,
and clear was the sailing for the rum crowd.
The time came, though, about two weeks ago, when the politicians
engaged in the liquor business who claimed to have a "pull" found that
the kitchen bar-rooms were cutting into their business heavily.
Competition became so close that it was found necessary to sell good
liquors, something unheard of in Lewiston before.
Dissatisfaction was manifest, and the wealthier retailers complained
openly and loudly against the small fry.
The rum smugglers protested. They had been out of work for some
time, as the railroads were bringing in liquors unmolested, while a few
months ago dozens of smugglers made money smuggling at night-time
from country stations.
Their prayers were heard, and it brought about one of the most
remarkable raids in the history of Lewiston.
At seven o'clock this morning Sheriff Hill had his deputies all gathered
in the office at Auburn, together with Llewellyn Maxwell, of Auburn, and
James O'Brien, of Lewiston, who had just been appointed special liquor
officers. The officers numbered fourteen, and were divided into seven
squads.
Dozens of warrants had been issued, and promptly at nine o'clock the
force marched across the bridge into Lewiston.
The saloon-keepers were caught with their doors wide open and
business humining.
Truck teams were in readiness, and over to the Auburn Court-house
yard went load after load of beer and whisky.
The Democrats of Lewiston smelled a rat, and before Sheriff Hill's
force got well under way, City Marshal McDonough, with his police force,
was doing valiant work for the cause of temperance.
The city marshal secured a storehouse full of liquors, as well as a
car-load, and gathered load after load which the frightened saloon-keepers
124
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
had rolled from their back doors and windows after the panic had
struck.
The streets were crowded, and excited mobs followed the officers from
one place to another.
One shrewd man succeeded in hauling his supply to an empty car in
the railroad yard, and, it is said, he succeeded in getting it out of the city.
Every spare vehicle was employed, and every one was loaded with kegs
or packages of some kind. Some of it was going to places of hiding,
while that which had been seized went either to the Democratic police
head-quarters, in Lewiston, or Republican head-quarters, in Auburn.
A 14-year-old boy, wearing a slouch hat, and disguised as a truckman,
whose team was standing near, walked up to a car door, and, innocently
taking a case of whisky from the sheriff s hands, fled precipitately, while
the crowd yelled and laughed.
Lots of the saloon-keepers, finding they had more liquors than they
could get away with, passed it out free to the sympathising loafers, and
everybody in the habit of drinking soon had a "jag."
The officers succeeded in securing the stock-of-trade from about forty
saloons, but succeeded in arresting only about a dozen proprietors.
Beer for a while will be ten cents a glass, instead of five, in Lewiston.
T25
CHAPTER VIII.
KANSAS.
(Prohibition.)
PROHIBITION has been the law of this State for the past twelve
years.
A prohibitory amendment to the Constitution was adopted
in November, 1880, by a majority of 8,000 votes; 92,000 for,
and 84,000 against, the proposal. The whole number of votes
cast at the election of that year, however, was upwards of
200,000; more than 24,000 voters, therefore, who took part in
the election abstained from casting a ballot on this particular
question.
Effect was given to the popular decision in the prohibitory
law passed in 1881, by which no person was permitted to sell
intoxicating liquors, except a druggist holding a permit for that
purpose, and then only for medicinal purposes on a physician's
prescription, or for scientific or mechanical purposes. A
physician could not prescribe stimulants until he had filed an
affidavit pledging himself to do so only when, in cases of
actual sickness, it was necessary for the patient.
The "doctor's prescription" test does not, however, appear
to have proved effectual or to have given satisfaction. There
was a class of physicians who prescribed stimulants for the
mere purpose of evading the law, and purchases would be
made over and over again on the same prescription. At the
same time it was felt to be derogatory to those, whose high
character removed them from any suspicion of complicity in
such practices, that they should be called upon to bind
themselves under special oaths to abstain from improper
conduct in their profession. Accordingly, in 1885 a law was
passed enabling druggists holding permits to sell liquor upon
a sworn application stating for what purpose it was wanted.
126
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
In 1887 this provision was further strengthened, and the
sale of liquor for the authorised purposes is now allowed to be
conducted only under very minute restrictions.
Another measure adopted in 1885 was the vesting in each
county attorney of power to summon and examine persons
believed to be able to give evidence of violations of the law.
In 1887 a further step was taken with a view to the better
enforcement of prohibition, by the passing of a law providing
for the appointment of Police Commissioners in any city where
such a course was considered desirable with that object.
A more detailed summary of the law follows:-
The general prohibitory enactment is as follows :—
"Any person or persons who shall manufacture, sell, or barter
any spirituous, malt, vinous, fermented, or other intoxicating
liquors shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished as
hereinafter provided. Provided, however, that such liquors may
be sold for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes, as
provided in this Act."
Liquors may be sold for the above-mentioned purposes only by
a druggist holding a permit from the Probate Judge of the county
in which he does business. The judge is authorised at his discretion
to grant a permit for one year to any registered pharmacist of good
moral character, "who in his judgment can be entrusted with the
responsibility of selling said liquors for the purposes aforesaid in
the manner hereinafter provided"; and the judge may at any
time in his discretion revoke the permit. The application for a
permit has to be signed by the applicant and twenty-five reputable
freeholders having the qualifications of electors, and twenty-five
reputable women over twenty-one years of age, of the township,
city of third class, or ward of any other city wherein the business is
located. The application must state, among other things, that the
applicant is a person of good moral character, does not use intoxi-
cating liquors as a beverage, and has in his business, exclusive of
intoxicating liquors, a stock of drugs, if in a city, worth at least
$1,000, and, if elsewhere, $500.
Notice of the application and of the time and place appointed
for hearing it has to be published, and the statements in the
application have to be proved. If the permit is granted, the
KANSAS.
127
applicant has to enter into a bond in $1,000, as security for his
compliance with the law. Either the applicant or any citizen
aggrieved by the decision of the Probate Judge may appeal to the
district court, which, if the judge appears to have abused his
discretion, but not otherwise, may reverse his order.
On a petition for cancellation on the ground of violation of the
law, signed by twenty-five reputable men and twenty-five reputable
women residing in the same township, city, or ward, the Probate
Judge is required to summon the permit-holder, and inquire into
the case, and if there are reasonable grounds for believing that he
is not in good faith carrying out all the provisions of the law, the
permit is to be cancelled subject to appeal to the district court.
This provision, however, does not prevent the judge from cancelling
the permit at any time on his own motion.
A physician may prescribe liquor to his patient; "but no
such prescription shall be given or liquor administered except in
case of actual need, and where in his judgment the use of intoxi-
cating liquor is necessary." The penalty for giving a prescription
in violation of the law is a fine ranging from $100 to $500, and
imprisonment 10 to 90 days.*
The sale of liquor by permit-holders is hedged about with
minute restrictions. The purchaser must first make an affidavit in
the following form (for which purpose the druggist is authorised to
administer an oath) :-
"State of Kansas, County of
; that
of
"I, the undersigned, do solemnly swear that my real name is
; that I reside at
county, State
is necessary and actually
; to be used as a medicine for the disease
; that it is not intended for a beverage, nor to sell,
nor to give away; that I am over twenty-one years of age. I
therefore make application to
, druggist, for
of
needed by
of
said liquor.
Applicant.
"Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me, this
day of
>
Pharmacist.'
>
* A physician having no permit cannot lawfully prescribe liquor as a
medicine to a sick patient, and charge and receive pay for it. (State v.
Fleming, 32 K 588.)
128
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
·
A corresponding form of affidavit is prescribed on a sale for
mechanical or scientific purposes. There may be only one sale
and one delivery on any one affidavit; and the druggist is not
under any circumstances to allow liquor to be drunk on his premises.
Licence-holders are allowed to sell to one another in quantities
not less than a gallon.
Elaborate provision is made for the proper authentication of the
affidavits, blanks for which are to be supplied by the county clerk
in book form. The blanks are all numbered, and, when filled, are,
together with the druggist's affidavit that they represent all the
sales made by him, to be filed monthly in the office of the Probate
Judge, who is required to make a careful examination of them and
see that there has been no irregularity. The druggist has likewise
to make a sworn monthly return of his stock of liquor, and of all
purchases of liquor made by him during the preceding month, and
the names of the persons from whom purchased. Persons making
false affidavits are guilty of perjury, and punishable with imprison-
ment from six months to two years with hard labour, and anyone
signing a false name to an affidavit is declared guilty of forgery in
the fourth degree.
The druggist is further required to keep in a book a full record
of every sale, with all particulars; the record and affidavits to be
open at all reasonable hours to public inspection.
A similar permit has also to be obtained by anyone desiring to
manufacture liquor for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes.
The application in this case must be signed by a majority (in cities
of the first or second class by 100) of the resident electors; and the
amount of the bond (which has to be backed by three substantial
sureties) is $10,000. A manufacturer may sell only in original
packages, and only to druggists holding permits, and under
elaborate provisions as to affidavits and records. His permit
continues in force for five years.
The penalty for manufacturing or selling without a permit is a
fine of $100 to $500, and imprisonment 30 to 90 days; and a
permit-holder who fails to comply with the requirements of the law
in regard to sales of liquor is subject to the same punishment,
and is to forfeit his permit and be disqualified for five years from
receiving another.
The prohibitory law does not, however, apply to the making of
wine or cider from grapes or apples grown by the person making it,
for his own use, or the sale of wine for communion purposes.
KANSAS.
129
All civil officers are required under penalty to give notice to the
county attorney of any violation of the law, and furnish him with
the names of witnesses.
All places where intoxicating liquors are illegally manufactured,
sold, bartered, or given away, or are kept for any such purpose, are
declared to be common nuisances, and, upon the judgment of a
competent court declaring a place to be a nuisance, the sheriff is to
shut up and abate it, and the owner or person keeping it is to be
fined $100 to $500, and imprisoned 30 to 90 days. A perpetual
injunction may also be obtained, violation of which is punishable
as a contempt.
Anyone taking charge of an intoxicated person may recover
reasonable compensation, and also five dollars a day from any
person who sold the liquor causing the intoxication.
The civil damage clause includes exemplary damages, but is
directed only against anyone who by selling, etc., caused the
intoxication. Notice not to sell may be given.
Any person who, directly or indirectly, keeps or maintains by
himself, or combining with others (or who assists in keeping or
maintaining)," any club-room or other place in which any intoxi-
cating liquor is received or kept for the purpose of use, gift,
barter, or sale as a beverage, or for distribution among the
members of any club or association by any means whatever," and
anyone who uses, barters, etc., any liquor so received or kept, is on
conviction to be fined $100 to $500, or imprisoned thirty days to
six months.
Giving liquor to minors is forbidden.
"The giving away of intoxicating liquor, or any shifts or device
to evade the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed an unlawful
selling within the provisions of this Act."
On notice of any violation of the law, the county attorney has
power to summon and examine persons whom he believes able to
give evidence, and to punish for contempt any who refuse to
answer questions (1885).
Warrants for search and seizure can be obtained.
Probate Judges, county attorneys, county clerks, and other
civil officers, are expressly made subject to severe penalties and
forfeiture of office for neglect or refusal diligently to perform their
duties in enforcing the liquor law.
Any common carrier who knowingly carries liquor, to be sold
in violation of the law, is punishable with fine and imprisonment.
J
130
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
A separate Act, passed in 1887, forbids the sale or giving
of liquor at any election, within half a mile of a polling place.
Another Act of the same year provides that the Executive
Council is to appoint a board of three Police Commissioners for each
city of the first class, "if considered expedient, and upon the
presentation of a petition of two hundred bona fide householders
of such city having the qualifications of electors, or when said
Executive Council shall deem it advisable or necessary for the
better and more perfect government of such city."
The Police Commissioners are to appoint a police judge, a
marshal (to be chief of the police), and as many policemen as are
deemed necessary, not exceeding one to 1,500 inhabitants; but
they may also, on occasion, appoint special policemen. The
marshal and policemen so appointed have exclusive power, and it
is their duty, to serve all process issued by the police judge, and
they have all the powers of constables, except for service of civil
process. Neither the mayor nor Municipal Council has any control
over this force, which is entirely under the Commissioners.
During the time that the police government is administered
under this Act, all Acts of the Legislature and all city ordinances
inconsistent with this Act are inoperative.
Kansas has in recent years attracted the attention of those
interested for or against prohibition to a greater extent,
probably, than any other State. Its effects have been lauded
and condemned in equally emphatic terms, and have been
overstated by partisans of either view; but exaggeration is the
necessary accompaniment of a controversy so keen and bitter
as this has been and still is. The measure was carried
and upheld, and its repressive features were subsequently
strengthened, by means of an agitation carried on with great
persistence by its active partisans, and by means of severe
pressure brought to bear on candidates of the Republican
party at State and municipal elections.
It can hardly be doubted that political exigencies rather
than personal conviction dictated the action of very many of
those who supported the movement. It was repeatedly made
clear to Republican candidates for office that their hold upon
a number of votes sufficient to control the election depended
KANSAS.
131
on their pledges of allegiance to the cause of prohibition. As
in Maine and Iowa and other prohibition States, success was
gained by the efforts of a zealous and uncompromising minority
holding the balance between the two great political parties,
and thus controlling the action of one of them.
It is, however, strongly claimed by the Kansas prohibi-
tionists that their policy has proved itself a success, that the
battle is won, and that prohibition is firmly planted as one of
the permanent institutions of their State. Whatever develop-
ments may ensue in the future, there seems to be reason for
believing that, at the present time at least, the question has to
some extent passed from the phase of acute political contro-
versy to that of a general acquiescence in the existence of the
law on the part of the majority of the public at large, if not a
settled balance of active popular sentiment in its favour. Such
a condition would seem to justify the claim of a more advanced
position for the prohibition movement in Kansas than in other
States, where certainly it is by no means clear from the
struggles and intrigues of party politics.*
66
Two circumstances, related to me by friends of prohibition,
may be mentioned as indicating the general attitude of mind
on the subject in Kansas. At the time when the celebrated
original package decision" appeared to have struck a serious
if not fatal blow at the whole movement for State prohibition,
by removing the possibility of restricting the sale of liquor
in original packages as brought into the State, a strong and
general rally was, as I have been assured, manifested in
Kansas in favour of taking whatever steps might be necessary
for defeating the realisation of this prospect; so that even men
who were not teetotallers, and had never been looked on as
prohibitionists, joined those who were acknowledged partisans.
in declaring their opposition to the return of what they regarded
as the nuisance of the saloon.
* Quite recently, the State's attorney-general has published some
remarks unfavourable to prohibition.
J 2
132
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
Again, more recently, the question of calling together a
convention for the purpose of considering certain amendments
to the State Constitution was under discussion; but many who
thought that the Constitution in some respects needed modifica-
tion, abandoned the project in order that the opportunity
might not be taken for proposing to reopen the question of
prohibition; and the convention was not held.
A prohibitionist lawyer of position, in reply to a letter in
which I had put to him certain questions upon the position of
affairs in this State-amongst others, whether the existence of
a strongly favourable local sentiment was not necessary to the
due enforcement of prohibition-stated, "It is certainly true
that if the people of Kansas were to be instantly displaced by
such as the common people of London or New York, our
liquor law would immediately become inoperative. Until
some such change takes place, I doubt very much if the people
of the State will ever give the saloon its old position. Politicians
do not want it, because they do not relish the return of the
liquor-dealer to his old place as a political dictator. The
citizens do not want it, because they see no way in which it will
benefit the State." He referred also to " the testimony of a
vast majority of the people of the State, who by their votes
have declined to repeal the law, or re-submit to the people, or
modify it, or in any way banish it from our books. That such
change may some time come as a result of a political disquiet,
or a general moral disintegration, is no doubt true, but, so far,
there seems to be no likelihood whatever of any immediate
occurrence of that kind."
It is claimed, and probably with reason, that the extension
of the municipal franchise to women has tended to strengthen
the position of the prohibitory law.
The State of Kansas was admitted into the Union in 1861
its area is 82,000 square miles; and it is essentially an agri-
cultural State. Its development after the War was very rapid,
KANSAS.
133
the population being, in 1860, 107,000; in 1870, nearly
365,000; in 1880, nearly a million; and in 1890, 1,427,000.
It was largely colonised from the old Puritan States of New
England. It contains no city of first-rate importance, the
largest, Kansas City, being credited by the last national census
with a population of 38,000; and it has only seven towns with
populations exceeding 10,000 each.* The average density of
the population for the whole State is about seventeen to the
square mile.
It is generally claimed, and I believe is not seriously
disputed, that, at all events outside the towns, prohibition is
on the whole effective, or at least that, whether from the
authority of the law, or the absence of any widespread demand
for stimulants, the traffic in liquor is there reduced to very
small dimensions. It is about the towns that the dispute as to
the efficiency of the law is concentrated; and so conflicting are
the replies given to inquiries on this head addressed to those
who, by long residence, have had good opportunities for
watching things as they are, that it is not an easy matter for a
stranger with limited time for personal observation to see
clearly through the mist of heated antagonisms which envelops
the matter.
One who had travelled much on business in different parts
of the State, and who certainly was not ill-disposed to the law,
told me, in reply to a question as to the general efficiency of
its enforcement, that he found it to vary much in different
towns, according to the greater or less strength and activity of
the local sentiment exerted in support of it. This, perhaps, is
the safest and truest general answer that can be given to such
a question ; and, indeed, the opinion that the efficient execution
of prohibitory enactments is possible only in places where they
are actively supported by local sentiment, I found to be the
settled conviction of many who in principle were ardent friends
Including Lawrence, with a population, according to the census, of
9,975 in 1890.
134
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
of prohibition. The informant just referred to stated, broadly,
that he thought prohibition had done good; that is to say, it
had done good where local public opinion supported it, as it
did, in his belief, in the majority of the country towns. But
where the local opinion was unfavourable, he found the law
violated freely, as was the case in some of the small towns as
well as the larger ones.
Where the public sentiment was distinctly prohibitionist,
and the officers and police did their duty (as they generally
would do in such a place), he found but few "joints," and
believed that it was really difficult for the poor to get drink,
though in such places the law was to some extent evaded by
clubs formed for this purpose-and by "boot-leggers," "holes-
in-the-wall," and other ingenious contrivances.
Clubs are of different kinds. There is the bonâ fide social
club, in which the law no doubt is broken, since the consump-
tion of liquor in a club is of itself illegal, but which has not
the evasion of the law as the sole or perhaps the chief object
of its existence; in such a club liquor is not sold to the
members, but each member has a locker with his own supply.
Other so called clubs are mere inventions for cheating the law.
In exchange for a small payment purporting to be an admission
fee, the "member " receives so many checks, each of which is
"good" for one drink. The "saw-dust club" is a variety of
the same species, the ground being thickly strewn with saw-
dust, beneath which the kegs and bottles are laid out of
sight.
"Floodwood" clubs are associations which do not keep a
permanent stock of liquor; but the members from time to
time subscribe together and get in a supply from a neighbour-
ing State sufficient for a single carouse.
It must always be remembered, in judging of the operation
of prohibition in any one of the American States, that the mere
consumption of liquor is not forbidden, nor is anyone prevented
from having liquor brought into the State from outside for his
KANSAS.
135
own use. Thus, to take an instance, a resident in Topeka or
Lawrence may telephone to Kansas City (Missouri) any
morning for a bottle of whisky, and have it delivered to him.
the same day. There is no violation of the law in this.
That the law of Kansas has been violated by means of
clubs and countless other devices, and is still in a greater or
less degree violated by such means, is a fact beyond dispute.
Whether the extent to which it is so violated betokens a general
break-down of the attempt to establish it as a practical measure
is another question. Its advocates all admit that it has been,
and will continue to be, evaded, but maintain either that it
is now, or that it is well on the way towards becoming, as well
enforced as most other laws-the larceny laws, for instance ;
and they claim that, even when imperfectly enforced, it still
checks drinking, and prepares the way for good results which
it may not at once make manifest.
Voluntary organisations and chief among them the Women's
Christian Temperance Union-display much activity in en-
deavouring to excite public opinion in favour of a strict
administration and in the prosecution of offenders. In illus-
tration of this, I may give the following extract from the letter
of a correspondent—a lawyer in practice in a small town in the
southern part of the State. He is an avowed and aggressive
enemy of prohibition, and has written publicly in severe
condemnation of what he holds to be its mischievous results.
I do not wish unduly to give prominence to his views; still,
so far as facts are concerned, he is here speaking of things
occurring under his own observation. He writes to me :—
<<
'My own court has been occupied for four days trying a
druggist for the violation of the prohibitory law, and I am just from
the place of trial; and, aside from the usual sights of a court-room
—judge, lawyers, spectators, jurors, and loafers-there are ten ladies
of the W.C.T.U., respectable Christian women, watching the pro-
ceedings and lending friendly, but (as they suppose) influencing and
lobbying, aid to the prosecution. The trial will last another day,
136
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
with the probabilities of a hung jury in the end, which is the result
in about two-thirds of the trials."
In a subsequent letter, I heard from him that the trial.
ended as he had anticipated-eleven of the jury for acquittal
and one for conviction. In Kansas, as in other States, the
difficulty of getting juries to convict is found to be a serious
obstacle, though it is by no means the only serious one, in
enforcing a law which is not backed by popular opinion.
The following extract from a newspaper will serve to
illustrate the activity of the anti-liquor party in another way.
Osage City is a town of about 3,000 inhabitants :—-
،،
Topeka, Kas., March 20th, 1893.—The Rev. D. C. Milner,
president of the State Temperance Union, has been lecturing in
Osage County for two weeks. At Osage City, on Saturday, a
car-load of liquors was seized and destroyed in the presence of a
great crowd of people. The liquors were hauled out of town to an
abandoned coal-shaft, where the bottles and demijohns were broken
by the hundreds and the contents poured into the mine. Beer-kegs
and whisky-barrels were piled on a bonfire, and thousands of gallons
of liquor were burned. Most of the liquor destroyed was the
poperty of Kansas City firms, who have opened saloons at Osage
City,"
So far as the majority of the larger towns are concerned, it
is certain that much yet remains to be accomplished before the
law can fairly be said to be efficiently enforced. As already
mentioned, Kansas contains seven towns of 10,000 inhabitants
and upwards. I believe that, as late as the present year, it
would not be denied by any fair-minded person acquainted
with the facts, that in five of them liquor was sold habitually
and openly in defiance of the law. These five towns are:
Kansas City, Atchison, Leavenworth, Wichita, and Fort Scott.
Of the first two I can speak, to some extent, from personal
observation, and of the others from positive testimony given
me, not once only, but repeatedly, and by friends as well as
opponents of prohibition.
KANSAS.
137
The position of Kansas City is peculiar. Politically, it is
entirely distinct from its much larger namesake, Kansas City,
Missouri. Topographically, it forms part of the same place,
the boundary between the two States and the two municipalities
being an imaginary line running down the middle of a street.
Saloons in Kansas City, Kansas, are run quite openly, and,
indeed, the law both in this and some other respects is quite
a dead-letter. Gambling-houses, for example, which on the
other side of the boundary are, to a certain extent, suppressed
and driven into secrecy, are on the Kansas side con-
ducted without any sort of concealment. I have heard
this place described by a prohibitionist as the "dumping-
ground" for the whole State, in which legal-moral restraints are
thrown off.
But it is not the only point at which the liquor law has
hitherto been openly and persistently resisted. At Leavenworth
(population 21,000) the saloons, if not actually announcing
themselves on the street-front, are numerous enough and not
difficult to find. Access to them is unchecked, and no con-
cealment is observed; drink is supplied at an open bar of the
usual description. This place has from the first been opposed
to prohibition. There have been times when efforts were made
to enforce the law there, and when strangers would have been
puzzled to find a dram-shop. A resident in the neighbourhood
has told me that, even at such times, he could and did obtain
liquor in Leavenworth, both at the drug-store and the hotel.
Such efforts, however, have been short-lived; saloons have
usually been conducted openly and without interference. Such
was the case at the time of my visit, when I was told that
they numbered about 125. They pay a monthly fine, amounting
practically to a licence-fee. Some years ago, a State police
force was established at Leavenworth under the Act of 1887,
for the purpose of enforcing the liquor law; but the result was
not a success. According to positive statements made to me,
the powers of the Police Commissioners were used less for their
138
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
legitimate purpose than for the exercise of political pressure at
elections.
At Atchison (14,000), I was assured that a similar state
of things prevailed. Wichita (24,000) also appeared to be
notorious for its successful resistance to the law. In the latter
place, I heard of a large number of saloons, which were allowed
to run on payment of a periodical fine.
The following extract relating to these towns is taken from
a letter I received from a prominent lawyer, who has long
resided in Kansas and is an ardent supporter of prohibition;
it may be taken as expressing the views of those prohibitionists
who recognise the real state of affairs in these places, but who
are not thereby shaken in their allegiance to the cause. His
contention that even here prohibition has been highly beneficial
would, of course, be entirely rejected by many :-
"Three or four of our larger towns-like Atchison, Leavenworth,
Fort Scott, Kansas City (Kansas), and Wichita - cannot be said to
pay this law a high respect, though, when I remember the present
condition of these towns, as compared with the condition before
this law went into effect, I am prepared to prove a magnificent
forward march. These last towns I name are on or near the border-
lines, across which no law similar to ours exists. Thus, at Atchison,
Leavenworth, and Kansas City (Kansas), Missouri is reached by
merely crossing the river or an imaginary line, and Missouri is one
of the worst liquor-cursed States in the Union. Wichita is largely
affected by the proximity of the Indian Territory,* with which the
city has its principal business relations, and Fort Scott is settled by
foreigners largely engaged in the mining business. In fact, the
populations of Atchison, Leavenworth, and Kansas City (Kansas
are overwhelmingly foreign; Leavenworth is affected by the large
military post there and by the presence of the State Penitentiary.
These towns are certainly conspicuous, as compared with other
towns in the State, for their trifling with the law. But, as I said
before, even in these towns the change has been a radical one-one
which only an old settler can readily appreciate."
* The distance of Wichita from the nearest point of the Indian
Territory is nearly fifty miles in a straight line. Atchison, Leavenworth,
and Fort Scott, as well as Kansas City, are all close to the eastern border.
KANSAS.
139
Another observer of social and political conditions in this
State, also a friend of prohibition, expressed to me his belief
that there had recently sprung up in Kansas a general spirit of
indifference to legal observance, contemporaneously with the
growth of the "populist" movement in politics; and he
attributed the existing want of respect for the liquor law in
part to this cause.
The two remaining cities-Topeka (population 31,000), the
State capital, and Lawrence (10,000), having the State university
-have a different character from the other five. In neither of
them can the law be openly violated with impunity. Of the
extent to which it was violated in secret I had somewhat
conflicting accounts. It would not be difficult to collect a
number of instances in which liquor has been illegally bought
and sold in these towns; but, on the whole, I found little
direct evidence that this state of things prevailed extensively,
though I met persons who were confident that much illegal
drinking went on, and that a resident, though not a stranger,
would have little difficulty in finding means to get behind the
law. A resident of Topeka, who appeared to me to speak
with knowledge and fairness, gave to that city a character
which, if true, would go far to justify, so far at least as Topeka
was concerned, the enthusiastic language of an ex-Governor-
“I affirm, with earnestness and emphasis, that this State is
to-day the most temperate, orderly, sober community of people
in the civilised world." My informant certainly claimed for
Topeka no less high a position than this.
Topeka has a "metropolitan" police force under the law of
1887. The Police Commissioners, I was assured, had con-
sistently done their duty, so had the county attorney. Public
opinion appears to be very strong and to tolerate no laxity.
The Women's Christian Temperance Union is also full of zeal.
The two Police Commissioners last appointed by the Governor
were said to be anti-prohibitionists; but they were speedily
brought to book at a public meeting of citizens, and expressed
140
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
their intention and determination to carry out the law with all
rigour.
Such, indeed, is the vigilance of the public, that I am told
it would hardly be possible for the officials to slack off the
work of enforcement, even if they wished to do so. The
result, my informant assures me, is that the law is thoroughly
enforced; "joints" are said to be very scarce; druggists do
not sell liquor except in conformity with the legal regulations.
A few of the latter, who were found guilty of irregularities,
have lost their permits. To a limited extent it is admitted
that intoxicating liquor is sold in the guise of "sweet cider,"
'hop tonic," and other pseudo-" temperance" drinks.
..
The same resident, furthermore, tells me that there are no
bawdy-houses or gambling-houses in Topeka, public opinion
being directed with equal vigilance and success against
gambling and the social evil, neither of which is tolerated or
winked at. If a prostitute is found she is punished, and has
to leave the place. A gambling-house had been discovered
shortly before my visit and was immediately shut up.
As an
instance of the real sobriety of the place, my attention was
drawn to the fact that, during the great excitement of the
recent political crisis, when the members of one political party
barricaded themselves in the State House against the other,
and serious fighting seemed imminent, there was no drunken-
ness whatever, not a single arrest.
Without attempting wholly to decide between conflicting
views as to the degree in which the liquor traffic is still secretly
carried on, it is safe to accord to Topeka a quite exceptional,
if not unique, position in this respect among other towns of its
size throughout the country.
Lawrence is a much smaller place, but
no evidence of much illegal trade in drink.
is to some extent obtained in clubs, and there may probably
dive," but the business is secret and
difficult for a stranger to get sight of
،،
exist here and there a
fugitive, and it would be
here, too, I found
Liquor, no doubt,
KANSAS.
141
it. Certainly there seems to be no sign here of anything
amounting to a break-down of the law, and general opinion
appears to favour it.*
In both places liquor can easily be got from Kansas City
in large and small quantities for private use; and drinking-
parties sometimes are given, one man getting in a supply of
whisky, and entertaining his friends.
Apart from questions immediately concerning the enforce-
ment of the law, much has been said and written about the
general results of prohibition in Kansas. A detailed examina-
tion of all that has been published on this subject on both
sides would be beyond the scope of this sketch. A few
observations may, however, be offered on the leading points in
which it is claimed that the decision taken in 1880 has worked
for good.
One point often urged for legal prohibition is its influence
as an educator of the young in the direction of a sentiment
that total abstinence as a personal habit is right, and that the
use of intoxicating liquor in any form or quantity as a beverage
is wrong. This view was strongly presented to me by a
professor at the Kansas State University, a man whose position
in close contact with young men would naturally give weight
to his opinion; a prohibitionist, but, I think, a man on his
guard against forming hasty conclusions. He argued that
those of the young generation-growing up from boyhood
without ever seeing open saloons, knowing that the traffic in
strong drink was treated by the laws of their State as a crime,
just as much as stealing, having never seen drinking either in
their homes or out of doors, and only hearing of it as some-
thing socially disreputable, as well as physically and morally
injurious—were already fostering a habit of mind in regard to
* The first person I spoke to in Lawrence was drunk; it was dark, and
I asked him the way to the hotel. But to draw general conclusions from
this little incident would be very unfair.
142
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
the whole question, which, in the long run, would bring people
who manufactured or traded in liquor to be generally regarded
as criminals, in the same sense in which thieves and other
rogues are so regarded. In support of his view, he assured me
that the young men in his own class were, without exception, in
sympathy with the existing law; and that he found the feeling
among them in regard to the use of liquor quite different from
that which prevailed among young men in Baltimore and the
East.
Whatever may be thought of the professor's argument and
of his forecast (and without speculating how far the youthful
mind, thus educated, might be in danger of disturbance on
this question, through subsequent contact with the outer world*),
there can be no denial of his fact; and probably it would
hardly be disputed by any unbiassed person that prohibition
was having this influence on many of the rising generation. It
may, perhaps, be traced in the apparently increased stability of
the law (already mentioned) in the public mind outside of party
politics. But, upon this question of the educational bearing
of prohibition, it must be said that much weight is attached by
its opponents to the demoralising effects of a law which treats.
as a crime what many do not regard as wrong; which is often
scandalously disregarded; and the transgressors of which, even
when their offence is proved in court, in many cases cannot
be convicted and punished. Such a law, it is urged, breeds
contempt of all law. As things now are, it certainly is not
a very uncommon thing to hear young men discussing the com-
parative ease or difficulty of obtaining beer and whisky in
different parts of the State, and the various methods adopted
* Nor do I enter upon the ethical question how far the act of selling a
glass of beer is analogous to that of stealing a loaf. (See, as to the anomalous
character of repressive liquor legislation, Appendix I., p. 409.)
† A well-known social reformer, residing in another State, remarked to
me (speaking of liquor laws generally), that nothing had done so much as
they had to discredit law in the public mind, and engender a spirit of
disregard for its observance.
KANSAS.
143
for evading the law, in a way which supplies arguments to
those who hold that the educational influence of prohibition is
not universally beneficial.
Attempts have been made to show that the Kansas law has
furthered material prosperity and the growth of population.
Opponents argue that it has had just the contrary effect,
and both parties are equally positive in their statements.
Individual cases are mentioned of persons who have left the
State on account of prohibition, and of others whom it has
brought into the State (especially young men making their start
in life, whose parents fear the danger of the saloon).
There can be no doubt that the law has, in some degree,
had both an expulsive and an attractive force, but it would be
difficult to prove how the balance lies. Kansas has, of course,
immensely increased in population and wealth during the past
twenty or thirty years, but so have other newly settled States,
and, even if it be shown that Kansas has advanced more rapidly
than this or that other State which has not banished the
saloon, there is a long step from the admission of this fact to
the proof that it is the result of prohibition.
The census returns supply, perhaps, the only positive facts
yet known on which a general conclusion could be based;
and they do not appear to support such a theory. According
to them, the population of Kansas increased 173 per cent. from
1870 to 1880, and 43 per cent. from 1880 to 1890 (prohibition.
commenced in 1881). During the later years not only did the
growth suffer a check, but in 1889 and 1890 there was an
actual falling off.
1880
1885
1886
1887
1888
996,096 (U.S. census).
1,268,530 (State census).
1,406,738
1,514,578
1,518,552
1,464,914
1,427,096 (U.S. census).
""
>"
To attempt from these figures, unsupported by other
1889
1890
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
""
""
""
""
""
""
144
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
evidence, to deduce conclusions for or against prohibition
would be absurd; and, indeed, the whole question of the
effects of this system upon wealth and population is a very
intricate one, requiring far more examination than it has
received from those who express themselves with most con-
fidence upon it. It is notorious that Kansas has been and is
affected by economic conditions for which it can hardly be
suggested that the liquor law is responsible.
But the good effect most freely and frequently claimed for
prohibition in Kansas has been the diminution of crime.
This result has been publicly claimed for it by men of high
official position in the State, whose utterances have been widely
circulated. Thus, for example, Governor John A. Martin said:
"The abolition of the saloon has enormously diminished
crime." Attorney-General Bradford said: "It" (ie. pro-
hibition)" is depopulating our penitentiary, and reducing crime
and pauperism to a minimum." In the Capital Common-
wealth, of Topeka, it was stated: "Drunkenness and crime
have diminished 80 per cent. since the saloons were closed in
Kansas." In a pamphlet, published in England in 1889
("Does Prohibition Prohibit ?"), it was stated that many of
the jails in Kansas were practically empty, "and all show a
marked falling off in the number of prisoners.
It may be a fact that prohibition has tended to check
crime in this State; but it would not be easy to prove that it
has done so to any large extent. Certainly the census returns
of the prison population appear to show that the statements
quoted above claim too much. According to the United
States census, Kansas had more prisoners in its penitentiary
and county jails in proportion to its population in 1890
than it had in 1880, viz. :-1890,* 946 prisoners per million
inhabitants; 1880, 893 prisoners per million. Moreover, of
all the twelve States in the "Northern Central" group, Kansas
""
* The census was taken on the 1st of June.
KANSAS.
145
had in 1890 absolutely the largest ratio of prisoners to
population.*
If the penitentiary and the county jails are taken separately,
Kansas with 643 penitentiary prisoners per million inhabitants
stands second, but almost equal, to Indiana, which had 646 per
million. But, for prisoners in county jails, Kansas shows
by far the highest ratio-303 per million (Indiana coming
next with 212). These are the figures for 1890. In 1880,
Kansas showed better, standing third in the group with a ratio
of 203 prisoners in county jails per million; and, as regards
penitentiary prisoners, standing second with 690 per million.
The following table shows the daily average number of
prisoners confined in the Kansas State Penitentiary, at Lansing,
for a number of years, and is based on the figures given in the
official biennial reports :-
""
Daily average number of prisoners during the year
ending June 30th,,
1879
1880
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
•
""
""
""
""
""
33
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
در
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
335
""
""
""
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
...
::
...
...
...
...
..
...
...
538
647
764
837
934
938
892
889
894
902
In the report for 1885-6 the warden complained of the
overcrowded state of the penitentiary, and urged the provision
of additional accommodation; this was afterwards provided.
According to the chaplain's reports, of the whole number of
prisoners received between July 1st, 1878, and June 30th,
1880, 377 had used liquor as a beverage, and 228 had not
Every one of the twelve States in this group shows in the census
a lower ratio of prisoners than the average for the whole United States;
and the average for this group is lower than that for any other one of the
five groups into which the country is divided. (See the table on pp. 19, 20.)
K
146
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
used it. For the biennial period from 1888 to 1890 the
corresponding figures were 524 using liquor, and 224 abstainers.
The sixth biennial report of the State Reform School at
Topeka, to which juvenile offenders under sixteen years of age
are committed, shows that the number of inmates was, on
June 30th, 1890, 186; on June 30th, 1892, 220.
The following figures, showing the number of admissions
to the State Reform School in every year since its opening, are
supplied to me by the superintendent of the school :—
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
...
...
...
...
...
***
...
1
...
...
...
...
...
49
50
63
44
27
46
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
··
...
...
:
...
...
...
...
...
···
...
...
...
***
...
:
...
•·.·
121
80
63
106
69
117
The Board of Trustees of the State Charitable Institutions,
in their report for the last biennial period, stated that the
Reform School, as well as other institutions under their control,
was "full to overflowing," and they strongly urged that its
capacity should be increased.
Much significance has been attached to the fact, publicly
stated, that a certain number of county jails were empty. This
statement, however, which has been repeatedly brought forward
as an argument for prohibition, loses some of its significance
when it is remembered that the whole population of Kansas is
about 1,500,000, averaging seventeen to the square mile in
1890, distributed in 106 counties; and that the average
number of prisoners per county in 1890 was only about four,
although, as already shown, the ratio of the jail population was
then higher in Kansas than in any other State in the same
group. On June 1st, 1890, according to the census return,*
21 counties in Kansas (one-fifth of the whole number) had no
prisoners in their jails; and at the same time in Nebraska
30 county jails were empty (out of a total of 90 counties).
*
* Census Bulletin, No. 95, p. 10.
KANSAS.
147
Topeka
Omaha
Mr. J. A. Troutman, in an address delivered on May
15th, 1890, as president of the Kansas State Temperance
Union, and afterwards published as a pamphlet, draws a
comparison between this State and Nebraska as regards the
penitentiary population, from which he deduces inferences
favourable to prohibition. His argument is based on the
statement that in 1879 Kansas had 917 convicts in the
penitentiary, a statement entirely contrary to the official return,
which, as has already appeared, shows a daily average of
538 prisoners in that year.
A similar comparison made by him between the same two
States as regards boys in reform schools cannot be taken as a
basis for any such inference, until the conditions of commitment
to these institutions are examined and proved to be similar.
In the same pamphlet a comparison is instituted between
Topeka and a number of high-licence and low-licence cities,
as regards arrests for crimes; and a table is printed, purporting
to show the population, the number of saloons, and the number
of arrests in each place during the previous year, and showing
a very large excess of arrests in all these places over those in
Topeka in proportion to population. It is very probable that
the amount of crime in Topeka is exceptionally low; but the
figures in the table do not appear to be in every case accurate.
Omaha, for example (the largest town in the high-licence
State of Nebraska, which has often been unfavourably compared
with Kansas as regards its treatment of the liquor question), is
credited with 12,543 arrests, which is declared to be more than
8,000 in excess of the number which it ought to show, the ratio
of arrests in Topeka being taken as the basis.
The populations, which the table attributes to these two
cities respectively, and on which the above calculation is based,
are:-
...
45,000
I 10,000
But, according to the United States census, taken almost
...
...
1.
···
...
...
…….
...
K 2
148
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
at the very time when this statement was made, the figures are
(roundly) :-
Topeka ...
Omaha
31,000
140,000
If the latter figures are substituted for the former, the dis-
parity in the arrests is materially reduced, though it is still great.
As regards the 12,500 arrests in Omaha, it must be supposed
that this figure is official. It is presumably for the year 1889.
The corresponding figure for 1891, which I take from the
annual official report, is 7,281—which, if the former number is
correct, shows an extraordinary diminution in two years. If
the official census population is taken, and the return of arrests
for 1891 is substituted, as regards Omaha, for the much higher
figure given in the table, on this basis the ratio of arrests in the
two towns works out at practically the same figure.*
The number of persons in Kansas who paid the United
States special tax on retail liquor dealers and retail dealers
in malt liquors in the last two years was :- -+
YEAR ENDING JUNE 30TH.
1891
1892
...
...
...
••
...
••
•
…….
...
...
...
G
...
•
...
...
***
...
3,336
2,500
Taking the population of the State at 1,500,000, this would
give one retail liquor dealer to 450 inhabitants in the former
year, and one to 600 in the latter. I have no information as
to the number of persons holding permits to sell liquor for
special purposes under the State law, and cannot estimate how
many paid the United States tax with the purpose of selling
liquor illegally. Tax was paid in the latter year by 432 persons
as retail dealers in malt liquors only.
Since the above paragraph was written, I have received from the
office of the Mayor of Omaha the official figures of arrests for all offences
in that city, viz. : for 1889, 8,449, and for 1890, 8,113. The number of
arrests attributed to Omaha by the Kansas writer is, consequently, about
50 per cent. in excess of the official figure, and (it must be presumed) is to
that extent erroneous.
+ See the official "Statistical Abstract of the United States " for 1891
(p. 214) and 1892 (p. 218).
149
CHAPTER IX.
IOWA.
(Prohibition.)
IN Iowa, as a prohibition State, the traffic in intoxicating
liquors except for certain specified purposes, and then only
under minute restrictions-is absolutely forbidden. The
original prohibitory law, adopted in 1855, exempted cider and
native wines, and the exemption was afterwards extended to
beer. In subsequent years, though the sale of spirits remained
contraband, they were largely sold under cover of the permission
to sell the lighter intoxicants. In 1882, a prohibitory amend-
ment to the Constitution, having been carried in the State
Legislature, was put to the popular vote and adopted by a large
majority. But in consequence of certain irregularities of a
technical nature, the amendment, as adopted, was declared by
the Supreme Court to be invalid; whereupon the Republicans,
who were the party in power, undertook to pass a law giving
effect to the popular decision.* The existing prohibitory law
of Iowa was the result. It has, indeed, since undergone
some modifications in detail, and in 1890 it was repealed and
re-enacted, with modifications relaxing, to some extent, the
conditions governing the sale of liquors for certain purposes by
druggists; but in its most important features the law remains
substantially the same as when it was first enacted in 1884.
The terms of the existing general enactment are :—
"No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, keep for sale, give
away, exchange, barter, or dispense any intoxicating liquor,+ for
any purpose whatever, otherwise than is provided in this Act.
* A belief exists-I believe, well founded-that the failure of the
amendment was not altogether the result of accident.
+ Intoxicating liquor means " alcohol, ale, wine, beer, spirituous, vinous,
and malt liquors, and all intoxicating liquors whatever."
150
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
Persons holding permits, as herein provided, shall be authorised
to sell and dispense intoxicating liquors for pharmaceutical and
medical purposes, and alcohol for specified chemical mechanical
(sic) purposes, and wine for sacramental purposes, and to sell to
registered pharmacists and manufacturers of proprietary medicines,
for use in compounding medicines, and to permit-holders for use
and re-sale by them, for the purposes authorised by this Act, but
for no other purposes whatever." This provision, however, "shall
not be construed to prevent licensed physicians from dispensing in
good faith such liquors as medicine to patients actually sick and
under their treatment at the time of such dispensing."
An application for a permit has to be made by sworn petition,
stating, among other matters, that the applicant is a registered
pharmacist in business as such,* and is not the keeper of a hotel,
eating-house, saloon, or place of public amusement; that he is
not addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, and
that he desires a permit to purchase, keep, and sell such liquors for
lawful purposes only." A permit-holder is required to execute a
bond in $1,000 with sureties, by way of security for his observance
of the law, and to give an undertaking on oath that he will not
furnish liquor except as provided by law; and, especially, that he
will not furnish it to any person who is not either known to him
personally, or duly identified; nor to any minor, intoxicated person,
or habitual drunkard; and that he will make full returns of all sales
of liquor made by him.
The application for a permit comes before the District Court of
the county, after it has been duly published. The court has to hear
any remonstrances or objections, and, before granting the permit,
has to satisfy itself that the statements in the petition are true, that
the applicant is a proper person to be entrusted with a permit, and
that, considering the population of the locality and the reasonable
necessities and convenience of the people, such permit is proper."
When several permits are applied for in the same locality, the court
may grant or refuse any or all of the applications as will best
subserve the public interest.
Until 1890, the permit had to be annually renewed; but it now
* In a township where no pharmacist obtains a permit, it may be granted
"discreet person" not a pharmacist.
to one
+ Until 1890, the application had to be supported by a petition from
one-third of the freehold voters of the place.
IOWA.
151
continues in force (unless revoked) for such period as may be
specified thereon.
On proof of the violation of the law, the court is required to
revoke the permit, and, after repeated offences, a pharmacist is
liable to forfeit his certificate of registration.
The law surrounds the sale of liquor by pharmacists with
regulations of extraordinary minuteness. A permit-holder may sell
or deliver liquor only on a written request, "stating the applicant is
not a minor and the residence of the signer, for whom and whose
use the liquor is required, the amount and kind required, the actual
purpose for which the request is made and for what use desired,
and his or her true name and residence, and, where numbered, by
street and number, if in a city, and that neither the applicant nor
the person for whose use requested habitually uses intoxicating
liquors as a beverage, and the request shall be signed by the appli-
cant by his own true name and signature, and attested by the
permit-holder who receives and fills the request by his own true
name and signature in his own handwriting. But the request shall
be refused, notwithstanding the statement made, unless the permit-
holder has reason to believe said statement to be true, and in
no case (sic) unless the permit-holder filling it personally knows
the person applying--that he is not a minor, that he is not
intoxicated, and that he is not in the habit of using intoxicating
liquors as a beverage; or, if the applicant is not so personally
known to the permit-holder, before filling the said order, or
delivering the liquor, he shall require identification, and the state-
ment of a reliable and trustworthy person, of good character and
habits, known personally to him, that the applicant is not a minor,
and is not in the habit of using intoxicating liquors as a beverage,
and is worthy of credit as to the truthfulness of the statements in
the application, and this statement shall be signed by the witness
in his own true name and handwriting, stating his residence
correctly."
The permit-holder is to make a return every two months to the
county auditor of all such requests, together with a sworn state-
ment that the return is complete and that no liquor has been
otherwise sold or dispensed. He is also required to record all sales
in a book open to inspection.
Penalties are provided for false statements made for the purpose
of obtaining liquor. The following penalties are also enacted :-
Selling to a minor (except on the written order of his parent,
152
AMERICAN Liquor Laws.
guardian, or family physician), or to an intoxicated person, or to a
drunkard- fine $100.
Selling without a permit, or keeping liquor with intent to sell
illegally--first offence, fine $50 to $100; subsequent offence, fine
$300 to $500 and imprisonment not exceeding six months.
Premises where liquor is sold or kept for sale against the law
are declared a nuisance, which may be abated and an injunction
obtained; and anyone convicted of keeping such a nuisance is to
be fined from $300 to $1,000. Violation of an injunction is punishable
by imprisonment up to six months, and if repeated, a year.
The proceeds of fines are given to the school fund.
Payment of the United States liquor tax is evidence of a breach
of the State law.
A justice of the peace, on sworn information, may issue a
warrant for search and seizure. Liquor seized may be declared by
judgment of the court to be forfeited, and is then to be destroyed.
Any person found in a state of intoxication is to be arrested,
and, on conviction, is to be fined $10 or imprisoned for thirty days.
But the punishment may be wholly or partly remitted, upon the
prisoner stating on oath when, where, and from whom he received
the liquor.
No money can be recovered on any contract for liquor sold
in violation of the law, and money actually paid for such liquor may
be recovered back.
Peace officers are bound to give information of violation of the
law, on pain of forfeiting their office and being fined from $10
to $50.
By a provision, since declared by the United States Supreme
Court to be invalid as an attempt to regulate inter-State commerce,
any common carrier or other person who transports liquor within
the State for any person without a certificate from the county
auditor, stating that the consignee is authorised to sell it, is declared
liable to a fine of $100; and all packages of liquor transported are
required to be plainly and correctly labelled.
Every person who is directly or indirectly concerned in keeping
a club-room or other place in which liquor is received or kept for
the purpose of use, gift, barter, or sale, or for distribution or division
among the members of any club or association by any means what-
ever, and every person so using, etc., is to be fined from $100 to
$500 or imprisoned from one to six months.
Courts and jurors are required to construe the law so as to prevent
IOWA.
153
evasion, and to cover the act of giving as well as selling by un-
authorised persons.
Anyone who, by illegal manufacture or sale of liquor, causes the
intoxication of any person is required to compensate any person
who takes charge of him.
Any wife, child, parent, guardian, employer, or other person,
injured in person, property, or means of support by any intoxicated
person, or in consequence of his intoxication, habitual or otherwise,
has a right of action for damages against the person who by selling
liquor caused the intoxication.
The enforcement of the law here, as elsewhere, depends on
the direction and strength of local popular sentiment. In the
small towns and rural townships, especially in the central
portions of the State, there does not appear to be, as a general
rule, any widespread resistance to the law. How far this fact
is due to the force of the law, and how far to the natural
absence of any considerable demand for liquor in rural districts,
is a matter on which opinions are divided; but as regards the
fact itself, there is practical unanimity among both the friends
and the opponents of prohibition.*
A traveller might pass
through large portions of the State without finding any oppor-
tunity to satisfy his thirst for stimulants. The remarks which
follow are directed to a consideration of the facts about
prohibition in the larger towns.†
*
* A clergyman, who certainly does not believe in general prohibition
as a solution of the drink question, mentioned to me a small town with a
population of about 3,300, which was personally known to him, and in
which prohibition had, in his opinion, worked great good. It had closed
the saloons, and the local sentiment had warranted its efficient enforce-
ment. It appeared, in short, to be just such a place as would make use of
local option.
† In 1885 a report was made by Senator Sutton on the working of
prohibition in Iowa, which may be of some interest, though it refers to a
time now somewhat remote. An article on the report appeared in the
Christian Union (New York) on December 24th, 1885.
The report
apparently embodies replies to questions received from a number of places
and from persons of different opinions and callings. The general result is
said to show the existence of 1,837 open saloons (an increase of 31 since
154
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
The State of Iowa extends over 55,475 square miles,* and
contained, according to the census of 1890, a population of
1,911,896, an average of 34 inhabitants to the square mile.
It is a farming country, containing no very large cities; the
chief city, Des Moines, has about 50,000 inhabitants. There
are ten towns with a population exceeding 10,000. Only
20 per cent. of the population of the State live in towns or
districts of more than 3,000 inhabitants.
Iowa is an older State than some of the other central
States, and more conservative; "populist" views have made
comparatively little headway in it. It has a good many
Germans and Irish, some Scandinavians in the north, but not
nearly so many of this race as are found in Wisconsin and
Minnesota. The State is bounded along its eastern and
western sides by the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, on one or
other of which are situated seven out of its ten principal towns,
in immediate proximity to States subject to a licence law.
These riverside towns are those in which the prohibitory law
has been most persistently and openly violated, a circumstance
which has often been attributed to their proximity to places
where drinking is lawful, on the principle that evil communica-
tions corrupt good manners. That such proximity may have
had some effect in stimulating the demand for liquor among
prohibition); open saloons were reported in 67 counties; and the liquor
business was taxed or licensed by the municipal authorities in 25 towns.
In 13 counties a diminution of saloons and of drunkenness was reported;
in 21 no improvement or a deterioration. Six cities of the second class,
16 towns of between 1,000 and 2,000 inhabitants, and 38 smaller towns
had previously adopted prohibition under the local option law; in these
places the new law was said to be a benefit. Prohibition "has done great
good wherever the field was prepared for it, and where the people wanted
it, and would elect public officers to enforce it, and has restricted the
traffic in places like Iowa City and Muscatine, even where only a minority
favour it, but where that minority is determined and aggressive." Else-
where (the report went on) prohibition only does harm, and the best
relief is local option and high licence.
* Slightly less than England and Wales.
IOWA.
155
the inhabitants of the riverside towns on the Iowa side seems
likely; but, on the other hand, it also provided them with
facilities (by merely crossing the river) for satisfying that
demand without breaking the laws of their State. The success
of prohibition in Cambridge (Massachusetts) is thought by
many to be largely due to its proximity to Boston, which
supplies the Cambridge demand. The confinement of saloons
within a particular quarter of Minneapolis is not found to
render the law prohibiting them in the other quarters in-
operative. Following these analogies it might have been
supposed that the fact of Council Bluffs (for example) being
connected by a bridge over the Missouri with Omaha, where
saloons are licensed, would have rendered the enforcement of
prohibition not more difficult, but easier, in the former place.
In the riverside towns the law at the present time is
generally and openly violated, as is fully admitted by pro-
hibitionists who are at all familiar with facts. At Daven-
port there is no sort of concealment. At the principal hotel
the "lunch-room" opens out of the billiard-room. It consists
of an ordinary bar without any screen or curtain. It is the
same with the saloons in the town. Boards announcing lager
beer and other liquors are hung out on the street front. The
bars are clearly seen from the street. Liquors of all kinds are
set out in bottles in the front windows. At the time when I
visited this town handbills were placed about in the hotel
bearing the following announcement :-"Grand Masquerade
Ball given by the Saloon-keepers and Bar-tenders of Daven-
port, at Wiggers' Hall, on Saturday evening, Jan. 14th, 1893.
Music by Otto's Orchestra. A good time guaranteed to all
who participate. Tickets, 50 cents. Come one! Come all!!
Prizes awarded!" Under licence, liquor was sold in about
fifty places in Davenport; the number of such places now
approaches three hundred. There is a "beverage licence"
issued under a city ordinance, which practically amounts to a
regulation to some extent of the liquor business. In Scott
156
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
County, which includes Davenport, the prohibitory law has
never been strictly enforced. A large proportion of the
population is German, in general a steady, law-abiding com-
munity, but steadily opposed to prohibition. There was at
one time a project of establishing a State police organisation,
independent of the localities, for enforcing the liquor law;
a warning came from Davenport that to attempt to carry out
the scheme there would be to risk the lives of the men sent to
enforce the law. On the adoption of prohibition the German
community, which had been solidly Republican, went over to
the Democrats. Upon the political aspect of prohibition in
this State more remains to be said. In Davenport it is said
that more drinking goes on now than was customary before
1884; but still there is not a great amount of drunkenness,
and there is more prosperity and less crime in Scott County
than in Polk County, which contains Des Moines, where the
law has not been so openly violated.*
The ineffectiveness of prohibition seems to have been more
notorious in Davenport than in the other towns on the eastern
border of the State; but I am assured that at Burlington and
Dubuque a similar state of affairs prevails.†
On the western side are two considerable towns, Sioux
City and Council Bluffs, in both of which the trade in liquor
is carried on quite openly, and is recognised, in the face of the
State law, by the local authorities, and regulated by certain
municipal rules. It is even made subject to a kind of licensing
system. Sioux City has a population of about 38,000, and
ranks as the second city in the State. By a municipal
* Number of convictions for crime :-Polk County (population, 65,400),
1890, 83; 1891, 98. Scott County (population, 43, 100), 1890, 18;
1891, 48.
Muscatine (11,500), a riverside town between Davenport and Bur-
lington, was in May, 1893, the scene of a serious outrage, when the
residences of three citizens, who had been taking conspicuous part in a
campaign against the saloons in that town, were partially destroyed by
dynamite:
IOWA.
157
ordinance the liquor dealers are compelled to make a monthly
payment to the city. This payment, being exacted as a fine
for violation of the law, is not in form a licence fee, but in
effect operates as such, for, the payment having been made, no
further proceedings are taken to vindicate the law. The object
of the arrangement is twofold: to secure a control over the
trade, which under an inoperative prohibitory law is wanting;
and to raise a revenue for municipal purposes. In Iowa the
duty of enforcing the State law rests mainly with the sheriff of
the county and his officers, and fines are paid to the county
treasury. Fines levied for breach of a municipal ordinance go
to the municipality. Therefore, by passing an ordinance
ostensibly for the purpose of enforcing the State law, a
municipality is enabled to institute proceedings thereunder,
and appropriate to itself the fines. The arrangement thus
introduced in Sioux City is obviously in fact, though not in
name, a return to a licensing system in defiance of the
prohibitory law of the State.
Council Bluffs (21,500) lies on the east side of the Missouri,
opposite Omaha (Nebraska); it is an important railway centre.
The municipal limits extend to the river, but the town itself
lies some distance back under the bluffs, between which and
the river stretches a flat alluvial valley two or three miles wide.
The saloons here are quite open. I counted twenty-two in
about a quarter of a mile along the main street. They number
about seventy altogether in the town. They are recognised
by the authorities, and each pays a monthly fine, practically
amounting to a licence fee, of $52'50, of which $2.50 go to the
police, and the remainder to the town for general purposes.*
The following is the routine adopted :-Printed forms of
complaint are filled up and sworn to in the Municipal Court,
in which A B is charged with keeping a disorderly house in
contravention of the city ordinance; liquor is not mentioned.
* In the published municipal accounts these payments are included in
the item of "city crime."
158
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWs.
The offender is summoned, and the sum named is taken as
bail for his appearance on the appointed day. When the day
comes he does not appear, the bail is forfeited, and the money
is paid over and appropriated as already stated. The pro-
ceedings are then dropped until the next month, when a new
information is sworn, and the same course is taken again; and
so on every month. Prohibition has never been successfully
enforced in this town. There have been times when the
prohibitionists have made a rally and undertaken to close the
saloons, but their efforts are said to have always resulted in an
increase of drinking, and a great increase in the number of secret
grog-shops. I am assured that since this quasi-licensing system
has been in operation (about two years) it has worked a very
great improvement in the state of the town. I inquired
whether, under the existing system, a badly-conducted house
would be allowed to continue doing business. The answer was
that it would be closed; the police would tell the owner that
he must clear out, and would not be satisfied to let him go on
paying his fine like the rest. These monthly fines amount in
the year in each case to $630, a fairly high-licence fee, and they
have had the effect of closing many of the smaller dram-shops
which had previously been running with little or no restriction.
The following statistics are taken from the published
municipal reports :—
Council Bluffs (population, census of 1890, 21,474.)
Total number of arrests...
Arrests for drunkenness (either alone or com-
bined with some other offence)
Arrests for violation of liquor law
...
...
U
...
··
**
Year ending March 1st,
1889.
1892.

1,815
736
7
I,482
696
6
The arrests for drunkenness in Omaha during 1891
numbered 1,667-a very much smaller proportion to the
population than the corresponding arrests in Council Bluffs.
IOWA.
159
If the arrests in Omaha were brought up to the same ratio as
those in the neighbouring city, they would number over 4,500,
or not far short of three times the actual total. In Council
Bluffs, under prohibition, the arrests for drunkenness are one
to thirty-one of the population; in Omaha, under high-licence,
one to eighty-four.
Before coming to Iowa I had been told a story to the
effect that on Sundays it was a common thing for people to
come over the river from Omaha, where the licence law
demanded, and to some extent compelled, Sunday closing, for
the purpose of obtaining liquor in Council Bluffs, where no
such restriction was observed. I made some inquiries on the
spot as to the truth of this statement, and received repeated
confirmation of it. Small beer-shops were even set up just
across the river for the special purpose of doing a Sunday trade
with people from Omaha. The plan of the monthly fines,
however, seems to have put a stop to this Sunday emigration.
The state of Council Bluffs on Sundays had been much
improved, and there had recently been few complaints of
disturbances on that day, which used to be of not infrequent
Occurrence.
A greater measure of efficiency is justly claimed for pro-
hibition in the interior of the State than that which it has
achieved among the riverside towns. But even in the interior,
it can hardly be said to be attended with any marked success
in the larger centres of population. I visited two out of the
three cities in the interior whose population exceeds 10,000.
In
Cedar Rapids, the business is carried on much less openly than
in Davenport or Council Bluffs. The saloons do not publicly
proclaim themselves on the street-front; but a prohibitionist of
the place, who had been an earnest worker for the enforcement
of the law, told me that there were a good many of them, and
that they carried on business with little or no interference.
There are "restaurants," "lunch-rooms," " oyster-bars," "eating-
houses,” etc., at intervals. When I went into one of these and
160
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
asked for a glass of whisky, I was referred to another house
two or three doors off, where I found a screen running across,
which divided the premises into a front and back shop. The
front part was a small lunch-bar. Through the swing-door of
the screen was an ordinary saloon drinking-bar with the usual
stock of whisky bottles, etc. Except that the bar was in the
back part of the shop behind the screen, and that there was no
reference to liquor in the announcements fronting the street, no
secrecy was observed. There is no city ordinance in Cedar
Rapids taxing the trade, such as exists in Sioux City and
Council Bluffs. There was, at one time, a talk of passing such
an ordinance; but the prevailing opinion was against it. I
was informed that the law was at first well enforced; but only
for a short time. A gentleman, having the management of one
of the largest business undertakings here, told me that, in his
opinion, the law when enforced had been beneficial; he men-
tioned, particularly, the case of the coopers employed in his
business, who are piece-workers, and who, he said, were found
to take "off-days" less frequently when liquor was difficult to
obtain.
The law has been greatly discredited in Cedar Rapids by
the manœuvres of "shysters" (low attorneys), who have used
it for the purpose of levying blackmail. I was told by a
prominent prohibitionist that these individuals constitute also
a great obstacle to the efficient prosecution of legal proceedings
by commencing collusive prosecutions against liquor-sellers.
Such prosecutions are neither pressed on to conviction nor
withdrawn; and the result is that, when genuine proceedings
are undertaken against the same offender, they are delayed and
hung up because a previous prosecution is pending.
The same gentleman informed me that the city and county
officials had never, or very rarely, shown a disposition to enforce
the law thoroughly. The city authorities (even if otherwise.
willing to act with vigour) would be discouraged by the fact that
the expenses of the prosecution would fall upon the city, while
IOWA.
161
the county would get the fines. The election of the county
sheriff whose duty it is to undertake the matter-is apt to
turn, as in Maine, on the issue of the strict or slack administra-
tion of the prohibitory law; and, as a matter of fact, it is a rare
thing for this officer to display much zeal in support of it. In
Cedar Rapids, as well as in other places, when vigorous action
has been taken, it has been by the exertion and at the expense
of private individuals. A zealous prohibitionist, who had him-
self spent much time, money, and labour on this work, and
had realised the impossibility of enforcing a law of this kind by
private action unsupported by official goodwill, told me that he
had been brought to the conclusion that he would rather now
spend $100 in prosecuting an officer for not doing his duty
than a single dollar in proceeding against a saloon-keeper for
breaking the law.
In Des Moines, the official capital and chief city of the
State, and in Polk County, which comprises it, the conditions
are said to be more favourable for making prohibition effective
than in any other part of the State, and Des Moines has
generally been regarded and held forth as the town where the
law has been most firmly and successfully enforced. This
probably is true; but it cannot be denied that the enforcement
is now very imperfect.* There are no open saloons, proclaiming
themselves as such upon the street-front; but dramshops are
not lacking, liquor is readily sold by druggists, and prohibitionists
themselves fully admit that people who want drink can satisfy
themselves without difficulty. Public opinion does not call
for any active measures—even in Des Moines--for suppressing
the trade beyond a certain point. As long as things go on
quietly and the law is not violated with too much openness,
the authorities are content; nor are steps taken to search for
law-breaking. Spasmodic attempts have been made from time
* The statement has been published that, whereas Des Moines gave a
majority of 1,200 in favour of the prohibitory amendment in 1882, in 1887
it gave a majority of 200 for the Democratic State ticket (anti-prohibition).
L
162
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
to time to put prohibition in full operation. During such times
domiciliary visits have been made to private houses; but such
attempts led to ill-feeling, and ended in failure. The plan
of establishing a State police to carry out the liquor law in-
dependently of the local authorities has been proposed, but
never adopted. Prosecutions have entailed an expense, and
have sometimes been attended by a want of success which has
given considerable dissatisfaction and increased the feeling that
prohibition has been a failure. Evidence often is difficult to
obtain. Questioned whether he was served with whisky, a
witness will say that he asked for tea, and will not swear that
what he got was whisky. Difficulties also arise with juries, and
even with the officers of the courts.*
•
In Des Moines liquor is usually sold by druggists. A
summary has already been given of the procedure under which
druggists can obtain permits for selling liquor for medicinal and
other specified purposes, and of the elaborate regulations under
which they are required to carry on this business. The practice,
however, in Des Moines varies widely from the law. Druggists
will sometimes inquire for what purpose the whisky is wanted,
and take the name and address of the purchaser; but, usually,
this form is dispensed with. Those of the higher class will
generally sell only in bottles or flasks; some, however, will
supply their customers "by the drink." The leading hotel has
a drug store attached to it, having a door opening into the
* The following case occurred many years ago; but it will serve as an
illustration of the sort of irregularities which are committed and which lead
to abortive prosecutions. A prominent lawyer, who at one time was acting
as judge in the Municipal Court, told me that on the first occasion when
he sat on the bench, the second case was a liquor case. The sheriff called
the jurors. The judge was looking over the docket, and, as the sheriff
called a name, his eye fell on the same name as that of the defendant in the
next following case on the list, which was also a liquor case.
was a saloon-keeper. The sheriff, being called up, affected surprise, and
said it was a mistake. The judge reprimanded him, and dismissed the
man from the jury.
The man
IOWA.
163
street and another opening into the lobby of the hotel. If a
stranger inquires the way to the bar or asks where he can
obtain a glass of whisky, he is told that Iowa is a prohibition
State; but the open door of the drug store is readily pointed out
to him, where he is informed that he can purchase a bottle to take
up to his room. To judge from the display of flasks and bottles
of various shapes and sizes in this store, the sale of intoxicating
liquor appears to form an important part of the business carried
on in it. No questions are asked, no circumlocutions or sub-
terfuges are resorted to; the transaction is begun and completed
with perfect frankness and simplicity on both sides of the
counter; nor is any respect shown for the elaborate require-
ments of the law for recording the sale.* Liquor can be
ordered, and is served, in the public dining-room of the hotel
without question-the only peculiarity being that the card on
which the visitor writes his order is headed " Pharmacy,"
instead of "Wine Order."
Towards the end of 1892, the City Council of Des Moines
passed an ordinance similar to that which has already been
referred to in connection with Sioux City and Council Bluffs;
but in January, 1893, the mayor, in the exercise of the power
given him by law, vetoed it. The supporters of the ordinance
denied that it was intended to have the effect of a licensing
measure; and no doubt the terms of the ordinance did not
necessarily involve such an inference. It was, however, urged
by the city attorney, in moving its adoption, that it would bring
revenue to the city; and the general opinion (as well as that of
the mayor) certainly seemed to be that the regulation, and
not the suppression, of the saloons was aimed at. With the
experience of a similar ordinance in other places, this conclusion
was not unnatural.
Returns are published by the State authorities, showing
statistics of prosecutions for crimes in the several counties. It
* The frequent passing to and fro between the hotel and the drug store
suggests a suspicion that business is not invariably carried on by the bottle.
•
L 2
164
AMERICAN LIquor Laws.
is, however, impossible to state precisely the number of liquor
prosecutions, because a large number are entered simply as
“nuisances,” and one cannot tell what proportion of them are
liquor cases; probably a great majority are such. There would
seem to have been, probably, between 300 and 350 liquor cases in
1890, out of rather less than 1,200 convictions--say, 28 per cent.
The position of prohibition in politics is an important
element in considering the prospect of the continuance of this
principle in Iowa as a general legislative enactment. The Repub-
licans adopted prohibition as part of their "platform" after it had
been carried by a large majority (nearly 30,000) on the popular
vote in 1882. This action sent a certain section of their party,
including many Germans in the riverside counties, who, ever
since the war, had attached themselves to the Republicans,
over to the other side. The Democrats took up an attitude of
opposition to the prohibitory law, though a section of them were
favourable to it; and it became one of the direct issues between
the parties. In process of time, the enthusiasm which carried
it ceased to run at high pressure; the energy of the movement
subsided. At the same time, some of the Republicans who
continued to vote for the maintenance of the law did so only
out of loyalty to their party, and personally were opposed to it.
Parties in this State have, of late years, been pretty evenly
balanced; but the Republicans have generally been in a
majority. The operation of the causes above mentioned,
however, gradually weakened the party, until in the autumn of
1889 it was defeated in the election of Governor; and a
Democratic Governor was again elected in 1891-the retention
or repeal of the prohibitory law being an issue on both
occasions. During these last few years attempts have been
made in both Houses of the State Legislature to repeal the law
-attempts which have come very near to success, but have
never quite attained it. High-Licence Bills were introduced in
1890, and defeated on a party vote. In the same year, a
proposal for a prohibitory amendment to the Constitution was
Iowa.
165
also thrown out, and druggists were relieved from some of the
restrictions under which they were allowed to dispense liquors.
In 1892, a Licensing Bill obtained a majority in the Senate of
25 to 23; but 26 votes were necessary to carry it. A Local
Option Bill passed the Senate by 27 to 22, but was defeated in
the House-46 to 52. A Bill to resubmit the question of
constitutional prohibition passed the House by 52 to 46.*
In the autumn of 1893 will come the election of a new
Legislature, which will meet in January, 1894. At this election
one of two things is likely to happen, either of which will in all
probability be fatal to the existing liquor law. If it is again
made an issue between the parties, the Republicans will most
likely suffer defeat, and the avowed opponents of prohibition
will then be in the majority. But it is by no means certain
that the Republicans will not drop the issue out of their
platform. They have been twice defeated on it in the election
for Governor; and many of their party are against it. In the
recent Presidential election (1892), when prohibition dis-
appeared from the programme and was ignored as an issue,
the Republicans had a good majority in Iowa. They have,
therefore, strong motives for dropping it out of the list of party
issues in State politics; especially as the wave of prohibitory
enthusiasm has to a great extent subsided, and a pretty
* It may seem surprising that, if the Democrats were able to elect their
candidate for Governor at two successive elections, they could not get a
majority in the Legislature, and secure repeal. The operation of the
"gerrymander "—which the Republicans, as the dominant party, have
been able to work to their own advantage-seems to provide an explana-
tion of the anomaly. They have been enabled to foresee large increases of
population in the central portions of the State, while in the riverside-the
slough-water "-counties it is revealed to them that the increase will
be less marked. In the redistribution of seats, they endeavour to adjust
matters to this prospective arrangement of the population. It is needless
to say that the centre of the State is the stronghold of the prohibitionist
and Republican elements, while the edges, east and west, are where the
Democrats flourish.
C
166
AMERICAN Liquor Laws.
widespread feeling has arisen that prohibition has not been a
success. If the party decides that it is the best policy to drop
the question as an issue at the election, it seems likely that the
Republicans will be returned with a majority; but those
members of the party who are opposed to prohibition, and have
hitherto supported it as an act of party allegiance, will then be
free to vote according to their inclinations. I found a prevalent
expectation among prohibitionists and others that prohibition
would not survive the next Legislature.*
The political attitude of earnest prohibitionists has for
some years been one of growing dissatisfaction with the
Republican party, to whose lukewarm support or secret
hostility they attribute the imperfect enforcement of the
law. Many who had hitherto been good Republicans
have been dropping off and joining the ranks of the
third party, a fact which explains the increase in the numer-
ical strength of the latter party in Iowa. There seems
no reason to believe that this increase marks any growth of
* Prohibitionists, however, expect to see repeal followed by a sweeping
reaction to prohibition.
The following extract from an Iowa paper, published after the above
paragraph in the text was written, bears upon the question discussed in
it :-"Sioux City, Ia., Jan. 16.-(Special Telegram to The Bee.)-The
appearance of an editorial in the Sioux City Journal, advocating a repeal
of the prohibitory law in this State, has created a sensation of no mean
size in Iowa. Congressman Perkins, editor of the Journal, was chairman
of the committee on platform and resolutions at Cedar Rapids a year ago,
and drew the Republican platform, which was for a continuance of pro-
hibition. The Journal has persistently advocated prohibition in the face
of flagrant violation of the law in this city and portion of the State, and it
was the last paper that it was supposed would come out for repeal. The
press of the State is taking it up, and politicians declare that the bold
declaration of Mr. Perkins has severed the Republican party from pro-
hibition, and that it will result in the adoption of a high-licence plank in its
platform by the Republican State Convention next fall."
†The votes polled in this State for the prohibitionist candidate at the
last three Presidential elections were as follows:-1,472 in 1884; 3,550 in
1888; and 6,340 in 1892.
IOWA.
167
prohibition sentiment in the State; it indicates a transfer of
prohibitionists from the Republican ranks to those of the third
party.
Another aspect of the question remains to be noticed.
Neither the Democrats nor the liquor-sellers, although they are
respectively the political and the natural enemies of prohibition,
are altogether desirous of seeing it repealed. It has, in fact,
been the best political ally of the Democratic party. It has
been their "bugaboo" to scare away votes from the Repub-
licans. Prohibition has made Democrats of the Germans, and
has given the Governorship to the Democrats. Where pro-
hibition is not made an issue, the State is still strongly
Republican; if it were repealed and out of the way, the latter
party might again have a commanding majority. The party
really interested in repealing the law is that which ostensibly
supports it, and not that which is pledged to its rejection.* So
far as the liquor-sellers are concerned, many of them are not
dissatisfied with things as they are. They do a fairly good
business. Even in those places where a monthly fine of $50
is levied, it is not more, and may be less, than they would
probably be called on to pay, if prohibition were repealed.
They are exempt from the formalities and difficulties and
chances of refusal to which they would be exposed in making
their applications under a licence law; nor are they subject to
such close inspection or so many restrictions in conducting
their business; and they do not run the risk of forfeiture
of their licence-money and their bond for breaking the
law.
* It will be interesting to see whether in the coming year the Democrats
will endeavour, and, if so, how and with what success, to stave off repeal,
should the course of events give them the power to carry it. The Repub-
licans could hardly themselves propose repeal. Possibly recourse may be
had to a reference to the popular vote on the question of an amendment to
the Constitution, but such a vote could only be taken after the amendment
had been carried by two successive Legislatures, a course which would
involve a long postponement of the question.
168
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
A few words may be said upon the general results of
prohibition in Iowa, apart from questions more immediately
relating to the law and its enforcement. Has it increased or
decreased drinking? This is a question on which opinions.
differ, and will continue to differ, according to individual
experience or predilection. Prohibitionists, who recognise and
acknowledge that the law has failed to fulfil their hopes, claim
that one great benefit-the suppression of the open saloon-is
gained by prohibition, and can be secured by no other system.
The great evil, they say, is the temptation to young men to
acquire the habit of meeting in public places and drinking
together, of treating and being treated; this is what makes
young men take to drink. If the saloons and hotel bars are
closed, the habit is not formed; they are not attracted to
shady places nor inclined to resort to subterfuges in order to
obtain liquor. From this point of view, the fact that people,
who go about looking for a dramshop or "hole-in-the-wall,"
can find it does not prove that prohibition is a failure. With-
out reference, however, to the riverside towns, it would hardly
seem that even in Des Moines the liquor trade has been
driven into the degree of secrecy contemplated by those
prohibitionists who attach special importance to the removal
of temptations from the young. On the other hand, the belief
is prevalent that the growth of liquor-selling by druggists, and
in particular of the "drug store saloon," is a special and serious
evil which has sprung up in the wake of prohibition.*
It undoubtedly is the opinion of many persons who are
genuinely interested in the cause of temperance that the
prohibitory law has led to an actual increase of drinking, owing
to the greater home consumption, and a greater demand for
liquor, especially strong spirits, by the bottle. A well-known
* A particular instance of this evil related to me was the case of a
druggist doing business near the college at Davenport, who, shortly after
the introduction of prohibition, took to selling whisky, and supplying it to
the college boys. He was detected and prosecuted.
IOWA.
169
resident of Iowa, holding a high official position, and a “tem-
perance man," told me that, while travelling in the State
shortly after the introduction of prohibition, he became
acquainted with a fellow-traveller, who proved to be a
Bourbon whisky distiller on a large scale in Kentucky.
Asked what brought him into a prohibition State, this gentle-
man replied that his business in this State was brisker than it
had been before the prohibitory law came into effect.* The
same informant, whose duties oblige him to travel much about
the State, also assured me that the increase of drinking in the
trains was a fact within his own personal observation. Pro-
hibition has closed the bars at railway stations; and many
travellers, especially among the "drummers" (commercial
travellers), are in the habit of forestalling this want by providing
themselves with a bottle of whisky-a habit which is apt to
lead to a too rapid consumption of the contents of the bottle
during the journey. In the dining cars, which are attached to
some of the express trains, no liquor is sold during the passage
of the train through a prohibitory State, though this rule is
occasionally evaded under the pretence that the bottle of wine
or beer which the traveller desires is already his property; no
charge is made for it, but the debt is either included in the
price of the meal or else discharged in the form of a gratuity
to the waiter.
In the course of my visit to Iowa a matter was brought to
my attention, of the significance of which, in relation to the
liquor question, I do not pretend to be able to judge, though
it has been alleged to indicate one of the effects of prohibition.
There are said to be several opium dens in Des Moines. The
fact (if it be authentic) was brought to public attention in
an account published in one of the local newspapers, and
purporting to be a record of the experience of a special
* It should be remembered that the sale of spirits has long been pro-
hibited in Iowa. By the "prohibitory law" is of course meant the law of
1884, which enacted prohibition for all kinds of liquor.
170
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
reporter commissioned to make a personal investigation of the
matter.*
There are very few (about twenty-five) Chinese in
the town. Some of the dens are said to be run by Americans;
and, notwithstanding the exposure, seven of them are said to be
still running. There is no law in the State to stop them. I
heard also of the use of opium in another place, a small town
in the northern part of the State, where prohibition was so
effectually enforced that, when the bishop of the diocese visited
it, an intended celebration of the Sacrament had to be aban-
doned because no wine could be obtained. My informant,
whose testimony is unimpeachable, was told by a physician
practising here that the use of opium in this place was a
positive curse; he had twenty or thirty cases
on his
hands of persons suffering from the habit, both men and
women.†
It has been alleged by some that prohibition has been
an obstacle to the material welfare and progress of the State, a
supposition which is altogether rejected and ridiculed by others.
This is another question on which the partisans on one side and
the other must be content to differ. The proposition seems to
be incapable of proof or disproof. A resident in Des Moines
expressed to me his opinion that repeal would in that city
be followed by an immediate spurt in the building and other
* Des Moines News, March 8th, 1892.-The reporter describes his
experiences, how he went into three or four of these dens; and he
mentions others which he did not visit. The people whom he found there
seem to have been mostly Americans; in one case a husband and wife.
The reporter finally took to his heels with an opium pipe as a trophy, and
fled up the street with a Chinaman in pursuit. He took refuge in the
police station. The pipe was afterwards displayed in the office window of
the News, and the reporter was threatened with prosecution for stealing it.
Mr. G. Thomann, in a pamphlet published in 1889, on the Proceed-
ings at the Second International Temperance Congress, held in 1887 at
Zurich, stated that, according to the Iowa Health Board, there were more
than 10,000 persons in that State who used opium; but I have not been
able to verify the statement by reference to any official report.
Jowa.
171
trades, but he doubted whether after a year it would make
much difference.*
A gentleman residing in Omaha told me that he knew
several persons who had come over to that place from Council
Bluffs on account of the prohibitory law; and I was informed,
on what should be good authority, that a number of wholesale
houses (I think ten was the number mentioned) had quitted
Council Bluffs and gone to Omaha for the same reason. These
were the only definite statements which I heard bearing
on this point. My informants in both cases attributed the
migration not to any desire for a better supply of liquor, but to
disgust at the law, and the evasions and skulking which it led
to, and a sense of its interference with personal liberty.
The failure or imperfect success of prohibition in Iowa
is generally ascribed by prohibitionists to the default of the
local officials who, they maintain, could make it effective, if
they displayed the requisite zeal in the discharge of their
duties. One prohibitionist, who as a private citizen had taken
a leading part in an attempt to put down the dramshops in the
town in which he lived, expressed to me his confidence that if
he were mayor he would soon put a stop to the trade in that
place, and that the general sentiment was strong enough in
favour of the law to enable it to be successfully and con-
tinuously enforced. Another, while equally sure that the
authorities could and ought to enforce the law, admitted that
to do so would require great and continued efforts; his
experience has been that for a time sentiment runs very high,
and great efforts are made; then the pressure runs down.
In answer to the suggestion that the authorities were not likely
* Some years ago there was a stagnation of business in Des Moines,
and the growth of the town seemed to stop; but latterly building has gone
on more rapidly, and the city is growing in importance as the residential
capital of the State. The municipal limits are very extensive; a resident
told me that he owned a farm of one hundred acres, agricultural land,
within the city boundary.
(
172
AMERICAN Liquor Laws.
to make these efforts, except under pressure of an active public
opinion, he agreed that private citizens, men of business and
others, cannot be brought, except occasionally and for limited.
periods, to push forward urgently and against bitter opposition
measures of social reform. They say, naturally enough, that
it is the duty of the officials who are paid for that express
purpose to see that the laws are enforced. Private citizens
have their own affairs to attend to, and cannot be expected to
perform the duties of the paid ministers of the law as well.
Total arrests
Common drunkards
Drunkenness
...
(Ex-Prohibition.)
RHODE ISLAND has made three trials of prohibition, and three
times has given it up. The first prohibitory law was passed in
1852 and continued till 1863, when it was succeeded by a
licensing measure. The second prohibitory law had a short
life—from 1874 to 1875—when a licensing and local option law
took its place. In 1886, a prohibitory amendment to the State
Constitution was submitted to the people, and adopted by
15,113 to 9,230 votes—a majority of 5,883, or 507 in excess of
the necessary three-fifths. In June, 1889, the question was re-
submitted, when there voted for prohibition, 9,956; against,
28,315—majority against, 18,359.
The passing of the prohibitory amendment in 1886 came
on many people as a surprise. Great activity was exerted by
the prohibitionists; women urged their husbands and brothers
to vote for it; many voted for it who were not really prohibi-
tionists, and who never expected that it would be carried.
In Providence, it seems almost from the first to have been
systematically violated; and in the State generally it cannot be
said to have been enforced with much success. It is claimed
for it that, especially during the earlier portion of the pro-
hibitory period, drinking was diminished; and, undoubtedly,
arrests for drunkenness and for crime in general showed a
marked falling-off, as may be seen from the following figures
which relate to Providence :-
..
CHAPTER X.
...
173
RHODE ISLAND.
SIX MONTHS, JULY-December.
...
...
...
..
1885 (Licence).
3,398
60
2,427
1886 (Prohibition).
2,262
23
1,423
174
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWs.
In Newport, during the same periods, arrests for drunken-
ness and revelling decreased from 257 to 171; in Woonsocket,
from 377 to 300; in Lincoln, from 97 to 60. In Pawtucket,
on the other hand, the number rose from 181 to 234—a fact
which the chief of the State police, in his published report,
attributed to increased diligence on the part of the police.
There seems to be no question that, at first, the result of
the vote was to paralyse the liquor trade. The 444 places
previously licensed for the sale of liquor in Providence ceased
business when the new law went into operation (July, 1886);
or did but little business, and that secretly. In a few weeks,
however, some of them recommenced operations as "clubs,'
supplying their customers with private keys of admission, and it
is said that by October many of the clubs were in full swing.
Six months later, the precaution of the use of private
keys was no longer thought necessary, and thenceforward the
saloons were run practically open and unchecked. Occasionally,
indeed, a raid would be undertaken, and the keys would again
come into use; but this return to secrecy seldom, it is said,
continued for more than a fortnight.
در
In December, 1886, it was said that liquor was being sold
in 288 places in Providence, including 42 tenement houses, but
not including a large number of club-rooms; while 104 of the
old licensed saloons had been given up by their proprietors.
In January, 1888, a list was published in the leading
newspaper, said to be compiled from authentic sources, from
which it appears that liquor was sold in 19 wholesale places,
279 saloons, 91 houses, and 202 groceries: total 591, or more
than one hundred in excess of the total number of places selling
liquor under licence-the increase being chiefly in "kitchen
bar-rooms," which were then said to be still increasing in
numbers.*
Early in 1889-the last year of prohibition-a series of maps
was published in the Providence Fournal, showing, precinct by
* Providence Journal, January 26, 1888.
RHODE ISLand.
175
precinct, by means of black dots, the number and position of
the places where liquor was known to be sold.
These maps
embodied the result of an investigation made by two reporters
specially commissioned to visit, investigate, and report upon
this matter in all quarters of the city. The maps, it was
claimed, were carefully prepared, and it was believed that no
mistake had been made. An independent investigator has in-
formed me that he satisfied himself at the time, by personal
observation and inquiry on the spot, that the investigations of
the Fournal were substantially to be relied on. From the
statements accompanying the maps, it appears that in the first
police district, comprising the centre of the town, the number
of dramshops was about the same as before prohibition ; but a
considerable increase had taken place in the tenement house
and kitchen bar-rooms, where drinking was most vicious and
demoralising. Club-rooms had diminished since the first year,
their places being taken by open saloons, where no attempt
was made at disguise, and where everything but the lettered
signs invited custom. Of the other police districts, some were
more fertile of saloons, and some-the poorer districts—of
kitchen bar-rooms; but all showed a plentiful crop of black
spots on the map. Altogether, it was computed that more than
500 known places were doing business in Providence, of which
nearly 200 were kitchen or tenement house bar-rooms-three
times as many of these as existed in June, 1886, and, doubtless,
many more existed unknown. Such places showed a menacing
increase principally in the poor districts, and were most
difficult of detection so as to prove a case for conviction.
Though they existed under licence, there were not then nearly
so many of them. They were very miserable places, and the
frequent presence of children in them (according to the Fournal
reports) was a special evil.
From other places in the State, as well as Providence—from
Burrillville, from Kent County, South County, Washington
County, Bristol County-came reports of much violation of the
176
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWs.
prohibitory law. There was great and general failure in the
conduct of prosecutions against law-breakers. A tribe of pro-
fessional informers or "spotters" sprang into existence; but their
testimony soon grew to be so discredited that it was impossible.
to obtain convictions on it. Nine months after the law had
gone into effect, the chief of the police in Providence declared
that, since juries refused to credit "spotters," it was impossible
to obtain evidence in sale cases; it was hoped to reach better
results by proceeding under the nuisance law.*
In Newport County, it was said that prosecutions were
carried through with more success, and the law was better
enforced. The chief of police, however, at Newport stated
in March, 1887, that much liquor was coming into the place;
there were no open saloons, but most of the business was done
in tenement houses, and club-rooms were said to be increasing.
There, too, much discredit fell on "spotter" evidence. In
South County two spotters were prosecuted for perjury. In
Bristol County, statements were quoted of prohibitionists who
admitted the failure of enforcement; the law, in their view,
was faulty, and the enactment of a power to raid at night
without warrant was advocated; the fact, however, that the
saloon-keeper was outlawed was urged as being in itself a step
in the right direction.
In August, 1888, it was reported from Cedar Grove that
liquor was being sold in more than forty places of all kinds,
including all the hotels but one-the existence of these places
being well known to the police, who were said to be paid by
them.
In Pawtucket, early in 1889, the total number of known
* The chief of the State police in his first report, made after prohibition
had been in force about six months, stated that inquiry among all classes of
people had convinced him that a large majority were opposed to the further
employment of detectives to secure evidence of the illegal sale of liquor.
The experience of the preceding six months, in his opinion, proved con-
clusively that reliance solely on this kind of evidence to secure convictions
was unwise, though he had no reason to believe them untruthful.
RHODE ISLAND;
177
dramshops was stated to be 203 (143 saloons and stores, one-
third being groceries; 52 kitchen bar-rooms; 7 hotels; and a
club-room). The number, it was said, might be made larger;
but doubtful cases were omitted.*
Referring to official sources of information, I find that
commitments to the State workhouse during the first six months
of prohibition numbered 141, showing a decrease of 168 as
compared with the corresponding months in the previous year,
when 309 prisoners were so committed.
In his first report, to which reference has already been
made, the chief of the State police † complained of the apathy
shown by friends of the prohibitory amendment in working for its
enforcement. They seemed to feel, he said, that with its adop-
tion their duties and responsibilities ceased. With the exception
of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, to whose per-
severing efforts the adoption of the amendment was largely due,
and the Law and Order Leagues of two or three of the towns,
he had received no words of encouragement, much less support,
from the many kindred organisations throughout the State.
In Bristol, which gave 418 votes for the prohibitory amend-
ment, only fifteen electors at a special town meeting voted in
favour of a proposal to appropriate funds for its enforcement.
In Warren the same number voted in favour of a similar
proposal, and in Gloucester it was by a unanimous votę
indefinitely postponed.
Two years later, in 1889, the chief of the State police
reported that, having asked for information whether violations
of the law had increased or decreased in number since the last
/
* The Providence Journal for February 13, 1889, contained a map of
the central portion of Pawtucket, showing places where liquor was sold.
† The Act, which was passed to give effect to the prohibitory amend-
ment, provided that the sheriffs of the several counties and their deputies,
and the town sergeants, constables and chiefs of police, special constables
appointed under the Act, and deputy-chiefs of police of the several towns
and cities should constitute a State police, having for their special duty the
suppression of all liquor shops, gambling places, and houses of ill-fame.
M
178
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
preceding report, he had answers from 37 officers, of whom
22 reported a decrease, 6 (including the chiefs of police of
Providence and Newport) an increase, and 9 reported no
marked difference. Among those who reported a decrease
was the Hon. William Sprague, chief of police at Narragansett
Pier, and formerly Governor of Rhode Island and United
States Senator; the following extract from his statement
indicates the views of one who appears to have favoured the
existence of the prohibitory law, but not the attempt to give it
a strict enforcement :--
"I am of opinion that, in proportion to the population, there has
been less quantity of spirits consumed in this district the past
current year than during previous years. Most, if not all, the
sources of drunkenness have resulted through the sales of liquor
by the bottle from places inaccessible to the eye of the police, and
not by the glass at the counter. The former practice may be
likened to guerilla warfare that is evolved after regular warfare
has been displaced. It has been the practice of the police here
not to force the United States Government victualler and billiard
table licensees--who contribute funds to promote the general
peace, and who, if at all, publicly dispose of liquor and cigars in
connection therewith-to close their establishments, as such evolves
the organisation of a widespread guerilla liquor traffic, with no
effective menace from police or regular operators. The true course
to be pursued to secure the best results from the prohibitory
amendment, is to discourage the keeping of liquor in private houses
and its sale by the bottle-to encourage its public sale by the glass
at the counter rather than through the guerilla liquor traffic
mentioned. There should be no encouragement given for the repeal
of the amendment. It is a menace, and as such a powerful
regulator of the traffic, and if administered in a spirit of wisdom
and sense, will favourably affect the general welfare. The pro-
hibitory amendment in Rhode Island may be compared to the
elective franchise accorded the late slave; inoperative, but a
powerful menace to the unbalanced mental structure . . . The
constant menace to the saloon that the prohibitory amendment
effects, coupled with the penalty for its sale without a licence
granted by the United States Government, as related to the
RHODE ISLAND.
179
guerilla liquor traffic, affords the best basis for its wise restraint
and regulation ever inaugurated."
In his last report, made shortly before the repeal of the
Constitutional amendment, the chief of the State police.
observed that upon the Legislature must fall no small portion
of the responsibility for the ineffectiveness of prohibition in
some parts of the State.
Officers," he said, "who have long faithfully endeavoured to
enforce the law in their precincts, imperfect and comparatively
ineffective as it now stands, hoping that the repeated recommenda-
tions of this department would become the law of the State, have in
many instances become utterly disheartened and discouraged at the
refusal on the part of the Legislature to strengthen their hands by
efficient weapons, while strengthening their opponents, by remedial
legislation, and in not a few instances are unwilling to longer urge
so unequal a contest. Upon a reconsideration of the recommenda-
tions heretofore made by me in the way of additional legislation, I
am more firmly convinced than before that they were wise, proper,
and absolutely necessary, and I therefore now repeat the same,
referring your honourable body to my report presented at the May
Session, 1888, for a detailed account of the same and a Bill
prepared by counsel at my request, embodying the same in the
form of a proposed statute.* I am of the firm belief that an
injunction Act should be passed, and at once, and that the same
will prove the most effective weapon which the officers of the law
can wield, whether against the liquor dealers under the present law,
or against unlicensed liquor dealers, in the event of your honourable
body concurring with the last Assembly in resubmitting the fifth
amendment to a popular vote, its repeal by the people, and the
subsequent enactment of a licence law."
The insufficiency of the law was thus referred to and
accounted for by Governor Davis in his Message to the
General Assembly at its January Session, 1888:-
"The chief of State police has been diligent in his office, and
the law he was especially appointed to administer has been enforced
as far as punitive influence within his control can effect it. That
* The chief proposal was the enactment of an "injunction law”
similar to that of Kansas (see p. 129).
M 2
180
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWs.
the law is not more efficient-and it is sadly inefficient-is for want
of a sufficient public sentiment to support it. It is a thankless task
to attempt to enforce a law which has not the hearty moral
support of the community to sustain it. Laws may represent
public opinion, but their enforcement is dependent almost wholly
upon the public will, as contradistinguished from public opinion;
and without a will the way will not be found. The prohibitory
law, so-called, is written upon our Constitution and statutes, and
self-respect as well as the obligations of our office demand that
we do what we can to accomplish its purpose."
A year later Governor Taft said :—
"The operation of the laws prohibiting the manufacture and sale
of intoxicating liquors is, as yet, very far from being satisfactory.
It is generally conceded that the advancement of the cause of
temperance is desirable, but as to the best method to accomplish
the result, the minds of citizens are widely at variance. On the
one hand, it is urged that prohibition is a failure, and should give
place to a high restrictive licence; on the other, it is insisted that
still severer measures should be adopted. Though the prohibitory
amendment has been in force two and one-half years, yet, until the
advent to office of the present Attorney-General, the litigation
arising under it has not been prosecuted with the zeal and energy
necessary to demonstrate whether the system itself, properly
administered, was effective or not; and he has not yet been in
office a sufficient length of time to push any considerable number
of cases through the tedious processes of delay that the criminal
code of this State unfortunately admits."
Upon the subject referred to in the sentence last quoted,
the following is the substance of a statement made to me on
good authority :-The Republican party, under whose auspices
the prohibitory amendment had been carried, adopted, as a
plank in its platform at the State Elections of 1888, the
principle of a strict enforcement of the law; and the Attorney-
General, then elected as a representative of the party, was
determined to fulfil the party pledge both on that ground and
on the general principle that it was his duty to act upon the
law as it stood, and the duty of the people, if they did not
RHODE ISLAnd.
181
*
approve of the enforcement of the law, to get the law itself
repealed. The judicial system of Rhode Island makes it the
duty of the police and local authorities to put the laws in force
in the first instance; but, if a case goes to the Grand Jury,
whether on appeal or because it is not triable summarily, it is
brought under the control of the Attorney-General as prose-
cuting officer; and in this way a large number of liquor cases
come under his cognisance. The Attorney-General has in
this State very great power as regards the prosecution of
crimes, being able to enter a nolle prosequi at any stage of the
proceedings for any offence. On the other hand, the forms
of procedure allow to the defendant great opportunities for
delaying the course of justice. In the case of the liquor
prosecutions undertaken in 1888–89, full advantage was taken
of such opportunities; and every possible influence was brought
to bear on the Attorney-General, both on behalf of the persons
directly concerned and by members of his party, who foresaw
political defeat as the result of too much zeal. Nevertheless,
he proceeded on his way. By carefully scrutinising the jury
lists, and challenging all those who were in the liquor trade, or
in any way connected with it, or under its influence, he was
able to secure convictions; and, in spite of all dilatory pleas
and obstruction, he fought and won his cases through all their
stages to the point when nothing remained to be done but to
bring up the offenders before the court which had tried them,
to receive their sentence and go to prison. But at this point
he found himself at the end of his year of office, when, under
ordinary circumstances, he would have been re-elected for a
second term. Instead of this, he was promptly turned out,
being the only Republican candidate who failed to be elected;
and not one of the offending rum-sellers (a hundred or more of
them) was ever sentenced.
* I was informed that he could even stop a case after conviction for
murder and before sentence. The only checks upon him are the annual
election to the office, and the liability to impeachment.
182
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
!
This experience in Rhode Island exhibits a marked instance.
of the dependence of such a law as prohibition on popular
feeling for its enforcement. In the first place, the police in
cities and municipalities have to detect and proceed against
offenders. The chief of police is under the mayor; he will not
proceed more actively than the general opinion—as represented
by his official superior, the municipal authority-desires. To do
so would be to imperil, and probably lose, his re-appointment
at the end of the year. Next, the Attorney-General-to whom
these cases subsequently are brought-will generally do no more
than is required of him by the managers of his party. If, as in
the present case, he undertakes to vindicate the law regardless
of consequences, he will not be re-elected, and the law, unless
a strong popular impulse in its favour sets in, will soon cease
to be vindicated. In Rhode Island the impulse-whether a
fully popular one, or a mere shifting of political pressure, to
which the liquor question in this, as in many other States,
seems to have been peculiarly subject-manifested itself in
the other direction; the tide had turned, and the prohibitory
amendment to the Constitution was repealed by an over-
whelming majority.
The Licensing Law enacted in 1889 may be described as
one of modified high-licence, together with local option in
a double form. The licence fee varies from $400 in Providence,
down to $200 in towns with less than 6,000 inhabitants; but
an objection by the owners or occupiers of the greater part of
the land within two hundred feet of the premises proposed to
be licensed, operates as a bar to the grant of a licence—a right
of veto which is sometimes exercised. To this modified form
of local option in individual cases, by veto of the immediate
neighbours, is added the principle of the direct veto for every
city and town by popular vote, annually taken on the requisition
of a certain number of citizens.
The provisions of the law may be summarised as follows:--
RHODE ISLAND.
183
RHODE ISLAND.-Special Session, July, 1889, c. 816. An Act
to regulate and restrain the sale of strong, malt, and spirituous
liquors.
Town Councils* and, in cities, Boards of Commissioners
appointed by the mayor, may grant or refuse to grant licences for
the manufacture or sale of pure liquor to such citizens resident
within the State as they think proper.
Prior notice must be given, and remonstrants must have the
opportunity of being heard. A licence may not be granted where
the owners or occupiers of the greater part of the land within two
hundred feet object. The licensee has to give a bond of $1,000,
with two residents of the town or city as sureties, for compliance
with the law and payment of all costs and damages incurred through
violation of it.
A local option vote is to be taken at each election of general
officers, on a requisition of 15 per cent. (in cities, 10 per cent.)
of the number of voters taking part in the last preceding general
election. If the majority is against licences, none may be granted ;
if it is the other way, "then licences under the provisoes of this Act
shall be granted," until an adverse vote is taken.
Except in the case of licensed taverns, a licence may not be
granted for any place which is connected by interior communication
with a dwelling-house, or "to which an entrance shall be allowed
other than directly from a public travelled way."
The licence-fees are :--
For an off-licence to manufacture (covering sale at wholesale at
manufactory) or to sell at wholesale and retail—not less than $500
nor more than $1,000; for a licence to sell at retail only (less than
two gallons) in the city of Providence, $400; in all other cities and
towns, of over 15,000 inhabitants, $350; in towns of from 6,000 to
15,000 inhabitants, $300; in all other towns, not more than $300
nor less than $200.
The sale of liquor on Sundays, or to any minor or person of
notoriously intemperate habits, or (for consumption on the premises)
to any woman, is prohibited. And a licensee is not authorised “to
sell or furnish intoxicating liquors to any person on a pass-book or
order on a store, or to receive from any person any goods, wares,
merchandise, or provisions in exchange for liquors."
The punishment for illegal selling, or keeping for sale, is a fine
Town Councils have also the option of electing licence commissioners.
184
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
of $20 and imprisonment for ten days, with increasing penalties after
repeated convictions. In the case of a person holding a licence,
it is forfeited and he is disqualified for five years, and the town or
city is to bring suit for the amount of his bond.
A licensee may also be summoned before the licensing authority
for permitting his place to become disorderly, "so as to annoy and
disturb the persons inhabiting or residing in the neighbourhood,"
or for permitting gambling or any violation of the laws of the State ;
and, if it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the licensing
authority that he has violated any of the provisions of the Act, he
is to lose his licence and be disqualified for five years.
But for selling to a woman for consumption on the premises, or
to a minor, the offender is to be fined $100 and be imprisoned not
less than ninety days nor more than a year, and be disqualified
for five years; and one convicted as an illegal manufacturer or
common seller," is to be fined $100 and imprisoned for ninety
days, which punishment is doubled on a subsequent conviction.
((
Anyone forcibly evicting from his premises an intoxicated
person to whom he has sold liquor is to be fined $20, and be
disqualified for a year.
Penalties are also imposed for knowingly transporting liquor
which has been, or is intended to be, illegally sold.
Town Councils are to appoint special constables to enforce
the liquor law; it is also the special duty of sheriffs of counties
and their deputies, and of the police of towns and cities, to use
their utmost efforts to prevent crime by the suppression of un-
licensed liquor shops, gambling places, and houses of ill-fame, and
they are also required to do so on request of any taxpayer.
A fine not exceeding $500, with disqualification from re-appoint-
ment, is enacted for neglect or refusal to perform these duties.
The sheriff of each county is to appoint a deputy for the purpose of
performing these duties.
Provision is made for search and seizure on sworn complaint;
forfeited liquor to be destroyed.
A licence is not required for the manufacture or sale of cider, or
the manufacture of wine or malt liquor for domestic use, or of
alcohol for exportation and sale out of the State, or manufacture or
sale, by the gallon and upwards, of wine from fruit grown in the State.
If injury is done to person or property by an intoxicated person,
the same right of action lies against the person who furnished
any of the liquor causing the intoxication, "if the same was fur-
RHODE ISLAND.
185
nished in violation of this chapter," as would lie against the person
intoxicated; and joint or separate actions may be brought.
For selling to a woman for on-consumption, or to a minor, or
allowing a woman or minor to loiter on premises where liquor is
sold, the husband of the woman, or parent or guardian of the minor,
may recover $100 in an action of debt, for each offence.
Notice not to sell may be given by the husband, wife, parent,
child, guardian, or employer of an habitual drunkard; damages may
be recovered for sale within twelve months after notice; but, in the
case of an employer, only if injured in person, business, or property.
Pharmacists may sell without licence for medicinal purposes,
on medical prescriptions or on the written order of the buyer.
No action can be maintained for the value of liquor illegally
sold, and all payments made for such liquor are held-as between
the parties-to have been received in violation of law, without con-
sideration and against equity and good conscience.
All obstructions to the view must be removed on Sundays.
The fact of the very imperfect enforcement of prohibition
in Providence and some other parts of the State was, I believe,
generally admitted by prohibitionists, and was attributed by
them to the inadequacy of the law itself, and of the means taken
to give effect to the law, such as it was. The opinion was
confidently expressed to me by residents, that the condition of
Providence as regards drinking has been better under the
existing licence law than it was during, at least, the latter
portion of the prohibitory period. A point, to which my
attention was specially directed, was the extent to which the
liquor traffic during that time was carried on in tenement
houses, where it was almost impossible to detect it. The police.
can go into licensed premises at any time for the purpose of
seeing whether the regulations are obeyed. Unlicensed places
can only be entered with a search warrant. Even if a place of
illicit sale was discovered, a warrant obtained, and a seizure
made, more liquor would immediately be brought into the
same place, and the sale would recommence and go on for
some time before evidence was obtained on which a new
search warrant would be issued.
186
AMERICAN Liquor Laws.
•
One who had been officially concerned in the duty of
enforcing the prohibitory law informed me that, at first, there
certainly was a diminution of drinking and drunkenness,
followed, however, by a steady deterioration in this respect.
The returns of arrests and convictions, he said, did not
accurately reflect the real state of the evil, because of the
greater difficulty of discovering what was going on, and the fact
that the drunken did not appear so much on the streets, where
alone they can be arrested. Nevertheless, the returns indicated
a considerable and progressive amount of illegal drinking during
the prohibitory period.
The following table shows the number of arrests in
Providence and some other particulars respecting that city-
PROVIDENCE (population, 1890, 132,146).
Arrests, etc.
All offences
Common drunkards
Drunkenness †
Liquor offences
Liquor seizures
No. of police, all ranks
No. of licences:
...
""
...
Wholesale at $800...
Retail at $400
Druggists at $5
...
...
1886 *
5,151
105
3,636 | 3,625
305
20
...
⠀⠀⠀
···
1887.*
...
103
100
...
...
...
Calendar Year.
1888.*
5,930
135
4,036
74
357
206
...
...
...
1889.
1890. 1891.
6,446 6,590 6,900
|
128
145 155
4,619 4,898 5,064
81
of
100
158$
205
115
57
204 217
216
: : :
...
...
...
33
392
65
* Prohibition was in force July, 1886, to June, 1889.
† Arrests for drunkenness in previous years were :--1881, 5,173; 1882,
4,754; 1883, 4,389; 1884, 4,334; 1885, 4,328.
rum
On the rejection of the prohibitory law, a short period of "free
intervened before the licensing law was passed in August, 1889.
The police report states that most of the increase in the arrests for
drunkenness was accounted for by this intervening period.
§ Ninety arrests for selling liquor without licence, an increase of sixty
over the previous year.
1

187
CHAPTER XI.
MASSACHUSETTS.
(Ex-Prohibition. High-Licence. Numerical Limitation.
Local Option.)
THE Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted a general pro-
hibitory law in 1855, which was repealed in 1868, and
restored in 1869. In 1870 a "free beer" amendment was
carried, which was rejected in 1873. The election of 1874
was decisive against prohibition, and in 1875 a licence law was
enacted, which was supplemented in 1881 by a local option
measure. In 1882 a Bill for the restoration of prohibition
was only defeated in the House of Representatives by the
casting vote of the Speaker; and in March, 1889, it was
resolved by the general court that a proposed amendment to
the Constitution prohibiting the manufacture and sale of
intoxicating liquors for use as a beverage be submitted to
the people for ratification. The vote was taken in April,
1889, but the proposed amendment was defeated by about
131,000 votes to 85,000.
The old prohibitory law being, at first, in many places, in-
differently executed, an independent State police was created
in 1865 to suppress liquor shops, gambling places, and houses
of ill-fame. The feeling of opposition to the law, largely due,
it is said, to the attempt to enforce it in Boston, led in 1867
to an inquiry into the whole question before a Joint Committee
of the two Houses of the State Legislature. The committee
held twenty-seven public sittings between the 19th of February
and the 3rd of April; witnesses were examined, and addresses
were delivered by representatives of the several parties interested,
and a thorough investigation was held. The speech of ex-
Governor Andrews in particular was a powerful agent in
bringing about a repeal of the prohibitory law.
188
AMERICAN Liquor Laws.
An examination of the report of this committee will
indicate the considerations which led to this result, though
the question continued to be fought for some years longer.
The committee reported that they found themselves con-
fronted by three facts :—
I. The strength and character of the opposition to the
existing prohibitory law. Upon this the committee say :—
'Among the witnesses for the petitioners there were very
many men whose character and opportunities for information
gave peculiar weight to their testimony. Several of the former
Governors of the State, a large majority of the municipal
officers of our cities, present and former Judges, present and
former district attorneys, eminent and noted ministers of the
gospel of every denomination, city missionaries, a large body of
our most distinguished medical men and chemists, sound and
experienced business men, many total abstinence men (some
of whom had advocated and been foremost in the enactment
of the present law), with very many others, coming from all
parts of the State, and looking at the question at issue from
their various points of view-testified in favour of a modifica-
tion of the law. It is without precedent in the history of the
Legislature of this State, that a criminal statute should be so
numerously opposed by men of this class and character."
II. That this opposition was increasing. "It is certainly a
significant fact that the opposition to this law seems steadily to
have increased. So long as the law was not enforced, there
was comparatively little opposition to it. As soon as it is
enforced, and the further that its principles are carried into
execution, there spring up opponents on every side, not merely
or chiefly those who are pecuniarily interested in the matter, but
thousands of good citizens, who cannot be assumed to be
controlled by any other motive than regard for the public
good."
((
III. The character of the legislation designed from time to
time by the supporters of the law to carry it out more effectually.
MASSACHUSetts.
189
The ordinary methods of procedure suffice for the enforcement
of the whole criminal code; but for this particular law, the
course taken by its supporters seems to indicate great distrust
on their part of the ordinary methods. A special State police
has been created; the district attorneys have been tied down
by special regulations depriving them in these cases of the
discretion allowed to them in all other matters. "These strict
enactments were designed to compel and have compelled
prosecuting officers to administer the law with a harshness not
deemed necessary in the case of other laws." Attempts have
been made to alter the jury laws in the trial of these cases;
and the Judges are not allowed the ordinary discretion in
awarding punishments.
These three facts, in the opinion of the committee, "tend
to raise serious doubts as to whether the law is approved by
the people; and, if not approved by the people, whether it is
a just and proper criminal law."
Some witnesses expressed their belief that the use of any
quantity of intoxicating liquor as a beverage is in all cases a
sin; but this did not appear to be the view of the mass of the
supporters of the law. Medical opinion was divided on the
question whether such beverages were beneficial or injurious.
The law did not prohibit the purchase or the use, but only the
sale, of liquors. "If it is wrong to use liquors as beverages,
why not punish those who use them? If the law studiously
neglects to punish the buyer and the user, is it not strong proof
that, in the opinion of those who framed it, the use is not
wrong? And if the use is not wrong, is there any sense or
justice in punishing those who sell for the use?”
Upon the argument that the general good requires all men
to abstain from liquor because some will use it improperly, the
committee maintained that it was beyond the legitimate scope
of legislative action to attempt, by criminal enactment, to
prevent the many from using these beverages because a few
may abuse them.
190
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
5
As regards the practical results of the law, the committee
were of opinion that, with a strong and vigilant State police, it
might be possible to prosecute successfully most of those who
openly violated the law, though, with public sentiment in most
of the cities and very many of the towns sustaining those who
sold, this was not always possible. But "the evidence before
the committee, though, of course, to some extent conflicting,
tended to show that in all those cities or towns where the
prosecutions against open places had been the most active, an
extraordinary number of such places was started, and that more
liquor and worse liquor was drunk, and that more intoxication
ensued."
The following statistics were given :-
Number of places in Boston in which liquor
was known to be sold...
Number of arrests for drunkenness
1854.
1,500
6,983
1866.
1,515
15,542
In January and February, 1867, when the law was enforced
with unprecedented vigour, a large further increase in the
number of arrests appeared. The report was general from
different parts of the State, that drunkenness and breaches
of the law were very prevalent in the cities and large towns,
while in the small towns* hardly any liquor was sold.
The committee called attention to the immoral business
practices sanctioned by the prohibitory law, which allowed men
to purchase liquors on credit, and then repudiate their debt,
and to the fact that liquors could not be attached in execution
of a judgment, since the officer who seized them would be
liable to prosecution for selling them.
* It must be recollected that, in Massachusetts, the word "town"
includes not only those urban districts which have not risen to the rank of
cities, but also all the rural districts.
MASSACHUSETTS.
191
In conclusion, the committee expressed their belief "that
the time had come when this prohibitory law-unsound in
theory, inconsistent with the traditional rights and liberties of
the people, tempting to fraud and protecting those who commit
it, in many communities not enforced because of thorough
disbelief in its principles, in other communities, when enforced,
driving the liquor traffic into secret places, and so increasing
rather than diminishing the amount of drunkenness and other
crimes—should be so far modified as that the rights of the
citizens will be respected, while, at the same time, the general
peace and order of the community will be better promoted."
The committee recommended that cider and beer containing
less than 3 per cent. of alcohol might be sold without licence,
and proposed in detail a licence law for other liquors. The
report was signed by three members of the Senate and five
members of the House.
A minority report was also presented (signed by one senator
and three members of the House), setting forth the evils of
intemperance and the necessity of prohibition being maintained.
The argument that the law could not be enforced was traversed,
the opinion of the district attorney for Cumberland County
being quoted in this sense.
The existing Local Option Law of Massachusetts is peculiar
in requiring a direct vote to be taken every year, in every city
and town,* on the question: "Shall licences be granted for
the sale of intoxicating liquors in this city (or town)?" Before
licences can be granted, an affirmative vote must prevail; in
the event either of no vote being taken or of an equality of
votes on either side, there would be no power to issue licences,
and liquor could not be legally sold. If the answer "yes"
has the majority, applications for licences are made in March
or April to the local municipal authority (in Boston, to the
""
* The whole State is divided into "cities" and "towns"-the
former now (1893) numbering 30, and the latter 321.
† In a city, the mayor and council may appoint a board of three Licence
192
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWs.
Board of Police), and the licences take effect on the 1st of
May. The licensing authority may refuse to issue a licence to a
person whom they deem unfit to receive it; "but nothing
herein shall be so construed as to compel" the granting of
licences.*
The following classes of licences are issued at the following
rates, the licence duties (except in the sixth class) having been
increased under a recent statute :—
Classes of Licence.
1. To sell liquor of any kind, to be drunk on
the premises...
...
Magda
2. Beer, cider, and wine, on
3. Beer and cider, on
4. Liquor of any kind, off
5. Beer, cider, and wine, off
6. Apothecaries-for medicinal, mechanical,
and chemical purposes only
...
...
...
...
...
...
•••
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
•
The licence-fees now actually charged in Boston are as
follows:
...
For Licences of the 1st Class, to sell all kinds of intoxicating liquors,
to be drunk on the premises :-
A. Innholders ...
B. Innholders
Common Victuallers
For Licences of the 2nd and 3rd Class, to sell malt liquors, cider, and
light wines, containing not more than 15 per cent. of alcohol, to be drunk
on the premises :
Common Victuallers
$500
...
...
…….
...
CAN
...
Not less than $1,000.
Not less than $250.
Ditto.
Not less than $300.
Not less than $150.
$1.
...
...
Fees.
...
···
...
...
$1,500
I, 200
1,000
Commissioners to be the licensing authority. In 1892, a Bill was introduced
in the Legislature for making such appointment compulsory, with a view
to protecting the purity of municipal administration by removing from the
aldermen the pressure of saloon interests.
* In 1888, the Board of Aldermen of Haverhill refused to give any
licences, although the vote of the city had been cast, by a small majority,
in favour of licences.
MASSACHUSetts.
193
For Licences of the 4th Class, to sell all kinds of liquors, not to be
drunk on the premises:
Grocers*
Wholesale Druggists
A. Wholesale Dealers (only to be issued in con-
junction with a first-class victualler licence)
B. Wholesale Dealers...
***
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
…….
...
...
For Licences of the 4th Class, to distillers
For Licences of the 5th Class, to sell malt liquors, cider, and light
wines, containing not more than 15 per cent. of alcohol, not to be drunk
on the premises :-
Bottlers ...
Brewers...
For Licences of the 6th Class, to druggists
Special Club Licence
*
...
•
...
··
...
...
...
10
•
...
***
$300
300
...
300
1,000
1,000
$500
1,000
I
50
The following extract gives similar information for another
large town :-
WORCESTER LICENCE-FEES FIXED.
[Special Dispatch to the Boston Herald.]
Worcester, March 27, 1893.—The Board of Aldermen to-night
fixed the fees for liquor licences as follows:-Innholder, first class,
$1,400; common victuallers, first class, $1,4co; common victuallers,
second class, $1,100; wholesalers, fourth class, $2,200; brewers,
fifth class, $1,000; grocers, wholesalers, bottlers, fifth class, $500;
druggists, sixth class, $1. These are the same fees as were fixed
two years ago.
A petition, asking that first-class and fourth-class
licences be granted to the same person, was tabled.
By a law which was passed in 1888 and came into operation
in 1889 (in which year also the licence duties were raised), the
number of licences (exclusive of apothecaries') is limited to
I per 1,000 of the population (in Boston, 1 in 500), with a
special provision for summer resorts, where the number may be
increased during the three months which constitute the season. †
* A Bill to prohibit liquor-selling by grocers was brought forward in
1892 and 1893.
† A proposal to repeal this law was in 1893 defeated in the House by
131 votes to 80. A Bill was also introduced proposing the adoption of a
modified form of the Norwegian system. A commission has been appointed
to investigate that system and to report in 1894.
N
194
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
The immediate effect of these two laws (high-licence and
limitation of number) will be seen from a comparison of the
following figures for the two years ending respectively April,
1889, and April, 1890:--

Massachusetts
Boston
...
...
No. of
Licences.
4,832
1,798
1889.
Amount of
Duty,
$1,286,305
616,948
No. of
Licences.
2,277
780
1890.
Amount of
Duty.
$1,812,810
891,668
In a single line of street in Boston, a little over half a mile
long, including the intersecting side streets for a distance of
about one hundred yards on each side, the saloons were
reduced from 122 to 29,*
The annual report of the Law and Order League † for 1890,
issued after one year's experience of the new legislation, stated
that (contrary to the expectation of many) the law had been
well enforced in Boston, both in regard to the observance by
licensees of the hours of closing and the other regulations
applicable to them, and in regard to the suppression of
* A map was printed of this section of the town, showing graphically
by black dots the saloons before and after the change.
†The Citizens' Law and Order League of Massachusetts was
formed in 1882 "to secure a better enforcement of the restrictive features
of existing laws for the regulation of the liquor traffic." By 1892
branches of the League had been established in III municipalities. In the
report for 1892 it is said that at the time when the League was founded
more than three-quarters of the towns and cities in the State had voted
(C
no licence," and in nearly all the saloons were as open and doing as
large a business as when they were sanctioned by licences. The police
were largely under the control and acted in the interests of the liquor-
sellers. The change brought about in the police system in 1885 altered
this. The League claims credit for having in ten years brought about a
reduction in the number of licences in Boston from about 2,600 to 896
(the number for 1892), while the receipts from licence fees have been
quadrupled, and the provisions of the law have become enforced with
vigour and increasing success.
MASSACHUSetts.
195
unlicensed places. On the other hand, there was an increase
of arrests for drunkenness, which, however, the report attributed
partly to a better system of patrol by the police, and partly to
a stricter enforcement of the no-licence law in the cities
adjoining Boston, a change which had resulted in their drinking
population coming into that city in increased numbers. During
the latter of the two years 39 per cent. of the persons arrested
for drunkenness in Boston were non-residents of the city. In
the following year (1891) the number of arrests fell off by
about 2,000, a result attributed in a great degree to the intro-
duction, under circumstances about to be noticed, of tables in
lieu of bars for the accommodation of drinkers.
A licensee of the first three classes must hold a licence as
an inn-keeper or common victualler (a requirement which
seems to have long had a lax interpretation)*; and until
recently there was a provision forbidding him to keep a
public bar. This last provision remained for some fourteen.
years in the statute before any attempt was made to enforce it.
In 1890, however, the licensees were warned by the board of
police, at the instance of the Law and Order League, that
a strict compliance with this condition would be insisted on.
The result was the introduction of the practice of selling liquor
at tables instead of over counters, a practice also of doubt-
ful legality. The change, however, was apparently beneficial,
since it was immediately attended by a diminution of arrests
for drunkenness; but in 1891 the public bar clause was
repealed, and at the same time a check was placed on the
serving of liquor at tables. Bars were once more brought into
use, and an increase of arrests for drunkenness immediately
* Any one was allowed to call himself a common victualler who had a
stove, a table, and two or three plates, knives and forks. A case is
mentioned of a man buying a stove, etc., for the purpose of obtaining
a licence, and immediately selling it when the licence was obtained; and
it is said that 1,500 licences would be issued when there were not more
than 250 bonâ fide common victuallers. At the present time, however, the
practice is believed to follow more nearly the intention of the law.
N 2
196
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
followed. In 1892 an unsuccessful attempt was made to
re-enact the prohibition on bar-drinking. * The following
figures of the number of arrests for drunkenness in Boston in
three consecutive years indicate the effects of these changes in
the law :-
Year ending April 30,† 1890
""
""
>>
""
""
""
1891 (the year of the tables)
25,033
23,225
1892 (after repeal of bar clause) 31,691
...
•
...
...
The increase, however, of arrests in 1892 is believed to be
partly due to an alteration in the law respecting the punish-
ment for drunkenness, to be noticed later.
No sale is allowed on Sundays or public holidays or days of
election (except to guests in hotels), nor between II p.m. and
6 a.m., nor to drunkards or minors.
There has been much abuse of the law allowing Sunday
selling to guests in hotels, but the Police Board issued a
warning in 1889 that no person would be considered a guest
who had not hired a room. Some years ago sales to children
were frequent; and the early efforts of the Law and Order
League were chiefly directed to checking this abuse.
A place used.for the illegal sale of liquor is a common nuisance
and an injunction for its suppression may be obtained on the
information of the district attorney, or on petition of ten voters.
Intoxicating liquor" is defined to include any beverage
containing more than 1 per cent. of alcohol.
((
A common victualler's licence cannot be granted if the owner of
any real estate within twenty-five feet objects, nor can any premises
within four hundred feet of a school be licensed for on-consumption.
An attempt to extend this provision to buildings used for religious
worship was defeated in 1892.
The law further contains provision for the issue of search
* The Bill was passed by the Senate and House and vetoed by the
Governor.
†The date at which licences expire. The police returns (see p. 221)
are made up for the twelve months ending November 30.
MASSACHUSETTS.
197
The
warrants, and for the seizure and analysis * of liquor, etc.
penalty for violation of the liquor law is fine from $250 to $500, and
imprisonment from one to six months. A licence is also liable to
be forfeited for violation of any of its conditions.
In districts which vote no licence, all places used by clubs for
the purpose of selling, distributing or dispensing liquors to their
members or others are deemed common nuisances.
The "civil damage" clause provides that any one injured in
person, property, or means of support, by an intoxicated person, or
in consequence of his intoxication, has a right of action for damages
against the person who supplied any liquor wholly or partly causing
the intoxication. It has been held that if the damages cannot be
recovered from the licensee, his sureties may be sued upon their
bond.
The mayor, or (in towns) a selectman, or a relative may give
notice respecting any drunkard to liquor-sellers not to sell to him.
If the notice is not observed, the relative of the drunkard may sue
the offenders for damages not less than $100 nor more than $500.
The law requires that physiology and hygiene, including special
instructions as to the effects of alcoholic drinks, stimulants, and
narcotics on the human system, be taught as a regular branch of
study to all pupils in all general schools supported wholly or in
part by public money.
It is said that in 1875, the temperance party being
disgusted at the repeal of prohibition, and therefore taking
little part in the execution of the new law, and the liquor
dealers straining it as far as they could, there ensued for some
time a considerable laxity. The Licence Commissioners, how
ever, reported in 1878 that under the licence law the con-
sumption of distilled spirits had been greatly diminished, as
was shown from various sources, among them from the
evidence of the wholesale dealers and distillers, who asked
for a reduction of the duties on the ground that their trade
* In 1878 the Licence Commissioners took a quantity of samples of
liquor for analysis, the result of which is stated in their report for that
year. The liquor proved to be to a great extent adulterated with water
and colouring matter, but no really poisonous or injurious adulteration
was found.
198
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWs.
had diminished 40 to 60 per cent., owing to the increased use
of malt liquors. Under prohibition, the use of beer was
comparatively small, owing to its bulk; spirits also were of
inferior quality, so that when a seizure was made the loss was
small. The commissioners, in the same report, gave the
following figures of arrests for drunkenness in Boston:
1874 (prohibition)
1875 (licence)
1876
1877
""
*"
...
···
...
:
:
...
•
...
...
:
...
...
...
...
...
...
…….
...
I1,592
10,325
8,564
8,213
The police force of Boston, which, until 1885, had been
under the control of Police Commissioners appointed by the
municipality, was in that year placed under a board of police,
appointed by the Governor and Council-the city authorities
having certain concurrent powers as regards the fixing of
salaries and the number of constables. This change was
promoted by the Law and Order League, in the interests of
a better administration of the licence laws. It is said by the
advocates of the new system that liquor licences used to be
granted or refused, according as the applicant had or lacked
political influence, and that the old police force was so controlled
by political considerations that a combination of law-breakers
could and did say to police officers: "Serve us, or we will
take your buttons off." A stop has now been put to these
abuses; and it is claimed that the efforts of the League have
given to Boston the best police system yet inaugurated in the
United States, and that the liquor laws are better administered
there than in any other large city in the country.* Selling on
Sundays and after hours is reduced to small proportions—a
fact which, there is good reason to believe, is largely due to the
police being independent of the municipality and of local
* ( Report of the Secretary at the tenth annual meeting of the
Citizens' Law and Order League of Massachusetts, 1892."
MASSACHUSETTS.
199
politics.* A continual agitation is carried on, more or less
actively, for giving back the police to the city, and for taking
away from the board the licensing power which is now vested
in it. On the other hand, an attempt has been made-hitherto
without success-to place the whole of the police throughout
the State under State control--a favourite argument for the
adoption of this course being that the great majority of the
laws which the police have to enforce are State laws.
The Boston police force numbers about 900 of all ranks,
or, roughly, I to every 500 inhabitants (and one to every place
licensed for the sale of liquor). The cost of the force for the
year ending November, 1892, according to the official returns,
was $1,172,000. The area under its charge is upwards of 23,000
acres of land, besides the harbour and islands in the harbour.†
Opinions differ in Massachusetts regarding the merits of
the "high-licence" system. The arguments used in con-
demnation of the system are: That it places the trade in the
hands of the wealthiest and ablest men engaged in it, who
become a great local power; that it is a source of corruption
in public officers; that it obliges the licensees to push their
trade to the utmost, and by illegal as well as legal means, in
order to recoup themselves for their outlay; that it leads to
illicit trade the poorer saloon-keepers, who are crowded out
by their more powerful brethren, continuing to carry on business
in an underground way, while the licensed dealers, who are
themselves continually breaking the law, are not in a position
to enforce it (as it is commonly expected that they will) against
the unlicensed. The advocates of high-licence, on the other
hand, admit that, if it were not accompanied by a limit on the
number of licences, their system would be likely to promote
* In an address to the people of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, the Rev.
Wilbur F. Crafts, D.D. (author of "The Sabbath for Man"), declared
that Boston had the quietest Sunday of any large city in the Union; the
saloons were closed and the streets orderly.
† A detailed account of the police force in Boston was given in the
Boston Sunday Herald, February 14, 1892.
200
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
breaches of the restrictive regulations on the part of the licence-
holders; but that, with such a limit, this objection does not
apply. In Boston, it is maintained that the licensed premises
are better conducted; that the proprietors take much more care
to observe the conditions of their licences than they did when
a saloon-licence cost only $125—the same licence for which
$1,300 is now paid the dealers now feeling that they have
something substantial to lose if they are detected violating
their licences; while, at the same time, the law successfully
asserts itself against unlicensed dealers.
The amount now received from licence-fees in Boston is
almost equal to the cost of the police force. The receipts from
these fees during a series of eleven years have been :
1882
1853
1884
1885
1886
1887
••
...
...
...
4.
...
...
...
...
...
...
YEARS, ENDING NOVEMBER 30.
$258,865 1888
282,324 1889
305,551 1890 (high-licence)
521,178 1891
511,830 1892
602,841
...
...
...
...
...
………
••
...
•
...
...
...
...
$585,002
616,948
891,668
1,032,672
1,058,146
Upon the general question, whether the existing liquor
laws of Massachusetts-the leading principles of which are local
option, high-licence, and limitation of the number of licences-
are adequately enforced, and to what extent they are successful
in controlling drunkenness, there appears to be a general belief
that, in the great majority of the country districts and in some,
perhaps a majority, of the cities, a vote of "no licence" implies
a condition of sentiment favourable to the enforcement of the
law, and that in such cases it is generally enforced with vigour
and, on the whole, with success-greater success than is likely to
attend the enforcement of a general prohibitory law in a locality
which does not distinctly favour it; and it is claimed that the
requirement of a local option vote annually has the double
advantage of keeping public opinion directed upon the liquor
question, and of applying the law of prohibition to just those.
places in which, for the time being, it is possible to enforce it.
MASSACHUSETTS.
201
In the more populous places, however, it is impossible entirely
to prevent the illicit trade being carried on in secret; and, in
some cases, it flourishes quite openly and without restraint.
Advocates of prohibition have themselves expressed the opinion.
that it is better that "licence" should be voted in Boston
(though they would not themselves vote for it), on the ground
that prohibition cannot as yet be there enforced.
Illegal liquor-selling by druggists seems also to be not
uncommon in prohibitory districts, in many of which persons
have entered the drug business apparently for the purpose of
selling intoxicating liquor (under the provision authorising such
sale for medicinal, mechanical, and chemical purposes). In
1891, nearly three times as many druggists' licences were granted
as there were in 1884. This increase is the more remarkable
seeing that more than 200 municipalities have discontinued
granting any such licences.
Year
in
which
vote
taken.
1
The following table gives some details of recent voting on
the annual question of licence or no licence. The vote, in
towns, is taken in the early part of the year, and in cities in
December. The licence year begins May I ; so that the vote
in a town governs the year in which the vote is taken, while, in
a city, it does not take effect till the following year. The
return from which the figures in the table are taken is for the
calendar year; the table, therefore, does not show the state of
affairs at any given moment, resulting from the votes cast in
both cities and towns:-

Number of cities and towns
voting on question: "Shall
licences be granted?"
Yes.
No.
Cities. Towns. Cities. Towns.
12
18*
Number of votes
cast.
Yes.
No,
Aggregate population (approximate).
Of cities
Voting Yes. Voting
No.
Of towns
Voting
Yes.
1890 18 69 10
1891 16
1892
61
43
12
Including two newly-created cities, Everett and Medford.
•••
Voting
No.
257 129,268 108,533 1,095,000 277,000
262 119,191 127,123 1,024,000 348,000 230,000 636,000
278 134,819 158,957 848,000 546,000 174,000 670,000
...
202
American Liquor Laws.
Comparing the weight of the voting on this question with
the total number of registered voters and with the vote for
Governor, we find the following result :-
Year.
1891
1892
Registered voters.
399,000
448,500
Total vote on Local
Option.
246,500
294,000
Total vote for Governor.
321,500
380,000

The liquor question does not, therefore, on the whole, call
out a very heavy vote, but the figures for the last three
years show a steady progress for "no licence," which, in 1892,
had carried three-fifths in number of the cities, and two-fifths of
the city population; while in more than six-sevenths of the
towns, containing something less than four-fifths of the popula-
tion outside the cities, no licences were issued. In both 1891
and 1892, an aggregate majority of votes was given for “no
licence," and, in the latter year, more than one-half of the
population of the State were committed to prohibition.
If, however, individual places are taken, the progress is less
uniform. The cities, in particular, show a somewhat remarkable
tendency to and fro between licence and no licence.* Thus,
in 1891, two cities changed from "no licence" to "licence,"
while four took the opposite course. In 1892, the same
tendency was much more marked; of the whole twenty-eight
cities which voted as such in the previous year (the two newly-
made cities being omitted), fourteen reversed the previous
year's vote-five turning from "dry" to "wet," and nine from
"wet" to 66
dry." This would seem to show that in a large
proportion, at least, of the urban communities local option,
after a trial of eleven years, has by no means produced a settled
""
* Four cities-Quincy (16,700), Newton (24,300), Malden (23,000), and
Somerville (40,000)—are distinguished for having consistently voted “No
from the beginning down to the present time. All are in the immediate
neighbourhood of Boston-Quincy, the most distant, being within eight
miles. In the latter place the law has been enforced with much vigour
owing largely to the exertions of one citizen.
MASSACHUSETTS.
203
state of public opinion on the liquor question. But it must be
added that the voting turns, not infrequently, on a false issue,
and is decided on some ground connected only in a secondary
degree, or even not connected at all, with the simple question
of the expediency of recognising or prohibiting the saloon.
Sometimes, in places where there is no really preponderating
prohibitory sentiment, it happens that, owing to public disgust
occasioned by the discovery of gross jobbery or corruption in
the granting of licences, a vote of "no licence" will be carried ;
occasionally, the same result will be brought about by the
action of disappointed candidates for licences, who are willing
to revenge themselves on their more fortunate rivals, and
perhaps think to improve their chances of carrying on a
remunerative illicit trade. In such cases, the law will probably
be to a great extent evaded—perhaps even be little else than a
dead letter.
The "no licence" vote of 1892 in Fall River was, as I was
informed, attributable to internal dissensions in the Municipal
Council, and it was not anticipated that any serious and
sustained attempt would be made to enforce the law. In
one place, I was even told that a local option vote had once
turned on a dispute between two rival churches concerning the
purchase of a plot of land.
""
In 1891, a great rally against liquor was made in Boston—
the vote on that side of the question rising from 13,900 to
21,500, while the liquor vote fell from 29,1co to 25,600. In
the following year this movement went still further, "licence
being carried only by 31,600 to nearly 30,500. Here, again,
we find an example of the question being determined on a side
issue. A portion of the saloon vote had been cast at the
election for Governor (November, 1892) in favour of the
Republican candidate ;* accordingly, in the following month
* It was alleged that one of the Police Commissioners (who are the
licensing authority in Boston), being a Republican and a politician, had
made his influence felt among the liquor-sellers at the election. The
204
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
when the local option election was held, a number of
Democratic votes, which, under ordinary circumstances, would
have been cast for "licence," fell on the opposite side by way
of retaliation on the saloon-keepers for what was regarded as
an act of apostacy.
As examples of the tendency of individual places to fluctuate.
backwards and forwards on the local option question, the
following cases may be mentioned; to add largely to them
would probably be a mere question of labour in examining the
returns for several years. The figures of arrests for drunkenness
are taken from a newspaper* published in the anti-liquor in-
terest, which gave them as showing the improved results
obtained under " no licence"
FITCHBURG (population in 1890, 22,000).
Year.
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1886
1887
1890
1891
1892
Local Option Vote
(passed previous Dec.).
No licence.
Licence.
No licence.
Licence.
No licence.
Arrests for Drunkenness.
May to October.
WORCESTER (population 84,600).
No licence.
Licence.
No licence.
Licence.
No licence.
181
253
128
461
315
596
1,578
612
1,699
952
A
Republicans themselves denied this, and stated that the transfer of a
certain number of liquor votes to their side was due to the non-partisa
character of the police and licensing administration, which placed the liquor
men in a more independent position and enabled them to throw off their
subservience to the Democrats, both in the matter of votes and of contribu-
tions to the Democratic campaign fund. In either case, it was agreed
that the "no licence" vote cast by many Democrats at the local option
election was an act of retaliation.
*The Frozen Truth for December 9, 1892, published at Cambridge,
Mass.
MASSACHUSETTS.
205
1890
1891
1892
HAVERHILL (population 27,400).
No licence.
Licence.
No licence.
176
612
373
It should be pointed out that a "no licence" vote, passed
in December, takes effect only in May, current licences con-
tinuing in force till the end of April. On the other hand, if
in the following December the voting is reversed, though no
licences can be given to take effect before May, still, in practice,
the prohibition on the sale of liquor will not be enforced after
the adverse vote is taken. Consequently, in the case supposed,
"no licence" will have practical effect only from May to
December-seven months-while, in the converse case, the
sale of liquor will go on without interference for nearly a year
and a half, i.e., from the moment when the vote for "licence"
was given to the May year following, when the licences expire.
In Worcester and some other cities, it is admitted that the
prohibitory law is not generally well enforced; but friends of
"no licence" claim that it does good even where the enforce-
ment is very imperfect, and they point to the figures just given
to support their view. On the other hand, it is said that some
allowance should probably be made for a greater proportion
of drunkenness which, in places where the open saloon is
abolished, does not appear on the streets, and so swell the
returns of arrests.
Subject to such fluctuations, the larger cities, on the whole,
generally vote for "licence"-the chief exception being
Cambridge, with 70,000 inhabitants, which from 1887 onwards
has steadily outlawed the saloon. The circumstances, however,
of Cambridge are peculiar. It has a large resident population
of persons connected with Harvard University, and it is close to
Boston.* There is little doubt that both in this and in other
* In Cambridge, it is said that "no licence" was first carried
(December, 1886) through dissatisfaction with the municipal authority,
206
AMERICAN LIQUOR Laws.
cities and towns in the immediate neighbourhood of Boston
the vote for “no licence" is supported by many who are not
prohibitionists, but are influenced by reasons of local con-
venience and the facilities afforded by the adjoining city. In
Cambridge, the law is said to be, on the whole, very well
enforced, though a certain amount of liquor is illegally sold by
druggists, and the discovery and punishment of breaches of
the liquor law are sometimes attended with difficulties greater
than are experienced in dealing with crimes of a different
character. Thus, the chief of the police, in his report for 1889,
complained that he had great difficulty in obtaining evidence
in these cases, and that good citizens, who in other cases would
render assistance, refused to testify.
The following statistics for Cambridge are taken from the
official reports. The number of licences issued for several years
before the first " no licence" vote was: 1881, 155; 1882, 105;
1883, 200; 1884, 212; 1885, 314; 1886, 337 :-
CAMBRIDGE (70,000).

Total arrests
Drunkenness
Violation of liquor law
Intoxicated persons assisted home
Search warrants issued
Paupers in City Almshouse
Lodgers+...
Police force
...
•••
...
···
4.
...
1886.
1,703
720
36
43
27
302
1,078
76
Year, ending November 30.
1888. 1889. 1890. 1891.
1,469
653
::
...
···
J
1,544 1,773
722
50
I2
92
304
534
79
...
...
···
...
...
...
...
2,312
900
146*
28
142
239
70
85
Cambridge is connected with Boston by two bridges; and
a large number of the arrests for drunkenness are made at the
which was alleged to have used too little discrimination in the issue of
licences, and, in particular, to have licensed certain premises in the
immediate neighbourhood of an adjoining "no licence " place, for the
benefit of persons coming from thence.
* 99 convictions for illegal sale of liquor in 1891.
† i.e., casual poor persons receiving a night's lodging.
MASSACHUsetts.
207
Cambridge ends of the bridges, as the revellers return from
Boston. From the Report of the Prison Commissioners for
1892, it appears that a large increase in the number of arrests
for drunkenness took place in that year-the figures being, for
the twelve months ending September 30, 1,515, as against 935
the previous year. The increase in 1892 was general in the
cities; but in the towns there was a diminution.
The following statistics of a few other cities may be added:
SALEM (30,800).
Voted "Yes
""
Lodgers
""
""
...
""
"Yes
"No"
...
""
...
...
Total arrests
Drunkennesss
Violation of liquor laws...
Intoxicated persons assisted home
Liquor seizures
warrants issued, nothing found..
...
··
...
··
...
...
...
...
...
...
•
..C
...
...
...
···
...
...
...
December, 1890.
1891.
1892.
1890.
Year ending Nov. 30.
1,217
904
6
""
20
8
18
I,144
در

1891.
1,458
1,043
2
23
8
16
966
Year ending
Sept. 30,
1892.
1,552
1,119
..
···
...
...
Salem voted " no licence" in 1892, having for some years
previously gone the other way. The mayor in his annual
address (1890) stated that the system of territorial limitation
in the issue of licences (ie., restricting them to a particular
area in the town), in vogue for several years, was giving general
satisfaction. The city marshal in 1890, referring in his report
to the diminution of arrests for drunkenness (which were 240
less than in the previous year), remarked: "This, I think, is
due in part to the fact that licences were granted in the town
of Peabody last May." This illustrates a common and obvious
result of local option, of which Boston and its surrounding
cities present a more striking example. When Peabody allowed
no saloons, the inhabitants of that place who wanted liquor came
to Salem; when saloons were opened again in Peabody, they
208
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
stayed at home, relieving Salem of an appreciable quantity of
drunkenness.
Voted "No"
"Yes"
"No
"Yes"
""
";
""
Total arrests
Common drunkard.
Drunkenness
Violating liquor law
Intoxicated persons
···
sent home
Lodgers
Income from liquor
licences
Police force
•••
...
د.
**
""
Voted "Yes"
...
""
""
""
...
•
Worcester (84,655).
1887.
...
···
...
...
...
...
233
...
:
...
···
4,236 4,241 3,949
27
2,954
79
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Total arrests
Drunkenness
Violation of liquor law
Intoxicated persons assisted home
Liquor seizures
""
search warrants served
Income from liquor licences ...
...
...
1888. 1889.
104
...
•
...
Year ending November 30.
...
...
...
...
The city marshal, in his report for 1889, claimed that the
diminution of the total arrests, and of the arrests for drunken-
ness, proved the restriction on the number of licensed places
to have produced good results.
GLOUCESTER (24,650).
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
741
5,097
$83,206
94
•••
December, 1889.
1890.
1891.
1892.
………
1890.
•
""
1890.
3,111
...
857
488
19
103
38
197
$23,902
"
...
""
...
1891.
""
""
4,060 | 4,064
42
2,894 2,827
163
868
5,146
December, 1890.
1891.
1892.
$120,267
103
Year ending Nov. 30.
1891.
I, 119
671
Year end-
ing Sept.
30, 1892.

31
98
44
145
$34,386
Year ending
Sept. 30,
1892.
1,533
1,123
...
..
...
...
MASSACHUSetts.
209
In the four cities which have always excluded the saloon
since the first year of local option, the statistics of arrests for
drunkenness in the last two years are as follows (taken from
the report of the Prison Commisioners) :-
Year ending Sept. 30. Malden.
1891
1892
Year ending
November 30.
172
252
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
No. of Arrests.
Newton.
568
838
684
612
534
635
750
The figures in the following table of arrests for breaches of
the liquor laws in Boston during the last few years are taken
from the annual reports of the Board of Police:
Quincy.
Increase or Decrease
per cent. compared
with preceding year.
+ 47/1/2
18
C
132
184
10/1/1
· 13
Somerville.
808
1,218

Percentage of
foreign birth.
···
69
68
63
65
Much of the liquor trade is in Irish hands, a fact which
accounts for the high percentage shown in the fourth column
of the table.
The large increase of arrests in 1889 is doubtless due to
the sudden reduction in the number of licences brought about
by the new law which took effect in that year. The proposed
constitutional amendment adopting prohibition was also
defeated in 1889; and it has been suggested that this fact
may have contributed to the increase of illicit trading, from an
idea that public opinion was lax.
The chairman of the Board of Police stated before a
committee of the Legislature in January, 1892, that complaints
of the manner in which the liquor dealers carried on their
business had continuously decreased since 1886. "Kitchen
bar-rooms," he said (i.e., unlicensed "dives" where liquor is
O
210
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
sold), "exist, and, I suppose, always will exist."* The
following statement was furnished by him (as reported in the
Boston Morning News, February 6th, 1892), with the excep-
tion of the figures for 1892, which I have taken from the Report
of the Board of Police for that year :-


No. of complaints for
violation of condi-
tions of licence, made
either to board or in
court †
Licences forfeited
...
5)
""
(druggists)
Licences in force (Nov.
30) ‡
Applications for licen-
ces rejected...
···
...
...
1885.
332
65
···
1886. 1887.
104
196
57
45 26
42
44 29
3
I
I
5 10 12 6
3
5
2,677 2,059 1,929 1,789 779 892 895 896
1,068
701 514 492 425 287 229
...
391
108
1888.
...
1889. 1890. 1891. 1892.
197
* One kitchen bar-room is mentioned which the police had unusual
difficulty in detecting. People were repeatedly seen coming out drunk,
but repeated visits were made by the police without success. At last a
pipe was found and followed through three different houses round into
another street, where six kegs of beer were discovered in a cellar connected
with the pipe. The beer was drawn out of the common faucet in the sink,
whence either beer or water could be drawn at will. In another case,
after a long and fruitless search, a recess containing liquor was found
behind a picture hanging on the wall. Sometimes when an officer enters
and calls for drink, if any suspicion is felt, he will be served with beer
which turns out to contain less than 1 per cent. of alcohol. It is said that
at the present time beer is no longer sold in the kitchen bar-rooms; only
hard liquor is kept in small quantities on the person (the stock being kept
in another house), so that all search of the premises is useless; and the
vendor will only sell to people whom he knows. There is another class of
illicit dealers who take in lodgers, to whom the liquor ostensibly belongs for
their private use; and if a seizure is made, the liquor is claimed by them.
I have found some trace of this kind of evasion in Pittsburg (Pennsylvania),
where beer would be served by the keeper of the lodging-house to the
boarders, ostensibly without price, as part of their regular board.
+ The Police Board, as well as the law courts, have the judicial power
of cancelling licences for breach of the conditions printed on them.
The figures include all but druggists' and special club licences.
MASSACHUSetts.
21I
It seems to be less certain that local option has largely
decreased the whole amount of drinking and of drunkenness
throughout the State than that it has had this effect in the pro-
hibitory portions of it. It certainly is thought by some, whose
opportunities for observation give weight to their opinion, that
while the law has on the whole increased the number of
teetotallers, it has also tended to some extent to increase
the drinking of those who drink, and that there is now a
greater consumption of liquor and more drunkenness than
existed before 1875. It is impossible to supply any con-
clusive evidence in proof or disproof of this opinion; but, if
its correctness could be established, the fact would be the
more remarkable since it is admitted that in places voting
no licence" the law is generally better enforced than the
State prohibitory law used to be.
،،
According to the Brewer's Handbook, the consumption of
beer in Massachusetts was 1,017,191 barrels in 1888–89, and
953,467 barrels in 1889–90, a falling off of more than 69,000
barrels in the year following the introduction of high-licence.
It is argued by the advocates of the new law that the Hand-
book would not be likely to over-estimate the shrinkage in the
trade, and that it is safe to infer a still greater decrease in the
consumption of spirits.
The question of drunkenness in Massachusetts has to be
considered in connection with a recent change in the law
respecting the punishment for that offence. Under the old
law drunkenness was punishable by a fine of $5, and, for a
third offence, imprisonment; but since, in order to obtain a
conviction for a third offence, the previous convictions had to
be alleged in the complaint and proved at the trial, proceed-
ings were rarely taken on the more serious charge. In 1891
the pecuniary penalty was abolished at the instance of the
Massachusetts Prison Association, who argued that the State
They include "off" as well as "on" licences, and also brewers' and
distillers' licences. In 1892 the whole number of " " licences was 680.
on
0 2
212
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
had no moral right to increase its revenue by fines, unless it
was proved that they were of some use in diminishing crime;
that the fine for drunkenness did not in fact deter men from
becoming drunk; that the system of imposing a $5 fine in
every case led to a mechanical administration of the law
undesirable in the interests of the public at large, and of
the drunkard himself, and in particular unjust in very many
cases to his family, who really paid the fine and bore the
punishment-being deprived of money which they could not
afford to lose, while the offender himself suffered little, and
was not deterred from repeating his offence. If the fine was
not paid, he went to prison for thirty days; and a man has
been known to spend in a single year eleven months in prison
as the result of eleven convictions within the year for drunken-
ness. Another case was mentioned of a man who had been
committed to jail 140 times for that offence.* The fine,
morever (it was argued), tended to pauperise the drunkard's
family, and was therefore burdensome to the State, as well as
unjust to the relatives. These considerations induced the
Legislature to abolish the fine, and in substitution for it the
power was given to sentence the drunkard to be imprisoned
for any term not exceeding twelve months,† or to be com-
mitted to a reformatory, with the proviso, however, that if he
satisfied the court that he had not been twice previously
convicted for drunkenness within twelve months, his case
might be "placed on file," i.e., practically dismissed. The
*Out of 25,000 committals to prison for drunkenness in 1890, 23,000
were for non-payment of fines. It is stated that in 1889 nearly 7,000 persons
in Massachusetts went to prison for drunkenness who had been so com-
mitted from three to fifteen times each, and nearly 1,000 who had been
committed from sixteen to one hundred times each.
†The absence of a minimum limit to the imprisonment was due (I was
informed) to the representation of a Judge who urged that in some cases
of drunkenness imprisonment for a very few days was a good deterrent.
Minimum punishments are common in American statutes, less discretion
in this respect being allowed the Judges than is usual in England.
Some confusion seems to have arisen at first from an idea that it was
MASSACHUSEtts.
213
new law further provides that if a person arrested for drunken-
ness states in writing that he has not been previously convicted
of drunkenness within twelve months, and the officer in charge
of the lock-up is satisfied that the statement is probably true,
he may release the prisoner pending investigation by the
"probation officer." If, however, he does not exercise the
power of release, and the statements are found to be true, the
prisoner may be released by order of the Judge without being
actually brought into court. If the officer exercises his power
of release, and the statement proves to be untrue, it is his
duty to proceed against the offender. Such are the main
provisions of this Act, which also provides for a record being
kept of all cases.
The release by the police of men arrested for drunkenness
on recovering from their intoxication, without being brought
into court, was a practice which to some extent had previously
existed, and it is said that about two thousand persons were
released in this way in 1890, but the practice first received legal
sanction in the law of 1891.* The objects of the new law are
thus stated in the report of the second annual meeting of the
Massachusetts Prison Association :----
"Its main purpose is to secure to each person arrested an
intelligent and just judgment of his case. If he is one who offends
infrequently, and is at other times law-abiding and at work, its
purpose is, when he becomes sober, to release him out of court and
to let him return to his home and work without the degradation of
public exposure in the criminal dock. If he is a frequent or
habitual offender, the law permits the court to impose such length
of imprisonment as will protect the community from the danger of
his degrading habit and give him the chance of reform, if reform is
possible. To make this distinction possible, the courts are given
not competent for the court to commit on the first or second offence, but
it was afterwards well established that this was at the discretion of the
court. The point was indeed expressly decided in December, 1892,
by the Supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth v. Morrissey.
* A police officer releasing a prisoner in this way, prior to the passing
of the new law, ran some risk of an action for false imprisonment.
214
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWs.
by the new law records and officers whose duty it is to investigate
the cases, and report the facts on which intelligent judgments can
be based. The power of release out of court is placed, subject to
certain checks and conditions, in the hands of the officer in charge
of the places of custody. The law was carefully worded to make
the power permissive and not mandatory, it being expressly intended
to throw on the arrested man the burden of satisfying the officer
that he was an infrequent offender, a decent law-abiding person,
and so a proper subject for release."
In other words, the object is to discriminate between a
man who is drunk and a man who is a drunkard.*
The "probation officers" already referred to are an in-
stitution now forming an integral part of the judicial system
of Massachusetts; and are a link between philanthropical and
charitable work on the one hand, and the administration of
the criminal law and police on the other. The germ of this
institution is traceable to a benevolent shoemaker of Boston,
named John Augustus, who from his frequent attendance in
the municipal courts, and his interest in the prisoners brought
up for trial, came to be recognised by the magistrates as a very
useful, though an informal, assistant in the administration of
justice; so that, when he appealed for the release of a
prisoner, and undertook some responsibility for his future
conduct, the case would frequently be "placed on file," that is
to say, the man would be let go, and as long as he behaved
himself would hear nothing more of the charge. After the
death of John Augustus, the same work was taken up by
* While on the subject of the punishment of drunkenness I may
mention that in a supplement to the Report of 1888 of the Minnesota
State Board of Corrections and Charities, there is a special report by Rev.
M. M'G. Dana, D.D., on the English prisons, in which, speaking of the
inconvenience and uselessness of repeated sentences of a few days, he
quotes Mr. Horsley (the prison chaplain) as telling him that drunken
women will ask, "What is the use of giving me a month? It will only be
the same thing over again. It is cruel to be always letting me out only
that I may return. Why can't the magistrate give me time in prison to get
straight, or why can't the Government or somebody keep me here till I am
cured?"
MASSACHUsetts.
215
'Uncle" Cook, another benevolent citizen, who afterwards
was appointed chaplain of the county jail. In 1878 the
system thus inaugurated received legal recognition by the
appointment under the State law of a "probation officer" for
Boston, whose duties were to attend the criminal courts in the
county, to investigate the cases of persons charged with
crimes, and to recommend to the courts the "placing on
probation" of such persons as might be reasonably expected
to reform themselves without punishment. He was required
to visit the offenders placed on probation, and to render such
assistance and encouragement as would tend to keep them
from again offending. In 1880 a law was passed authorising the
appointment of a probation officer in each town and city in the
State; and in 1882 the appointment of two additional officers
for Boston was authorised. In 1891 the permissive law of
1880 was made compulsory, and it was enacted (Acts of 1891,
chap. 356, section 3) as follows:-" Each probation officer
shall inquire into the nature of every criminal case brought
before the court under whose jurisdiction he acts, and may
recommend that any person convicted by said court be placed
upon probation; the court may place the person so convicted
in the care of said probation officer för such time and upon
such conditions as may seem proper."
An offender, whose case has in this manner been investigated,
and who, after conviction, is placed upon probation instead
of being sentenced to imprisonment, is for a time kept under
the supervision of the probation officer, to whom he is required
to report himself periodically; and if he fails to conduct himself
satisfactorily or to comply with the conditions of his release,
the court, on a report from the officer, will order him to be
brought up, and may sentence him on the original charge.*
It
*The practice of different courts varies as regards the average length
of time during which offenders will remain on probation. In one case, a
minimum of six months and maximum of a year is mentioned; in other
courts, the ordinary period seems to be s orter.
216
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
is claimed that by this system much hold and much influence
is gained over many of those who are not confirmed criminals,
and who are less suspicious of the probation officer when he
visits them in their homes than they would be if this work were
undertaken by the police; that many a young offender is
brought to his senses and turned away from crime by a timely
remonstrance and warning from one who comes to him as a
friend; and that this system, more than any other, leads to an
individual examination of each case on its merits, and has the
advantage of keeping people out of prison to the utmost extent
compatible with the necessary repression of crime. A Judge,
who gave evidence before a committee of the Legislature
favourable to the new system of dealing with drunkards,
declared that, since this office was created, he had never
imposed a sentence on a man without asking the probation
officer his history. The report for 1890 of the probation officer
for Boston showed that, in one district of the city, 1,226
persons were placed on probation in that year, of whom only
33 did badly and were surrendered for sentence. In another
district, the bad cases were 23 out of 287, and in a third,
58 out of 488.
It is objected that the amount of work thrown upon the
probation officer by the new "drunk law" is more than he can
properly do (at all events, in large cities), and takes him away
from his other duties; and that, the work of investigation and
identification being imperfect, offenders are let go who ought
to be held. Some of the advocates of the new law recom-
mended the appointment of special investigating officers, and
a thorough investigation into the case of each prisoner arrested
for drunkenness, before his release. Several, however, of the
witnesses before the committee above-mentioned testified to
the good results which the first few months had brought about.
One witness, the Justice of the District Court of East Boston,
mentioned that the whole number of the arrests for drunkenness
in his district for about seven months had been 883-that
MASSACHUSETIS.
217
number including 716 persons who were arrested only once, 60
who were arrested twice, 13 three times, and 2 four times; and
this large preponderance of single cases he considered to be
an encouraging sign of the restraining operation of the new law.*
A person taken up for intoxication may, therefore, be
released either by the officer in charge of the police station, or
by the magistrate, without being brought into court; or, if
convicted, he may be placed on probation, i.e., under the
supervision of the probation officer, or his case may be placed
on file.
If sentenced to imprisonment, he may be sent for any
time up to twelve months to jail, or he may be committed to a
reformatory, in which latter case he is liable to be kept for two
years.
The Twenty-Second Annual Report of the Commissioners
of Prisons (for the year ending September, 1892) presents tables
with details of the work of probation officers throughout the
State in that year. The following extract from the report
shows that the system has not been brought into full operation
everywhere :-
"The tables show that nearly all the persons whose cases were
put on probation were charged with drunkenness; in some of the
courts, no other offence seems to be considered as a proper subject
for such disposition. In one court, where there is a large amount
of business transacted, only one case of any kind was put on proba-
tion in the year; and in one of the district courts in Plymouth
County, none was put on probation-the Judge placing on file the
cases that he did not desire to sentence, instead of putting the
defendants in care of the probation officer."
The whole number of persons placed on probation in the
State during the year ending September 30, 1892, was 5.200,
of whom the great majority-3,750-had been brought up for
drunkenness.
* A report of the evidence presented to the committee in favour of the
new law is printed in a pamphlet entitled "The Punishment of Drunken-
Remonstrance of the Massachusetts Prison Association against the
Repeal of the Law of 1891."
ness.
218
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
The reformatories of Massachusetts have been founded on
the model of the Elmira Reformatory in New York State.
The principle on which they are conducted is that of teaching
the prisoners self-control by a minute system of rules governing
their conduct in everything they do from morning to night,
and by making their early release dependent on an exact
obedience to the rules. An offender sent to a reformatory
is liable to be kept, according to the nature of his offence,
for two or five years; but it is possible for him, by good
behaviour, to obtain his discharge in eight or eleven months.
On his admission, he is placed in what is called the second
grade. He is instructed in the rules which govern everything
he does, and is warned that he can only rise to the first grade
by a strict compliance with them; while misconduct will be
followed by a descent into the third grade, involving the wearing
of a scarlet suit, exclusion from all recreations and amusements,
and other penalties. After five months of unvarying good
conduct in the second grade, the prisoner is promoted to the
first grade, in which the regulations are less irksome, and from
which, if not degraded for misconduct, he is discharged at the
earliest date allowed by the law. The system is said by its
supporters to produce good results, many even of those who
begin by showing themselves refractory, and are put into the
third grade, being soon led to see that self-control is self-interest,
and learning, in their struggle for promotion and release, habits
which they had never previously formed, and which, once learnt,
keep many of them out of prison for the future.
In addition to the prison and the reformatory, there is still
another destination to which a certain class of drunkards may
be sent. The law allows the committal of anyone who is
subject to dipsomania or habitual drunkenness, if not otherwise
a bad character, to a lunatic hospital, subject to the ordinary
laws respecting lunatics. Such a person is not to be discharged
unless it appears that he is cured, or that his confinement is no
longer necessary for the public safety or his own welfare. In
MASSACHUSETTS.
219
the
year ending September 30, 1891, the number admitted to
these institutions as habitual drunkards was 167; while 143
patients belonging to this class were discharged, of whom 60
were reported as recovered, 38 much improved, 21 improved,
6 not improved, and 18 not insane.* The inconvenience, how-
ever, of treating these cases in common with general cases
of lunacy is such that, in 1889, an Act was passed for the
establishment of a State hospital for dipsomaniacs and in-
ebriates, to which such persons might be committed for two
years. In 1892, this new hospital was not completed. †
Turning to the statistics of drunkenness and testing by them.
the effects of the law of 1891, we find, from the Report of the
Prison Commissioners for that year, that the passing of this law
was immediately followed by a large increase of arrests for
assault, for disturbing the peace, and for being idle and dis-
orderly, the probable explanation of which increase was, in the
opinion of the commissioners, that the police, who formerly
arrested every man whose intoxication was in the least degree
offensive and made against him a complaint for drunkenness,
now preferred some other charge. The statistics also show a
considerable (though less marked) increase in the number of
arrests for drunkenness in 1891, and a large increase in Boston
in 1892, which is partly, perhaps, attributable to a greater
disposition on the part of the police to arrest the merely drunk
than under the old law when they were liable to a fine, and
when the constable knew that he would have the trouble of
appearing in court the next morning to prosecute the case. It
seems certain also that, for a time at all events, an actual increase
of drunkenness resulted from the idea which prevailed among
the police and, to a certain extent, among the judicial authorities,
as well as the public, that there was to be no punishment until
* In addition to these cases, 230 patients were admitted during the
year whose insanity was attributed to intemperance.
On a subsequent visit to Boston in March, 1893, I found that this
institution had been opened.
220
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
the third offence. As already noted, the error of this idea has
been authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court. The
repeal of the law prohibiting the sale of liquor at bars also took
effect in 1891, and caused an increase of drinking. As regards
prison statistics, the number of commitments was found to
fall off; but the prison population increased, owing to the
sentences being generally longer than the thirty days for which
prisoners were committed under the old law for non-payment.
of the fine.*
Moreover, if the comparison is made between the numbers.
sentenced to definite terms of imprisonment, exclusive of those
who (under the old law) went to prison merely because they
were too poor to pay the fine, it will be seen that more than
four times as many persons throughout the State were committed
for drunkenness in 1892 as in 1890, viz. :--
Year ending September 30, 1890
1892
""
""
•
55
...
Year's commitments to all
30,683
prisons
Average prison population | 5,508
1888.
Of the latter number, 6,253 had sentences of less than six
months, and 2,381 of six months or more-the latter including
more than 400 sentenced for a year, and 186 sent to the reform-
atory on indeterminate sentences, under which they were liable
to detention up to two years. In short, the new law, it is
claimed, fills the prisons with habitual drunkards for long
terms; the old law let most of them escape, and filled their
places with occasional offenders who were imprisoned because
of their poverty. From inquiries made in several towns,
covering 17,500 cases of arrest for drunkenness since the new
...
* The Twenty-second Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prisons
gives the following figures :-
1889.
...
34,094
5,860
..
...
1890.
2,116
8,634
1891.
33,290 27,795
5,798
5,548
1892.
17,861
6,406
MASSACHUsetts.
221
law has been in operation, it was found that less than 12 per
cent. of the whole were arrested a second time, and less than
5 per cent. of the whole a third time, during the year.
*
The increased number of arrests in Boston for drunkenness
in 1892, as compared with 1891 (see below), is certainly startling.
The increased percentage of non-residents would account for a
fraction only of the increase.
The following figures show the total number of arrests in
the whole State for drunkenness in several years, ending
respectively on the 30th September :-
Year ending
November 30.
1885
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1885
1889
1890
1891
1892
Year ending
November 30.
1889
1890
1891
1892
...
...
16,780
23,044
24,991
...
23,970
27,396
33,698
...
…….
Number of
arrests.
...
...
Number of arrests.
40,066
37,492
41,132
48,463
...
...
...
•
...
...
-
The following table gives particulars respecting arrests for
drunkenness in the city of Boston :—
...
+ 8 3/1/20
44
+ 144
+23
...
Increase or decrease
per cent. compared
with preceding year.
...
31
...
www.
...
32
32
...
Percentage non-
resident.
...
...
...
ARRESTS IN BOSTON FOR ALL OFFENCES.
Percentage
non resident.
:
35,480
53,158
52,814
56,512
70,682

...
...
39
37
39
4I
Percentage
of foreign
birth.
0000000
49
Percentage of foreign
birth.
48
48
……
49
54
53
52
53

* The above figures are from a printed statement furnished to me by
the Secretary of the Massachusetts Prison Association, and are declared to
be official.
222
AMERICAN LIQUOR Laws.
The increase in the number of arrests for drunkenness in
1889 is partly due to the introduction, in the early part of that
year, of the "police-signal and patrol-waggon system," enabling
an officer, on making an arrest, to send for the waggon to take
away his prisoner, without obliging him to leave his beat. The
diminution in the number of arrests in 1890 is ascribed to the
check placed in that year on the sale of liquor at bars, and,
partly, to the discontinuance of the payment to the police fund
of part of the fees for prosecutions instituted by the police.
The circumstances of the increase in 1891 and 1892 have
already been mentioned, with reference to the operation of the
new drunk law."
(C
The high percentage of non-residents shown in the table of
arrests for drunkenness in Boston is remarkable, and throws
light on the question of the effects of local option in the case
of a large city issuing licences and surrounded by districts
which vote "no licence."
In 1890 the population of the twenty-five cities of Massa-
chusetts was 1,327,164; that of the towns was 911,779. Of
the 52,814 arrests for drunkenness in that year, 45,982, or
87 per cent., were made in the cities. The arrests for all
offences in the same year throughout the State numbered
80,844 (more than 65 per cent. being for drunkenness). The
proportion of drunkenness to other offences was higher in the
cities than in the towns.
The total number of persons sentenced to imprisonment
in Boston in 1890 was 33,290, of whom 77 per cent. were
sentenced on conviction for drunkenness. In 1879 the number
committed was 17,062, of whom 10,930, or 64 per cent., were
for drunkenness.
It must be remembered that the number of persons who
are arrested for drunkenness is always but a fraction of those
who are found intoxicated in the streets. In this State,
however, it is probable that the police are quite exceptionally
prompt in arresting offenders.
MASSACHUSetts.
223
The prohibition movement, as tested by the vote cast for
prohibitionist candidates at recent elections, appears rather to
be losing than gaining ground in Massachusetts. At Presiden-
tial elections the vote in this State was 10,000 in 1884; 8,700
in 1888; and 7,500 in 1892. At the elections for Governor
the figures were as follows :-
1885
1886
...
···
...
...
...
...
...
Year.
...
···
...
··
...
...
1887
...
1888 (year of Presidential election)
1889 (vote on prohibitory amendment to the Con-
stitution taken this year)
1890 (381,000 registered voters)
1891
1892 (year of Presidential election)
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
···
...
...
...
...
...
...
::
...
Votes cast for Pro-
hibitionist Candidate.
4,714
8,251
10,945
9,374
15,108
13,554
8,968
7,067
These figures may probably be taken as to some extent
indicative of the growth or diminution year by year of pro-
hibitionist sentiment; but they do not represent the actual
numerical strength of those who favour prohibition, since a
great number of these, indeed a large majority of them, vote
on all political issues as Republicans, while some are even to be
found in the Democratic ranks. The difference of opinion
between the "third party" prohibitionists and those who vote
the Republican ticket is sometimes very acute and even bitter ;
the one side alleging that the Republicans are but lukewarm
supporters of the cause, and that no further advance is to be
expected from them; the other side pointing to the restrictive
liquor legislation already gained through the Republican party,
and urging that to desert that party is to ensure the success of
the Democrats, the friends of the saloon.
The whole strength of prohibition in a State is called out
only when the question of an amendment to the Constitution,
affirming the illegality of the liquor traffic, is submitted to the
224
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
electors. Even then a certain deduction ought to be made
for those who, while in favour of prohibitory legislation, dis-
approve the adoption into the Constitution, as a fundamental
principle of government, of a law on which so much difference
of opinion exists among educated men. The proportion of
voters, however, who are moved by this consideration is
probably small. It has been already stated that the consti-
tutional question was put before the voters of Massachusetts
in 1889, when the proposal was defeated by a large majority,
about 131,000 to 85,000. Since then comparatively little
active work has been done in the interest of State prohibition,
and there seems to be at the present time a general acquies-
cence in the Local Option Law. While it is impossible to fore-
see how soon prohibitory activity may again exert itself, there
appears to be no reason to think that the principle of pro-
hibition is on the whole making any advance in this State;
and, in the opinion of many who are well qualified to judge, it
is losing ground.
The supporters of local, as distinguished from State, pro-
hibition are far more numerous.
A comparison of the aggregate vote for no licence" with
the vote cast in 1889 in favour of the proposed constitutional
amendment shows that those who favour the local suppression
of the liquor traffic greatly outnumber the advocates of State
prohibition. Cambridge, which voted for "no licence" in
December, 1888, by a majority of 600, voted against the
amendment by a majority of 2,600. Newton, which carried
"no licence" by 1,210 votes, gave a majority of 50 against
the amendment. In the smaller cities the constitutional
amendment received a comparatively large amount of support.
Nevertheless, all the cities except Somerville had majorities
against it, and all the counties but four. The country districts
supported it by a less overwhelming majority than might have
been expected from their strong "no licence" tendency.
225
CHAPTER XII.
PENNSYLVANIA.
(High-licence. Limitation of number.)
THE Brooks Law, passed in 1887, which regulates the liquor
traffic in Pennsylvania, gives a wide discretionary power to
the licensing authorities to refuse applications for licences; but
there is no form of local option by popular vote; nor is any
statutory limitation placed on the number of saloons.
P
The principle of local option has met with little success in
this State. A law enacted in 1846, embodying this principle,
was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. A simi-
lar law, however, was passed for a single ward in Philadelphia
in 1871, and after much litigation was declared constitutional,
the former case being thus over-ruled. Thereupon a general
law was enacted in 1872 giving an option to each county; and
at the election in 1873 more than two-thirds of the counties
voted for prohibition. It is said that the law was actively
enforced; but it aroused so much opposition, and so much
pressure against it was brought to bear on both political parties,
that, despite all efforts to the contrary, it was repealed in
1875.*
The anti-liquor agitation was afterwards directed to
the attempt to secure State prohibition. In 1889 a general
vote on the question of a prohibitory amendment to the State
Constitution was taken, when the proposed amendment was
defeated by a very heavy majority.†
* In the Session of 1893 a new Local Option Bill was brought forward,
and obtained a majority in the House on the second reading; but it did
not become law. It provided for a vote being taken regularly in February
of every third year on the question, "For licence," or Against licence.”
The vote was to be taken separately for each city, and for each county,
exclusive of cities.
66
For the amendment, 294,617; against, 484,644; majority against,
190,027.
226
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWs.
Prior to the passing of the Brooks Law, much dissatisfac-
tion was felt in Philadelphia, owing to the excessive number
of saloons and the want of any legal means of suppressing a
portion of them. In 1886 there were 6,059 licensed places in
the city, or about 1 to 150 or 160 inhabitants; and not only
was the total number out of proportion to any reasonable
estimate of what was needed, but there was no way by which
the preponderating sentiment of the inhabitants of any par-
ticular street or district could effectually express itself in favour
of the closing of a saloon which was deemed an annoyance to
the neighbourhood. Any citizen who paid the licence fee
of $50 was entitled to his licence, in the absence of proof of
misconduct or bad character. In this respect the law of
Philadelphia differed from that which governed the rest of
the State, where some degree of discrimination was exer-
cised in the issue of licences. The prime object of those
who drafted the Brooks Law was to reduce the number of
saloons in Philadelphia by constituting a judicial licensing
authority with the fullest power to refuse all applications
which it was deemed undesirable to grant, and to facilitate
the intervention of public opinion in support of this restrictive.
power. The new law also raised the licence fees; but those
who originated the measure regarded "high-licence" only
as a secondary element in the reform which they advocated.
Another evil which it was desired to suppress was the pre-
valence of what are known in England as "tied houses," and
provisions were inserted in the Act for that purpose.
The following is a brief summary of the law :—
Retail licences may be granted annually in each county by the
Court of Quarter Sessions to citizens of temperate habits and good
moral character. An application for a licence must be refused
whenever in the opinion of the court, having due regard to the
number and character of the petitioners for and against the appli-
cation, the licence is not necessary for the accommodation of the
public and the entertainment of strangers or travellers, or that the
Data
PENNSYLVANIA.
227
applicant is not a fit person. The applicant must be the only
person pecuniarily interested in the business proposed to be
licensed, and must not have an interest in the profits of any other
liquor-dealing business in the same county; and his application
must be supported by a certificate from twelve electors of the
ward, borough, or township. If the licence is granted, the licensee
is required to enter into a bond in the sum of $2,000, with two
sureties who must be freeholders of the same county, and must not
be engaged in the manufacture of intoxicating liquor.*
No licence may authorise the sale of liquor in a grocery store.
The licence fees are fixed as follows:
In a city of the First Class (i.e., Philadelphia)... $1,000
In a city of the Second Class (i.e., Pittsburg) 1,000
In a city of the Third Class
500
In other cities
300
150
75
In boroughs
In townships
...
...
...
1
...
...
...
•
...
...
..
In cities $100, and in boroughs and townships one-fifth, of the
licence fee goes to the county. The State takes no share. There
is a separate scale of fees for wholesale dealers.
The police are required under heavy penalties to make returns
to every Court of Quarter Sessions of all places where liquor is kept
for sale or sold, whether licensed or unlicensed; and they are to
make monthly visits to such places.
No debt incurred for liquor bought on credit by retail can be
recovered at law.
The punishment for selling liquor by retail without a licence is
fine from $500 to $5,000, and imprisonment from three to twelve
months; for breach of the licence laws by a licensed dealer, fine
from $100 to $500; on second offence, $300 to $1,000; and on
third offence, $500 to $5,000, or imprisonment from three to twelve
months, or both. And the court is required to revoke a licence for
breach of any of the liquor laws.
Liquor may not be sold on an election day or on Sunday, or to
* The Act originally required the sureties to be freeholders of the same
ward or township, but this requirement was relaxed by a subsequent
enactment. Another clause, directed against "tied houses," prohibited
any person from acting as surety for more than one licensee; but this was
struck out of the Bill.
:
P 2
228
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
a minor or person of known intemperate habits, or to a person
visibly affected by drink, or to any person on a pass-book or order
on a store; penalty, fine $50 to $500, and imprisonment twenty
to ninety days.
Any place where liquor is sold in violation of the law is declared
to be a nuisance, and may be abated by proceedings at law or
equity. This provision affords a powerful means for enforcing the
law, since it avoids the risks of failure before the grand or petty
jury, and if successfully applied leads up to an injunction.
The licence law does not affect the sale of alcohol for scientific,
mechanical, or medicinal purposes, but druggists may sell liquor
only on a written medicinal prescription; one prescription to
cover only one sale.
After some doubt, it was decided that there was no dis-
cretion under the Brooks Law to refuse a wholesale licence
except for misconduct; but an Act passed in 1891 gave this
discretionary power, and further forbade the consumption on
the premises of liquor sold under a wholesale licence. This
Act immediately reduced the number of applicants for wholesale
licences from 1,600 to 563.
Under statutes antecedent to the Brooks Law, but still in force,
the punishment for drunkenness is a fine of $2, to be paid to the
treasurer of the school district; any person furnishing liquor in
contravention of the law is to be held civilly liable for all conse-
quences of his act, and full damages may be recovered from him;
and the relations of a drunkard may give notice to saloon-keepers
not to sell to him. Anyone selling in contravention of the notice
is liable to be sued for damages, from $50 to $500.
The chief merit of the Brooks Law is held to lie in the
vesting of the licensing power in a judicial body of high position,
with unlimited authority to refuse licences at their discretion.
The Court of Quarter Sessions is composed of the higher Judges
in the State. The Judges are elected for a term of ten years,
and are therefore, to a great extent, removed from popular and
personal influences. It commonly happens, when a vacancy
occurs, that the two political parties will agree in the nomination
of a candidate; so that, there being no contest, there is no
PENNSYLVANIA.
229
opportunity, when a Judge is put up for re-election, for paying
off personal grudges. The following extract from the Tenth
Annual Report of the Law and Order Society of Philadelphia
shows the importance attached to this feature of the law :-
،، Important as are the various provisions of the Brooks Law to
the good order of our city, there is no one which effects so much
practical good as that which commits the granting of licences to our
Judges... the one class of men for whom our citizens, without
distinction of party or sect, feel an unqualified respect and confidence
as administrators of such a trust."
The complete extent of the discretionary power to refuse
licences is shown by the fact that in at least one county (out
of between sixty and seventy) no retail licences at all are issued.
The immediate effect of the Brooks Law was a reduction in
the number of licences in Philadelphia from 5,773 to 1,746
(70 per cent.), the latter number including about 400 wholesale
licences.* In 1890 there was an increase, due to the legal
decision that the limitations of the Brooks Law did not apply
to wholesale licences, and a larger issue of these licences
accordingly ensued. The limit between wholesale and retail
under the Pennsylvania law is one quart. When the court
decided that wholesale licences could not be withheld, there
was immediately a great increase in their number. Many
applications were made by persons who had been refused
retail licences, their real object being to do a retail business
under a wholesale licence. In many instances they evaded
the law by selling beer in quart mugs half full of froth, or
by supplying cups or glasses, so that the purchaser of a quart
of spirits could share it with others on the spot. In 1891,
on the passage of the law conferring a discretionary power
to refuse wholesale as well as retail houses, the number of
licences again fell.
* In 1888, when the new law first came into operation, there were
3,426 applications for retail licences. Of these, 1,340 were granted, 1,952
were refused, and 134 were withdrawn.
230
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWs.
Turning to the criminal statistics of Philadelphia, we find
that a comparison of arrests for drunkenness between the years
1887-8 and 1891-2 shows a diminution of more than 25 per
cent., and the difference is still greater if allowance is made for
increase in population. The returns, however, for the year
immediately following the passage of the new law showed a
diminution of arrests by about 40 per cent., so that the rate of
improvement appears not to have been fully maintained.
The following table shows a somewhat close connection
between the number of licences and the number of arrests for
intoxication and disorderly conduct :--
June, 1887, to June, 1888
1888, to
1889
1890
1889, to
1890, to
1891
1891, to
1892
""
""
""
Year.
رد
""
""
""
""
No. of Licences.
Wholesale and No. of Arrests. Increase or Decrease.
Retail.
5,773
1,746
1,739
2,092
1,791*
1890.-January to June (5 months)...
1891.-January to June (5 months)...
Increase
...
1890.-June to December (7 months)
1891.-June to December (7 months)
Decrease
32,974
19,887
21,969
25,810
24,627
The same connection appears in the following statement:-
...
4

Licences.
1,737
2,092
355
2,092
1,791
301
...
Decrease, 13,087
Increase, 2,082
Increase, 3,841
Decrease, 1,183

Arrests for Intoxication.
8,587
9,536
949
16,074
15,249
825
* At the Annual Licensing Meeting in 1892, about 1,890 licences were
granted (1,388 retail). In 1893 there was a considerable rise to 2,181
(1,632 retail). The additional licences are said to be chiefly in the new
and growing parts of the city.
PENNSYLVANIA.
231
The Board of Public Charities of Pennsylvania, in their
report for 1888, observed, with reference to their visit to
Philadelphia County Jail, "that, since the adoption of the high-
licence law and the enforcement of the laws prohibitory to the
sale of liquor on Sundays, the commitments to the county
prison had decreased marvellously."
The returns of arrests for all crimes in Philadelphia in 1890
showed a large increase over the corresponding return for the
previous year--a result declared by the superintendent of police,
in his annual report, to be wholly accounted for by the increase
of arrests for drunkenness and crimes directly attributed thereto,
a great deal of this result being due to the licensing of many
wholesale dealers who were in fact retailers.
In 1881, six years prior to the passing of the Brooks Law,
there was organised a body known as the Law and Order
Society of Philadelphia, for the purpose of securing the enforce-
ment of the laws against Sunday trading and those relating to
the liquor traffic, "and to encourage and assist the authorities
in the maintenance and enforcement of the same."
The Society specially devoted its efforts, at the outset, to
the suppression of the sale of liquor on Sunday and to children.
The open selling on Sunday was soon checked; the traffic
carried on upon that day was driven into secrecy, and gradually
became very much restricted. The Society was also in the
earlier years of its existence instrumental in obtaining the re-
vocation of the licences of liquor dealers who violated the law.
On a special tour of inspection made on a Sunday in December,
1886, to sixty-nine saloons, thirty-nine of them were found to
be absolutely closed, and, of the remainder, ten only were
found to be openly violating the law. By this time the
Society was undertaking a large number of prosecutions; and
its proceedings were generally successful. The passage of the
Brooks Law, and the consequent reduction in the number of
saloons, brought about a further large diminution of Sunday
drinking, as is shown by the following figures —
232
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
Monday morning commitments for drunkenness on
Şundays :-
1886-87
1887-88
...
1888-89 (first year under Brooks Law)
1889-90
1890-91
1891-92
•
Year.
...
1890
1891
...
•••
...
...
...
...
217
514
...
...
...
...
...
The "drunks " are all sentenced to pay a small fine. If
they fail to pay, they are locked up for twenty-four hours.
Monday, formerly the heaviest day in the week, is now by far
the lightest. These figures conclusively prove the great change.
which has taken place in regard to Sunday drinking, a change
due in part to the exertions of the Law and Order Society
prior to the passing of the Brooks Law, and in part to the
operation of that law.*
...
Children used to be much employed in "running the
growler," ie., bringing kettles and jugs to the liquor shops for
drink for their parents. This practice is stopped by the new law.
It is the opinion of some that the Brooks Law has increased
home drinking; but this is an opinion which it is very difficult
to verify.
The general opinion respecting the practical working and
results of the law at Philadelphia appears to be on the whole
favourable. The statistics already given undoubtedly seem to
indicate an improvement in the condition of the town as
regards intemperance and also as regards law-breaking, so
far at least as the Sunday law is concerned. The following
table shows the arrests for breaches of the liquor law in
Philadelphia :-
25
··
12
..
2,101
1,263
381
621
764
711

Selling without Licence. Selling on Sunday. Selling to Minors.
6
4
* Philadelphia is one of the few cities in the United States where
guests in hotels are denied wine on Sundays.
PENNSYLVANIA.
233
If the foregoing figures are compared with the returns
furnished by the Board of Public Charities of convictions for
breach of the liquor law throughout the State, a wide dis-
crepancy is indicated between arrests and convictions.
""
1887 Convictions for breach of liquor law throughout the State 199
1888
(including 18 in Philadelphia) 161
(including 71 in Philadelphia) 275
1891
""
""
>>
It appears, therefore, that in 1891 upward of 500 arrests
for offences of this class were made in Philadelphia to only
71 convictions, certainly a remarkable disparity. Many arrests.
are made and indictments found which are not tried for a long
time, when witnesses have vanished; and some are never tried
at all. The criminal court is, or recently was, greatly in
arrear with its business; I was informed that more than a
thousand indictments were awaiting trial. There has, moreover,
been a great disinclination on the part of juries to convict, even
on positive testimony. As an instance, I may mention a case
which happened to be tried at the time when this subject was
engaging my attention. The defendant was charged with
selling liquor by retail, having only a bottler's licence. The
evidence was overwhelming; yet the jury remained out all
night, and at last came to a compromise by finding a verdict.
of guilty, coupled with a recommendation to mercy.*
* In passing sentence the Judge said, addressing the prisoner:-"The
jury have coupled their verdict of guilty with a recommendation to mercy.
Whether that represents their conviction as to the extent of your culpability,
or whether it represents a bridge by which they have reconciled their differ-
ences, I do not know. As they passed almost twenty-four hours coming to
an agreement, I strongly suspect that it was a compromise. There is no
doubt of your guilt. The offence is not a new one; it was always an
offence for a bottler to sell at retail; hence you cannot plead surprise.
The fact that you used your bottler's licence as a shield and cover to the
illicit traffic makes it more culpable."
The Judge then referred to the fact that the growth of unlicensed places
was on the increase, as the records of the court showed. For four years
efforts had been made to exterminate "speak-easies," but without success, and
he said that in his judgment no man after four years' warning could violate
this law without doing so deliberately. It was a deliberate, continued, and
234
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWs.
In Philadelphia, as in most cities of the United States, the
dependence of the law on an active public opinion for its
efficient enforcement is manifest; and public opinion does
not here appear to call for more than a moderate degree of
vigour in the prosecution of violaters of the liquor law. The
unwillingness of juries to convict in liquor cases is no
uncommon thing.*
Moreover, national as well as local political exigencies tend to
discourage great activity in this direction. If, for example, the
anti-liquor party of any State, supporting themselves on a Re-
publican majority, show symptoms of proceeding to extremities,
the word is brought to the Republican headquarters at Washing-
ton, through the agents of the liquor interest, that the party will
be in danger of losing votes in other States unless the obnoxious
movement is suppressed; and means are found accordingly to
restrain it. For a mayor or other official to put his whole force
into the suppression of violations of the liquor law, in defiance
of his party, would appear an act of treason.
Whatever causes may have been at work, the beneficial
change which at first manifested itself hardly seems to have
been fully maintained. While a great improvement has taken
place in Philadelphia in regard to Sunday drinking, and while
statistics appear to indicate a considerable decrease of general
drunkenness, as a result of restriction on the granting of licences,
the law is still evaded to an extent which would be impossible,
if the full endeavours of the police and executive were directed
sustained purpose to defy the law. If it had not been for the recommenda-
tion of the jury, he would impose upon the defendant the full penalty of
the law, but in consideration of that he would reduce the sentence to six
months and a fine of $500.
A rule was taken on the defendant to show cause why his licence.
should not be revoked, and on the testimony adduced the Judge revoked
the licence.
* The gentleman who acted as prosecuting counsel told me of one case
of this kind, in which the police evidence was ample for a conviction; and
no evidence was offered contra; yet the jury acquitted.
PENNSYLVANIA,
235
to its enforcement. Quite recently, there is said to have been
a considerable increase in the number of "speak-easies (the
term commonly used in this State to describe places where
liquor is illegally sold); efforts were being made in the latter
part of 1892 to reduce them, and a large number of prosecutions
had been undertaken.*
""
As regards the character of the licensed liquor-dealers, the
new law operated beneficially. The Judges acted (especially
in the early days) with great care and discrimination as regards
applications. Latterly, there has been a tendency to relapse,
in some degree, from the standard originally set up.† Objection
is taken by some critics to the principle of selection in dealing
with applications for licences, as being invidious and unfair ;
and it has been suggested that the licences should rather be
put up to auction-the licensing authorities merely fixing the
number to be issued, and exercising a right of veto in the case
of any person whose character might be objectionable.
In Pittsburg (population 238,500)--the second city in the
State the liquor law is said to be well enforced, speak-easies
being now comparatively scarce, and their business a precarious
one. In 1889, it was believed by the police department that
there were nearly 800 such places in the city. In 1890, between
300 and 400 illicit liquor-sellers were prosecuted and punished.
in the first police district alone. They were proceeded against
summarily for keeping disorderly houses-a procedure which,
being speedier and surer, was deemed more effective than that
by indictment for breach of the liquor law, which, in case of
conviction, would have involved a sentence of imprisonment.
* The detection of these "speak-easies" is often a difficult matter—
customers being admitted only by pass-words or private latch-keys.
† A correspondent in Philadelphia writes to me in April, 1893:-
"Just now there is a disposition on the part of the Judges in this city to
grant licences very freely. Some persons think that the Judges are doing this
because they do not like the business, and want the people to take it out of
their hands and put it into the hands of an Excise Commission." For the
number of licences issued in the last two years, see p. 230, note.
236
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
A large number of the offenders were women having families
dependent on them. Since that period, there seems to have
been no great amount of law-breaking, either on the part of
licensed dealers or through speak-easies. The trouble from
the latter source arises mainly on Sundays, when the licensed
premises are closed. The superintendent of police, in his
annual report, dated February 1, 1892, stated :-"The liquor
laws have been rigidly enforced, and there has been a notable
falling-off in violations of the same. Club-houses are being
conducted in an orderly and quiet manner, and jug-houses and
speak-easies have been almost wholly eradicated. There are,
however, a few speak-easies springing up, on Sunday especially,
and which require constant vigilance to suppress. They are
usually carried on by widows seeking to secure a little money
for the support of themselves and children. . . The admirable
distribution of licences by the Licence Court has done much
toward eradicating the illegal liquor traffic, as the saloons are
fairly distributed and sufficient in number for the accommoda-
tion of the drinking class, and, consequently, there is no occasion
or illegal liquor-selling." In the report for the preceding year,
also, the condition of fair immunity from speak-easies was
attributed, in part, to the fact that the Licence Court had
increased the number of retail licences from 92 to nearly 300.
Complaint has been made in Pittsburg of the mischief done
by the "jug" trade carried on under a wholesale licence.
The figures following are taken from the official reports of
Pittsburg:
Arrests-total :-
Drunk
...
Disorderly
Retail licences
Police force, all ranks
•
...
...
...
...
...
•••
...
...
…..
………
...
...
•••
:
•
Year ending January 31.
1890.
1892.
5,222
5,448
1891.
271
19,449
6,676
7,442
92 nearly 300
304
21,800
6,910
7.732
...
311
PENNSYLVANIA.
237
A que
The chief of the department of public safety in Allegheny
(population 105,300), in his report for 1891, urged that a greater
number of licences should be granted by the court- -a course
which he thought would largely diminish the number of speak-
easies, and facilitate the work of the police department in its
endeavour to stamp them out. The police had been newly
organised in that year, and the new superintendent reported
that, on taking office, he had found a vast amount of illegal
liquor-selling. At the present time, I am told that the law is
fairly well enforced.
Arrests-total:-
Drunk
Disorderly
Selling without licence
Police force, all ranks...
...
1880
1890
...
...
...
..
...
...
...
ALLEGHENY.
...
Year ending
Nine months,
February 28, 1890. April to December, 1891.
3,091
794
1,472
14
86
The census returns show that insanity prevails in Penn-
sylvania to about the same extent as in 1880-the ratio of the
insane to the whole population being as follows:
...
...
3,730
956
1,911
...
...
113
I to 615
I to 620
on
There has, therefore, been a very slight proportionate
decrease of insanity during the last decade. Of 1,726 patients
admitted in 1891 to the various institutions for the insane, the
insanity of III was attributed to alcoholism or intemperance.
The number of "indoor" paupers in the State
September 30, 1890, was 9,113; on the corresponding day
in 1891, the number was 9,211. Of 12,452 adult paupers
admitted during 1891 (an increase of 628 as compared with the
preceding year), 1,347 were returned as abstainers, 2,573 as
moderate drinkers, and 1,289 as intemperate. Of the habits cf
more than one half of the whole number no information is given.
238
CHAPTER XIII.
MINNESOTA AND NEBRASKA,
(High-licence.)
Minnesota.
HIGH-LICENCE and local option are the distinguishing char-
acteristics of the liquor legislation in this State. In one of its
cities also the trade has been circumscribed in a special manner,
which does not appear to have been adopted in any other
place in the country. Minnesota has more than usually
stringent laws respecting the forfeiture of licences for mis-
conduct; and a scale of increased punishments on repeated
convictions for drunkenness has recently (1889) been enacted.
The local option law is capable of only partial applica-
tion, being restricted to the rural portions of the State. It
provides that the voters of any incorporated village or muni-
cipal township may determine for themselves the question
whether licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor as a beverage
shall be granted or not. On the petition of ten or more voters
the vote is to be taken at the next ensuing annual election,
and, if the majority is against licence, none can be granted,
except for medicinal or mechanical purposes. If the majority
is in favour of licence, the village council is (in the case of
an incorporated village) made the licensing authority, to the
exclusion of the Board of County Commissioners. It is not
easy to ascertain to what extent throughout the State such
votes have been taken. The State Government takes no share
of the licence fees, and is therefore not interested in the
question; nor is a general return made to any authority.
There appears to be among many of those who favour advanced
anti-liquor legislation a tendency rather to consider this measure
of local option as being too inadequate to be of much value
than to exert any organised efforts for making the utmost
MINNESOTA.
239
..
possible use of it. In not a few communities, however, no-
licence" votes have been carried, and local prohibition is the
law, but I am not able to give the number of such places, nor
any near approximation of their proportion to the rest of the
State. A leading minister of religion in one of the chief cities,
keenly interested in social questions, told me that the local
option law, such as it was, had had little effect worth mention-
ing. Apart from the operation of this law, however, there is a
certain number of municipalities which do not in fact issue
licences. It is said that an effort will be made to secure the
passing of a new measure providing for local option by counties.
The licence law may be briefly stated as follows :-
C
Applications for licences have to be published, and objections.
heard. If the applicant appears to have violated any of the liquor
laws of the State or municipality within a year previous to the
application (or, as regards some offences, within five years), the
licensing authority, i.e., the Board of County Commissioners, or the
governing body of any municipal corporation, is to refuse to grant
the licence. The applicant must enter into a bond in $2,000, with
two freeholders of the county as sureties.
The licence fee in cities of 10,000 inhabitants and upwards is
fixed at $1,000, or such higher sum as the city council may
prescribe; elsewhere $500, or such higher fee as the local authority
prescribe.
Registered druggists may dispense intoxicating liquors on
medical prescription without any licence, for consumption off the
premises. Physicians who give prescriptions for the purpose of
evading the liquor law are liable to be fined.
Licensed premises, except hotels, are to be closed from II p.m.
to 5 a.m.; and conviction of violating this rule involves forfeiture
of the licence, as well as a fine.
No liquor may be sold to a minor, student, or drunkard. Notice
not to sell may be given by relatives and employers.
The penalty for selling without a licence is a fine from $50 to
$100, and imprisonment from thirty to ninety days. Prosecutions
may be taken in a summary manner before a municipal court or
justice of the peace, in the same manner as for violations of
inunicipal ordinances or bye-laws. Special additional penalties
240
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
are enacted for the use of certain devices known as the "blind
pig," "hole-in-the-wall," etc.
The county attorney is required to prosecute all violations of
the Act. The owner as well as the occupier may be held liable, if
the law is broken with his knowledge.
Every sheriff and constable is required to arrest offenders; and
any judge, officer, or constable, who wilfully neglects or refuses to
do his duty is to be deemed guilty of a malfeasance in office and
disqualified from holding it, and is to be fined.
The licensing authority may revoke a licence on proof to their
satisfaction that the licensee has violated any of the liquor laws or
any of the conditions of his licence. On revocation for selling
to a minor, or drunkard, or after notice forbidding such sale, the
offender is disqualified for five years from being again licensed, in
all other cases for one year. A licence also becomes ipso facto
void upon conviction in any court for selling to a minor, habitual
drunkard, or intemperate person after notice. The court, on
convicting anyone of an offence under the liquor law, is required
to certify the conviction to the licensing authority.
The penalties for becoming voluntarily intoxicated are:--First
offence, fine $10 to $40, or imprisonment ten to forty days; second
offence, imprisonment thirty to sixty days, or fine $20 to $50;
subsequent offences, imprisonment sixty to ninety days.
It will appear, from what has been said, that the principle
of local option has had but partial recognition in the law of
Minnesota, and in practice has met with no large measure of
attention or development. High-licence, on the other hand,
has for some years received, and is receiving, a fair and
sustained trial; and few States offer a better field for observing
this system in its most favourable aspect. From inquiries
made in the two leading cities of the State, I believe it may
safely be said that its operation has proved on the whole
satisfactory in the estimation of the majority of those who have
had the best opportunity of observing its effects, and who are
most interested in the suppression of the evils which it was
intended to meet; and that (apart from the movement already
mentioned for extending the right of local option—a movement
affecting the smaller towns and the country districts, but hardly
MINNESOTA.
241
likely to affect the principal centres of population) there are few
States in which there is less appearance of an active disposition to
agitate for any considerable changes in the existing liquor laws.
The city of St. Paul, the official capital of the State, with at
population, according to the census of 1890, of 133,000, had,
at the commencement of 1893, 362 saloons, each paying a
licence fee of $1,000. The population at the present time is
claimed to have reached 150,000; but in the rapidly-increasing
cities of the western and central States there is always a
tendency among the inhabitants to seek, by magnifying the
growth of their population, to increase the importance of their
city. The numbers have, however, undoubtedly made a con-
siderable advance since 1890, and it may be roughly estimated
that St. Paul has slightly less than 400 inhabitants for each of
its saloons. In a considerable residential section of the city,
pursuant to an understanding entered into when that area was
first included in the city limits, no licences are allowed. In
the other residential parts, petitions by the inhabitants would
have weight in inducing the licensing authority to withhold a
licence; and on proper representations being made they would
refuse to issue one in the immediate neighbourhood of a
church or school. The law is strict as regards forfeiture and
disqualification on proof of misconduct; and, on a representa-
tion from the police that a licence ought not to be granted, it
probably will be withheld. In other respects no limitation is
placed on the number of licences in the business parts of the
city; anyone may obtain a liquor licence who has not mis-
conducted himself, and is willing to pay the fee. If a licence
has expired before a new one has been issued, or if a man
wishes to open a new saloon, the police will sometimes allow
business to be carried on for a few weeks on deposit of the fee,
and pending the issue of the licence. This practice, which no
doubt is irregular, gives the police a very close control in such.
cases; and a saloon which was being run in this way on
sufferance had, at the time of my visit, been summarily closed
Q
242
AMERICAN LIQUOR Laws.
by the police on account of disorderly practices. In another
case, on the expiration of the licence, permission to continue
till a new licence was issued was refused, and the saloon
closed, on account of liquor having been sold to minors. The
police would in this case oppose the application for a renewal.
The question of Sunday selling is within the jurisdiction of
the local authorities, and the municipality of St. Paul does not
attempt to prohibit it.
Minneapolis, with a population in 1890 of 165,000, the
largest city in Minnesota, having outgrown its "twin city" St.
Paul, has, in addition to high-licence and the other provisions
of the State law, to which it is equally subject, a special
enactment of its own, which has still further contracted the
number and situation of saloons, and appears to have yielded
specially favourable results. The "Patrol Limit" Law of Minne-
apolis, passed by the State Legislature in 1884, at the desire of
the city, prohibits the grant of liquor licences outside the limits
of a certain defined area, which includes only the central
business part of the city; and this restriction applies equally
to hotels which supply liquors to their guests, as to mere dram-
shops. In January, 1893, the number of licences was 274, all
strictly confined within the "patrol limits." Few cities in the
United States have increased so rapidly and continuously as
Minneapolis. In 1880 its population was 47,000; in 1890 it
had grown, according to the national census, to 165,000. At
the present time, the sanguine local estimate raises it to 200,000.
The existing ratio of liquor sellers to population may be set
down at somewhere about 1 to 700.*
Efforts have been made, and are likely to be repeated (as
seems only natural, in view of the great extension of the city
as a whole, and also of the business centre to which it was
* The Minneapolitans allege that the census of 1890 did them scanty
justice, the enumeration having been made at midsummer, when many of
the inhabitants were absent on pleasure, or in agricultural occupations.
The local estimate is probably a little above the mark.
MINNESOTA.
243
intended to confine the saloons), to get the patrol limit extended.
Hitherto, however, the original area has been kept intact, and
there is great unwillingness among a large portion of the
community (not confined to extreme anti-liquor partisans) to
make any relaxations in favour of the saloon interest.
The patrol limit law originated in a movement on the part
of the inhabitants of the eighth ward, who undertook, if no
saloons were licensed in that ward, to provide for the main-
tenance of the poor of the ward. This arrangement went into
operation; other parts of the city became desirous to get rid
of their saloons; and so an agitation grew up which resulted
in the passing of the law. The eighth ward still continues to
maintain its own poor, and the inhabitants of the ward will, on
this ground, strenuously oppose, so far as they are concerned,
the admission of saloons, whatever changes in the patrol limit.
may be considered in other directions.
The process of reduction in the number of saloons has gone
through three stages in Minneapolis. The first stage was
reached in May, 1884, when the patrol limit law was established.
Its immediate result was the closing of 95 saloons, the total
number being reduced from 535 to 440. Next, the licence fee
was raised by an ordinance of the City Council from $100 to
$500, and the number again fell to 334, at which figure it stood
when the new State high-licence law went into operation in
1887. By this law, which raised the fee to $1,000, the number
of saloons was brought down to the lowest point, 230; since
rising slightly with the growth of the population to the present
figure. Questioned as to the results of these changes, the
judge of the Municipal Court declared that, though arrests for
drunkenness had successively increased in the years 1885-87,
the records of the police-court showed a remarkable diminution
of the small crimes and misdemeanors directly attributable to
drunkenness. It was found that the low "doggeries" could
not exist under high-licence.*
* St. Paul Pioneer Press, February 17th, 1888.
Q 2
244
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
A gentleman, who was formerly a reporter for one of the
newspapers in the Municipal Court, where he had exceptional
opportunities of observing the condition of the town in regard
to crime, assured me that the institution of the patrol limit had
had a very marked effect on the business in the police-court,
and had greatly lightened the reporter's duties. The change
had been especially notable in one particular quarter of the
town, a residential district of the lower sort, inhabited by
many of the workmen employed in the great factories. It had
acquired so bad a character that it was known as the "Hub of
Hell." From this region came frequent calls for the patrol
waggon; much drinking went on in it; saloons were plentiful,
and from them proceeded a vast amount of disorder and crime.
The patrol limit law shut up nearly all these saloons, since all
but a strip of this district lies outside the limit; and it has
now lost its old title, and become a decent, orderly part of the
city. This is only a more striking example of what has in a
less degree happened in other parts. When a workman comes
If
home in the evening, tired, he will not go far for a drink.
there is a saloon quite near his house, he is apt to stroll in and
meet his friends; they treat one another, and thence comes
the mischief. He is not likely to take a bottle of whisky
deliberately home with him; that is not the custom of Americans,
whose drinking is mainly a social habit. A "sullen drinker,"
one who will go home and drink for the sake of drinking, is an
What-
uncommon specimen, and is looked on as a bad case.
ever may be the effect of absolute prohibition in tending to
promote home drinking, it is certainly the opinion of persons
in a position to form a trustworthy judgment that the Minne-
apolis system does not lead to this result in any appreciable
number of cases; and the balance of opinion appears to be
strongly favourable to the system, on the ground already
mentioned, that it removes a source of temptation from the
working-man after his return home from his day's labour. It
is also very favourably considered as keeping people in general,
MINNESOTA.
245
in the residential portions of the town, and especially young
people, out of the way of bar-rooms. The custom of treating
accounts for a large proportion of the cases in which intoxicants
are used to excess, and in this way the proximity of the saloon
has (especially to the young) peculiar dangers.
Another beneficial effect of the patrol limit law is to
lighten the labour of police supervision, and render it at the
same time more efficient. Relieved of keeping watch over the
saloons, and those who go in and out of them, in all but the
central section of the town, the police are able to control this
section more closely, and are consequently able with more
certainty to lay hands on crime and disorder. To that extent
an increased number of arrests naturally follows, a point which
must be kept in mind in scrutinising the statistics of crime for
the purpose of testing the results of the system.
The following tables contain statistics relative to St. Paul
and Minneapolis, as published in the official reports :—
ST. PAUL (population 133,156).
Number of licences
Arrests:-
...
....
Drunk
Drunk and disorderly
Violation of liquor law
(selling to minors, without
licence, on Sunday, etc.).. |
Total arrests for all offences
Committed to the City Workhouse:
Drunk
Drunk and disorderly
Police force
...
...
...
...
1886.
635
1,028
434
163
4,855
••
1887.* 1888.t 1889.
763 361 385
1,755
613
1,885
609
60
7,546
...
...
...
76
6,862
•••
...
1,796
638
59
7,098
867
282
•
1890.
392
1,616
470
39
5,277
778
221
178
Since 1890, the number of licences has been reduced; at
the beginning of 1893 there were only 362, and the sittings of
the Licence Committee of the municipality, which commenced
* Fourteen months.
High-licence, $1,000. Previously it had been $100.
246
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
in that month, were expected to result in a further slight
reduction.
Number of licences
Arrests:-
Drunkenness
Disorderly conduct
Violation of liquor
law (selling to
minors, on Sun-
day, without li-
cence, etc.)
Whole number of arrests
Police force*
..
1888
1889
1890
MINNEAPOLIS (population 164,738).

...
•••
...
1887. 1888. 1889. 1890. 1891.
………
...
2,619
...
••▸
...
230
...
⠀ ⠀ ⠀
Prisoners serving sentence throughout
the State
...
•
AVERAGE NUMBER OF PRISONERS IN THE CITY WORKHOUSES OF
ST. PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS.
St. Paul.
145
161
129
PRISON CENSUS.
...
•••
...
2,300
456
I 12
5,216
217
...
··
··
...
...
1885. 1888.
1,809
440
...
Minneapolis.
75
The decided falling-off in the numbers in 1890 "appears
(according to the report of the Secretary of the Board of
Corrections and Charities) “to be a part of the general decline
of the criminal population of the State." The practice of
repeatedly sentencing prisoners to imprisonment for a few
days is strongly condemned in the report as being worse than
useless.
63
5,156 5,866
225
113
98
1892.
274
1,916
December,
...
1889.
652 785 856 742
In this part of the country most of the opposition to
temperance legislation seems to proceed from the Germans.
1890.
"}

* Compared with most other cities in the United States, Minneapolis
has a relatively small police force.
MINNESOTA.
247
The liquor trade is mainly in their hands; and they are very
tenacious of their opinions and habits. The Irish are said to
be generally more temperate here than in New York, Boston,
and elsewhere in the East, and are not so much engaged in the
liquor trade; they appear to have fallen upon different con-
ditions of life in the West, and to be subject to different moral
and material influences. Many of the Scandinavians also, in
the second or third generation, are not merely temperate, but
active workers for temperance, and they form an excellent
element among the population of foreign origin, adopting readily
the laws and customs of their fellow-citizens by adoption. A
movement which is in progress, to obtain a reduction in the
licence-fees, receives its support mainly from the Germans.
The merits claimed for the high-licence system of Minnesota
are: that it suppresses the worst and lowest class of saloons; that
it reduces the number in the outlying and residential parts of the
city, because there is not business enough to repay the licence-fees
(high-licence thus producing, to some extent, the results directly
secured in Minneapolis by the patrol limit law); that it
concentrates the trade in the business centre of the town, where
the force of police is most numerous and best able to control
it; that it diminishes the influence of the saloon in politics;
that it is a security for good conduct on the part of the licence-
holders, through the fear of forfeiture; and that it secures.
to the authorities the co-operation of the licence-holders in
enforcing the law against unlicensed dealers. Doubts have
sometimes, and in some places, been expressed about the extent of
such co-operation, and it is sometimes declared to be altogether
a delusion. I am, however, assured on the best authority that
in Minnesota the police do really get information from this
quarter of the existence and locality of illegal groggeries—the
source of such information being in all cases kept secret.
Unlicensed groggeries ("blind pigs," as they are called) do
undoubtedly, to some extent, exist. In that district of St. Paul
where no licences are allowed, I was informed that a secret trade
.
248
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
was known to be carried on. But, though such violations of
the law are not entirely suppressed, I was assured that the police
were, on the whole, able to keep a pretty close hold on this
business, and that there was no great amount of it.
It is very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain any precise
answer to the question whether high-licence has produced any
marked effect on the aggregate consumption of alcoholic drinks.
The amount of liquor actually consumed in any given place is
an unknown and unascertainable quantity. A system which
largely diminishes the sources of supply, and increases the
average distance separating the saloon from its customers, would
seem likely, à priori, to have some effect in contracting the
amount of business done by saloon-keepers; and the social
customs of Americans, before referred to, would tend to
strengthen this expectation.
If recourse is had to the statistics of drunkenness and
crime for light upon the question of actual results, the returns
above given from St. Paul and Minneapolis do not appear at
first sight to supply a basis for any positive conclusion. In
St. Paul, the first year of high-licence (1888) did not yield any
diminution in the arrests for drunkenness; indeed, considering
that the figures for the preceding year cover fourteen months,
there seems to have been a slight increase. In the following
year a further increase appears; but in 1890 there was a
considerable fall. Two facts, however, affecting any inference
to be drawn from these figures, must be taken into account.
One is the great and constant increase of population, an
increase supplied by foreign immigrants, who for the most part
are not teetotallers. The "twin cities are the new home of
a great number of Scandinavians, Germans, and Irish. In
Minneapolis more than one-third of the population is of
Scandinavian origin. There is, I believe, a larger proportion
of Scandinavians in Minnesota than in any other State of the
Union.*
The Germans, though confirmed beer-drinkers,
* The Swedes are the most numerous section in this State. In
MINNESOTA.
249
seldom get into trouble on this account. Prolonged residence.
in America leads a considerable proportion of the Swedes, Danes,
and Norwegians, after a time, to adopt principles and habits of
abstinence; but on their arrival in the country of their adoption
many of them are hard drinkers, pure alcohol being a common
beverage with them. The drinking habits of the immigrants
would naturally tend to keep up or to increase the returns of
arrests for drunkenness. The other fact alluded to is the
increased efficiency of the police control which directly
results from the reduction in the number of drink-shops,
leading to a higher ratio of arrests to offences committed.
The partisans of high-licence claim this as one of the
most prominent advantages of the system; but obviously
those whose attention has not been drawn to this fact
may be led by its effects upon statistics to draw unfavourable
inferences.
The general aspect of both cities is orderly, and a drunken
man will very rarely be met with on the streets.
That high-licence has, in Minnesota, actually brought about
a diminution of drinking and drunkenness, at least in the chief
centres of population, is, I believe, the decided opinion of
the great majority of those best able to judge. The extreme
advocates of prohibition are strongly opposed to the system,
both on general grounds of morality, and especially on the
ground that the public revenue derived from it perverts the
taxpayer, and constitutes the most formidable of all obstacles
to the furtherance of their policy. They deny that high-
licence diminishes drinking, and urge that it only serves to
concentrate the trade and increase the profits of brewers and
distillers. In proof of this contention they quote cases of
persons interested in the trade who have been supporters of
high-licence. I do not propose in this place to pursue further
Wisconsin (which also attracts many immigrants of this race) the
Norwegians preponderate.
250
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
the general question of the merits and failings of this system,
a task which can be more usefully undertaken after a separate
examination has been made of its working in the several States
which have adopted it. I merely record here my belief that,
so far as Minnesota is concerned, the drift of unbiassed public
opinion-aside from those who are either uncompromising
advocates of prohibition on the one hand, or manufacturers
or sellers of intoxicating liquor on the other-is, after an
experience of several years, favourable to the view that high-
licence has produced practical good results, and is on the whole
the best system to be adopted under the existing conditions of
the community.
While this system has closed many saloons in the chief
cities, it has also materially affected the trade in some of the
smaller towns, where there is less custom, and where conse-
quently it is less easy to make a sufficient profit on the business
after repaying the outlay on the licence fee. A number of
facts and opinions collected from representative Republicans
in different parts of the State, after eight months' experience of
high-licence, were published in the St. Paul Pioneer Press
(April 4th, 1888). The opinions were, with very few exceptions,
favourable to the new law, though in some cases further
restrictions were advocated; and in a few places it was thought
that not much difference in the amount of drinking had resulted.
In one town the saloons had been reduced from twenty to ten,
in another from five to three, in another from three to one, in
another from six to four. In others large reductions were
recorded.
The census returns credit Minnesota with a remarkably
low proportion both of convicts and of paupers. Its prison
population (including penitentiaries and county jails) is
absolutely the lowest in proportion to population of any of
the twelve States which are grouped together in the census
under the heading "Northern Central," the ratio being 492
per million inhabitants. The States ranking next to Minnesota
MINNESOTA.
251
in the group are Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska, while the
worst return comes from Kansas-946 per million.*
Of paupers in almshouses (ie., "indoor" paupers),
Minnesota is credited with 280 per million of the population,
this being a lower return than that of any State in the group,
with the exception of the Dakotas and Nebraska.
In regard to insanity the case is different, Minnesota
showing a ratio higher than the average of its group, and nearly
as high as that of the whole country. The victims of insanity
are supplied in a degree disproportionate to their numbers by
the Scandinavians. This race, forming 16.5 per cent. of the
inhabitants of the State, furnishes 28 per cent. of the inmates
of insane asylums, while at the same time it furnishes only
8.8 per cent. of the convicts. The following table shows
a constantly-progressive increase of insanity in this State
during twenty years:

Ratio of insane to population
...
1870.
I in
2,136
1875.
I in
1,375
1880. 1885. 1890.
I in I in I in
1,078 845
666
* See the table on p. 19. The foreign-born inhabitants of Minnesota
are 38 per cent. of the whole population; they contribute 33 per cent. of
the State prison population, and 61 per cent. of the insane. Of eight
representative eastern and central States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa,
Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts), Minnesota is
the only one in which foreign nationalities furnish less than their share of
State prison convicts. Scandinavians and Germans show a low rate of
criminality in all these States. English-speaking immigrants furnish on
the average one-third more than their share. The same general facts hold
good as regards convicts in city workhouses. (See Report of State Board
of Corrections and Charities of Minnesota for 1888, pp. 72--4.)
+ It has been suggested that the change of life, and greatly improved
living, with better material conditions generally, have tended to produce
affections of the brain among the Scandinavians. Farming is their usual
occupation.
252
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
The corresponding ratio in six other States is as follows:-
I in 417
I in 726
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Indiana
I in 874
I in 909
I in 645
Illinois
Wisconsin
I in 550
...
...
...
···
...
...
...
:
...
...
:
...
•••
...
:
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
..
The Secretary to the Board of State Corrections and
Charities told me that he attributed the high return for insanity
in Minnesota in part to the fact that all their insane (except
those kept in their own families) were in the State asylums,
and that the return was probably more complete than
elsewhere.
Nebraska.
This, though one of the more newly-settled States, was the
first to attempt to deal with the liquor problem by means of a
high-licence fee. This law has now been in operation since
1881.*
In the first year, when Omaha had a population of
about 30,000, the number of saloons in that city was reduced
from 152 to 80; and, at the present time, they are considerably
fewer in proportion to the population. In earlier days the
number was still greater. An old resident told me that, with a
population of about 15,000, the saloons numbered 220. As
the pioneer in this form of legislation, Nebraska has attracted
much attention, and widely divergent opinions have found
expression regarding the results of the experiment. In 1890, a
popular vote was taken on the question of adopting prohibition
into the Constitution, when the proposed amendment was
rejected by 111,728 votes to 82,292.
Under the Slocum Law of 1881, a licence may be granted only
on a petition-in an incorporated city or village, from thirty resident
* The previous law, passed in 1858, allowed the County Commissioners
to fix the licence-fee anywhere between $25 and $500, and cities could
impose an additional amount not exceeding $1,000. As a matter of fact,
liquor-sellers in Lincoln had to pay $1,000 from 1877.
Nebraska.
253
freeholders, and, elsewhere, from a majority of them. The licensing
authority in Omaha is the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners;
in Lincoln, the Excise Board; in other cities, the City Council; in
incorporated villages, the Board of Trustees; and elsewhere, the
County Board.
Notice of the application for a licence has to be published; and,
if any objection is made to it, a day is appointed for the hearing,
when, if it is proved that the applicant has violated the liquor law
within a year, or has had a former licence revoked, the application
must be refused. Otherwise, the licensing authority may grant the
licence, "if deemed expedient." County Commissioners are not
allowed to issue a licence within two miles of any city, except
Omaha. The licence operates for not more than a year, and may
be revoked by the licensing authority on conviction of violation of
the law.
The licence-fee is fixed by the licensing authority, but may not
be less than $1,000 in cities with a population exceeding 10,000,
or $500 elsewhere. And the licensee is required, in every case, to
enter into a bond in the sum of $5,000 with two freeholders of the
county as sureties. No one may be surety on more than one such
bond.
The following offences and penalties are enacted :--
Selling to a minor-fine $25.*
Selling to an Indian, insane person, idiot, or habitual drunkard
-fine $50.
Selling or giving liquor to an Indian, not a citizen-fine $1,000,
or imprisonment, 2 to 5 years.†
Selling or keeping for sale without a licence-fine $100 to $500,
or imprisonment not exceeding 1 month.‡
Selling liquor adulterated with strychnine, strontia, sugar of lead,
or any other substance-fine $100.
Selling on an election day-fine $100.
The civil damage law in Nebraska is peculiar. It is enacted
that "The person so licensed shall pay all damages that the
community or individuals may sustain in consequence of such traffic;
he shall support all paupers, widows, or orphans, and the expenses
* A minor who falsely represents his age is also liable to punishment.
† By an Act passed in 1891.
Home-made wine may be sold in quantities of not less than one gallon,
without a licence. Warrants for search and seizure may be issued on sworn
information, and, on conviction, the liquor is to be destroyed.
254
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWs.
of all civil and criminal prosecutions growing out of, or justly
attributed to, his traffic in intoxicating drinks." Such damages and
expenses may be recovered by an action on his bond. On a person
becoming a pauper by reason of intemperance, the Poor Law
authorities may sue on the bond of any licensee who was in the
habit of supplying him with liquor. In a suit against a licensee on
account of acts done or injuries inflicted by a person under the
influence of liquor, it is only necessary to prove that the defendant
supplied liquor to him on the day or about the time when the acts
were done or the injuries received. All fines are paid to the School
Board, and the complaining witness is to receive out of the local
funds under the control of the licensing authority a sum equal to
one-fourth of the amount so paid.
Permits may be issued to druggists, subject to the general
licensing provisions (but without payment of the licence fee), for the
sale of liquor for medicinal, mechanical, and chemical purposes.
The licensing authorities of cities and incorporated villages, how-
ever, may by ordinance prescribe regulations for druggists. Every
druggist is to keep a detailed record, open to public inspection, of
his sales of liquor, and to report on oath half-yearly to the licensing
authority. Penalty-fine $20 to $100, and imprisonment, 10 to
30 days.
Any person found in a state of intoxication is to be arrested,
and, on conviction, fined $10, or imprisoned not more than 30 days.
But the punishment may be wholly or partially remitted, on his
giving sworn information when, where, and from whom he received
the liquor.
All vendors of liquors are required to keep their doors and
windows unobstructed by screens or otherwise.
"Treating," or giving away liquor in any saloon or other public
place where liquor is sold for consumption on the premises, is
prohibited under penalty.
The law, of which a summary is given in the foregoing
paragraphs, is peculiar in several respects. The requirement
that, in the rural districts, an applicant for a licence must
obtain the support of a majority of the freeholders in the
district appears, at first sight, to be a far-reaching measure of
local option, which it is in form. In practice, however, it has
little or no operation, inasmuch as there are very few persons,
NEBRASKA.
255
if any, desirous of setting up liquor shops in townships outside
of incorporated villages. Such areas are very thinly populated,
and would not support saloons paying a licence-fee of $500.
Outside the villages, therefore, the law is practically prohibitory.
In the cities and villages, an application for a licence has
to be backed by thirty freeholders only; but the licensing
authorities have unfettered discretion, and, where the public
sentiment demands or allows it, they may refuse all applications.
There are, in fact, many places in the State where no licences
are issued. York County, for example, is or has been without
a single licence; in Polk County none has ever been issued.
The question of licence or no licence is sometimes made a
direct issue in the election of commissioners, so that in its
municipalities Nebraska has in fact, though not in form, local
option.
The draftsman of the Slocum Law-a lawyer in Lincoln-
assured me that, where no licences are issued, the law is
generally well enforced. In his view, the plan adopted in
Nebraska is more efficient as a measure of local option than the
system of the direct veto-his argument being that a greater
force of sentiment is required to elect a non-licensing board
than to carry a direct “ no licence" vote, because, in the latter
case, people are apt to be influenced by pressure from women
and extremists, and not to vote according to their own de-
liberate judgment, as they generally do in electing a licensing
authority with discretionary powers. Therefore, when this
authority refuses to grant licences, there is always a strong
majority in favour of their action, and the law enforces itself.
Fluctuations of public sentiment soon reflect themselves on the
licensing board, and changes to and fro between licence and no
licence are not very uncommon.
Nebraska has two large towns-Omaha, with about 150,000
inhabitants (140,450 in 1890), and Lincoln (the State capital),
with nearly 60,000. There are only three other towns which in
1890 had populations exceeding 10,000. The western half of
256
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
the State is very thinly inhabited, and the State as a whole has
only thirteen heads to the square mile.
In Omaha, 277 applications for liquor licences were made
in 1891, and 251 licences* were granted (besides 72 permits to
druggists). This gives a ratio of one licence for nearly 600
people.
The following statistics relate to Omaha. Compared with
most other cities, the return of arrests for drunkenness is
remarkably low in proportion to the population :—
Total number of arrests
Arrests for drunkenness (alone or com-
bined with some other offence)
Arrests for violation of liquor laws
...
...
...
...
1889.
8,449
2,094
1890.
8,113
1891.
7,281
2,2751,667
44
It should be noted that the regular police force of Omaha
is extraordinarily small, only 88 of all ranks in 1891. There
were, in addition, 52 special constables employed apparently
on permanent duty, and 93 more were appointed to assist in
guarding the polls on election day; 50 also on another special
occasion.
In Lincoln only about forty liquor licences are granted,
considerably less than 1 to 1,000. I am not able to give any
police statistics, but there is said to be, and doubtless is, very
little drunkenness. An old resident told me that in the early
days, when the population was only about 1,500, there were as
many as thirty drinking places in Lincoln.
The same advantages are claimed for high-licence in this
State as in Minnesota and other States which have adopted it.
Most of the low dives, the hot-beds of crime, have been rooted
out. Saloons are more respectably conducted; and licensees
obey the law better themselves, and assist in suppressing the
*This number includes wholesale as well as retail, hotels as well as
saloons.
NEBRASKA.
257
illicit trade. So far as my inquiries went, the law appeared to
give great and general satisfaction. The common opinion
appeared to be that it had proved the best liquor law in
the United States. A clergyman of Omaha, who certainly
was well acquainted with the social conditions of the town, and
had a wide experience of men, expressed himself to me very
favourably respecting the state of the town in regard to
drunkenness, and said that he did not remember to have
seen a drunken man on the streets.
A feature, in which I found special credit claimed for the
law of Nebraska, was the provision requiring the licensing
authority to refuse to renew the licence of one who had been
guilty of any breach of the law. The fear of forfeiture is said
to keep the liquor dealers on the alert as to their own conduct
and that of their servants.*
Much has been written and said for and against high-
licence, with special reference to this State. Opponents of the
Slocum Law have frequently quoted in condemnation of it the
fact that Mr. H. W. Hardy, who was Mayor of Lincoln when
high-licence was inaugurated there, and who has been called
the father of that system, subsequently became one of its
most hostile critics. From his published statements it appears
that he gave his support to high-licence as a prohibitionist, in the
belief that it would prove to be a step towards prohibition, but
that he subsequently adopted the views strongly hostile to high-
licence, which are common with the extreme section of his
party. It would, however, I believe, be difficult to prove
anything like a general reaction of feeling to have taken place
in Nebraska against the law of 1881. In 1888 (when high-
licence had been in force for some seven years) letters were
addressed to forty-eight gentlemen, who were deemed to be
representative men, in different parts of the State, asking for
* A lawyer surprised me by remarking that he had found saloon-keepers
as jurymen specially severe with their brethren when tried for breaches of
the liquor laws.
R
258
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
facts, figures, and opinions respecting the operation of the law.
Of the thirty-four answers received, only four were unfavourable
to it, one of them being from Mr. Hardy, and one from
another prominent prohibitionist. The other thirty replies
were, with only two or three exceptions, distinctly favourable
to the law as a practical measure of regulation, though some
of the writers favoured prohibition in principle, and hoped for
a time when it might be possible to enact and enforce it.
High-licence, though on the whole the chief, was not the only
feature of the law, of which favourable opinions were ex-
pressed; the local option and civil damage provisions, as well
as others, came in for a considerable share of praise. These
expressions of opinion are now more than five years old; but
I know of no reason for believing that high-licence stands lower
in the public estimation at the present moment than it stood
then. The gentleman to whom they were addressed, and who
himself would favour the abolition of the liquor traffic, says
(writing to me in March, 1893): "I am not aware of any
material change in public opinion on the operation of our laws
and ordinances since that time." And he claims that the
writers were men of intelligence in the State, of widely different
views and prejudices concerning the whole liquor question,
and presented as fair and complete a statement of individual
and public opinion as could be had.*
The civil damage law is very stringent, and is put in force.
in a good many cases, though proportionately less often in the
large towns, where it is difficult sometimes to trace cause and
* The statements were published in the Nebraska State Journal, March
18th, 1888. Among the writers favourable to the High-Licence Law were
the Governor, two ex-Governors, and the Secretary of State, of Nebraska ;
the Chief Justice, ex-Chief Justice, and two Associate Justices of the
Supreme Court; several other Judges; presidents and officers of Law and
Order Leagues ; lawyers, and men of business-only two of whom appeared
to be connected with the liquor interest.
Mr. Hardy, the "father of high-licence," was afterwards the pro-
hibition candidate for the Governorship of Nebraska.
3
NEBRASKA.
259
effect, and where saloon-keepers are influential, than in smaller
places. There is no doubt that this provision of the law is of
real value.
The following cases may be mentioned as instances. One
of the first lawyers in Nebraska told me that, when he was in
general practice, he took proceedings against three saloon-
keepers for the death of a man who started home in his
waggon under the influence of liquor. The next day the
waggon was found overturned, and the man dead. T'he
amount recoverable was $5,000. In this case the saloon-
keepers had some influence which affected the jury; but a
verdict for $2,800 was obtained. In large cities the influence
of saloon-keepers with the juries operates to some extent as a
check on the full efficiency of the civil damage law.
1 In another case, a party of persons who had been drinking
started home in two waggons. They began to race, collided,
and a woman in one of the waggons fell out on her back and
was paralysed. Another case was that of a man who lost his
leg through frost-bite while intoxicated. In both cases the
saloon-keepers against whom action was brought had to pay a
large sum. Proceedings of this kind are taken, perhaps, once
out of five times when ground for action exists. There appears
to be no difficulty about getting convictions.
The power also of the poor-law authorities to sue a saloon-
keeper for the maintenance of a drunken pauper is sometimes
enforced. It is of practical use.
Sunday selling in Omaha has been checked, but not entirely
suppressed. Until recently many of the poorer classes were in
the habit of crossing the river on Sunday to Council Bluffs,
Iowa, where there was less restriction.
The enactment prohibiting screens is not fully enforced.
That which prohibits "treating" is, as might be expected, a
dead letter.
R 2
260
CHAPTER XIV.
MICHIGAN AND MISSOURI.
(Local option.)
Michigan.
A PROVISION in the State Constitution, prohibiting the Legisla-
ture from passing any Act authorising the grant of licences for
the sale of intoxicating liquors, was revoked by resolution of
the Legislature in 1875-the resolution being confirmed by a
vote of the people in 1876. Prohibition, however, though it
was the law (with an interval of only two years) from 1853 to
1875, was but little enforced. In 1887 a prohibitory amend-
ment to the Constitution was submitted to the people. A full
vote was polled, and the return was 178,636 for the amendment,
184,281 against it—majority against, 5,645. Prohibitionists,
however, dispute the correctness of the official figures, and
claim that a true count of the votes actually cast would have
put their side in a majority. The voting showed that, as a
general rule, the agricultural counties favoured prohibition;
while the lumber communities and the cities were opposed to it.
An Act passed in 1887, giving, to a limited extent, local
option by counties, was declared unconstitutional;* but a
somewhat similar measure was passed by the Legislature in 1889,
and appears to be held valid.
By this Act it is provided that the Board of Supervisors of any
county may prohibit the sale of liquor in their county by resolution,
passed after a popular vote of the electors in the county has been
cast in favour of prohibition. A popular vote has to be taken, on a
requisition from one-fourth of the qualified electors in the county.
The Board of Supervisors, however, is not bound by the popular
vote; but it is decided by a vote of the board whether the prohibitory
resolution shall be passed. The resolution, once passed, cannot be
* In re Hauck, 70 Michigan, 397.
MICHIGAN.
261
revoked for two years, and then only if a popular vote has been
passed in favour of its revocation.
In the early days of local option, under the law of 1887,
before it was declared unconstitutional, a strong tendency to
vote against the sale of liquor was manifested—about thirty of
the eighty-five counties in the State having, according to state-
ments published by friends of prohibition, given majorities on
that side. The impetus then given to the anti-saloon move-
ment has not, however, been kept up. From the annual report
of the Auditor-General of the State, it appears that in the year
1890 no more than four counties were devoid of recognised
liquor-dealers."
In answer to inquiries touching the existing position and
prospects of local option in Michigan, I am enabled to give the
following extract from a letter written in March, 1893, by one
who held a high official position in the State at the time when
the local option law was passed, and who was strongly in favour
of it:
"There is not one encouraging thing to be said in relation to
the practical working of this law. . . . The court held the law of
1889 to be constitutional in all of its provisions. The question was
submitted to the people in nine or ten counties, and adopted by
seven. I suppose we must frankly admit that it has not been
enforced in more than two of these counties. My observation
and experience force upon my reluctant mind the admission that
you cannot say one encouraging word in relation to the working of
the law in Michigan."
•
•
•
Branch County has quite recently decided to abandon
prohibition-"temperance" men as well as their opponents
contributing to this decision.
;
* Isle Royal and Kalkaska counties are noted as having no saloons
and Van Buren, "local option;" from another county, Manitou, "no
return." Not one of these counties contains a town of as many as 2,000
inhabitants. Isle Royal is an island in Lake Superior, with a population
of 135. Manitou County consists of a group of islands in Lake Michigan,
with a collective population of 860. Van Buren again voted “dry” in the
autumn of 1892, after a long and energetic canvass.
262
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
Hillsdale County is under prohibition; but it is said that,
until recently, no steps had been taken in any part of the
county to put down violations of the law, except in Hillsdale
City, where the Law and Order League has displayed some
activity.
Van Buren County again voted "dry" in 1892.
An Act of 1887, providing for the regulation of the liquor
traffic wherever it was not prohibited under the local option
law, was intended by the Legislature to be superseded by an
Act passed in 1889, re-enacting it with modifications. The
later Act, however, having been declared unconstitutional, the
Act of 1887 was left standing.*
...
By this Act the trade is taxed annually as follows :-
Retail (apparently for all kinds of liquor)
Wholesale, or retail, or both, brewed or malt
liquor only
Wholesale, for "spirituous or intoxicating
liquors
Wholesale and retail,
Brewerst
Distillers
در
...
...
..
...
...
ditto
...
...
..
...
...
...
$500
300
500
800
65
800
Wine or cider made from fruit grown in the State is exempt
from tax, unless sold "by the drink."
Druggists may sell for medicinal, chemical, scientific, mechanical,
and sacramental purposes, free of tax; but they are required to
record particulars of every sale, and every druggist has to enter into
a bond in $2,000, with two sureties being freeholders and residents
of the county, to secure his compliance with the law.
Every liquor-dealer has every year, before the 1st of May, to
make a sworn statement as to his name, residence, place of business,
etc., and to pay the tax. He has also to enter into a bond of not
* Rode v. Phelps, decided by Supreme Court, April, 1890. As to the
validity of the taxes, penalties, and provisions of the Act of 1887, see Luton
v. Circuit Judge, 69 Michigan, 613.
+ Retail means three gallons or less, or one dozen quart bottles or less,
at any one time.
Payment of a brewer's tax authorises sale by wholesale without pay-
ment of a wholesale dealer's tax in addition. A distiller has apparently to
pay both taxes.
MICHIGAN.
263
less than $3,000 and not more than $6,000, with two sureties being
male residents and freeholders of the same township, village, or
city, and not holding any elective or appointive office in the State
(except that of notary public). No one may be a surety on more than
two such bonds. The amount and sufficiency of the bond has to
be determined by the local authority, and the bond with a certificate
of the approval of that authority has to be presented to the county
treasurer before the 1st of May in each year. The approval of the
local authority is to be withheld if the person is known to be one
whose character and habits would render him or her an unfit person
to conduct the business of liquor-selling.
The penalty for selling without having entered into a bond,
properly approved, and without having paid the proper tax, is a fine
up to $200, or imprisonment from 10 to 90 days, or both fine and
imprisonment. The offender further forfeits his tax, and is dis-
qualified for a year from resuming business. Half of the tax goes
to the township, village, or city; the remainder to the county.
It is the duty of every county officer, police officer, or other
person having knowledge of any violation of the Act to inform the
county attorney, and it is the duty of the county attorney forthwith
to prosecute. If any officer wilfully neglects or refuses to do his
duty under the Act, he is liable to a fine of $100 for each offence;
and the Governor may appoint someone else to act for him.
The selling of liquor to minors, to intoxicated persons or per-
sons in the habit of getting intoxicated, to Indians, to persons
respecting whom a prohibitory notice has been given by a relative
or employer, or by a member of the local authority or superintendent
of the poor, is forbidden.
Liquor may not be sold in a theatre or place of amusement;
and saloons must be closed (back and front) on Sundays, election
days, or holidays; and from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. (except in cities and
incorporated villages, where the hour for closing may, by local
ordinance, be postponed till II p.m.).
A peculiar provision of the Michigan law is that which requires
a magistrate, on a sworn complaint that anyone has been intoxicated
in any public building or place, to compel him to appear, in order
"to testify in regard to the person or persons of whom, and the
time when, and the place where, and the manner in which the liquor
producing his intoxication was procured." He is then obliged to
answer on oath the question: "When, where, and of whom did you
procure, obtain, or receive the liquor or beverage, the drinking or
264
AMERICAN LIquor Laws.
using of which has contributed to the cause of the intoxication
mentioned in the complaint?" According to his answer, proceed-
ings are to be taken against any who appear to have violated the
law; but he himself is not to be prosecuted for his intoxication.
In addition to the usual civil damage clause, both actual and
exemplary damages are recoverable by a parent or master for the
illegal sale of liquor to a minor.
The village and city marshals, or the police, are required to
visit weekly all places where liquor is sold or kept, and to prosecute
all offenders against the liquor law.
The adulteration of liquor is made a misdemeanor punishable
by fine, from $50 to $500, or imprisonment from 10 days to 6 months,
or both; and all casks, etc., are to be branded : "Pure and without
drugs or poison.'
During the hours of closing, all screens, etc., obstructing the
view from the street must be removed.
•
The abortive Act of 1889 followed generally the provisions
of the above law. It, however, taxed the retail sale of beer as
highly as that of spirits; it raised the minimum amount of the
liquor-dealer's bond from $3,000 to $4,000; omitted the re-
striction as regards his character; and required all clubs to pay
the tax, and to close at the appointed hour any room in which
liquor was kept or distributed.
The number of liquor licences issued in the whole State
during several years is shown in the following table, also the
ratio of retail licences to population in 1880 and 1890:-
STATE OF MICHIGAN.
Licences:
General:-
Wholesale
Retail
Beer and wine
Wholesale
Retail
Tax paid by retailers :
General
...
!
...
...
..
...
...
::
⠀⠀
...
...
...
Beer and wine
Ratio of retail licences to population
...
•••
...
...
...
I
1880.
33
1,925
39
1,600
$
356,954
103,644
I to 464
1885.
38
2,915
20
1,183
$
824,014
211,946
1890.
30
2,506
55
1,678
$
1,186,318
479,154
I to 500
MICHIGAN.
265
Arrests-total : --
The next table gives some statistics for Detroit (population
205,876):-
Common drunkard
Drunkenness
Keeping
open on Sunday
saloon
Not paying liquor
••
...
tax
Selling to minors...
Number of retail
liquor-dealers
Number of police
...
...
...
...
1885. 1886.
...
...
478
8,693 8,720
18
33
20
20
21
12
IO
2,866 3,768 4,421 3,815 3,451 | 3,555 2,816
63
26
59
122 126
135
289
139
I
940
I
...
1887.
::
...
191
3
1888.
...
...
209
242
4
...
...
1889. 1890. 1891.
•••

⠀
...
100
8
222
I
1,082 1,284
368*
The year 1891 shows a large increase of arrests for non-
payment of the liquor tax; but on the other hand the Police
Commissioners reported that only 98 retailers had at the end
of that year failed to pay the tax, against 231 at the same date
in the previous year. Evidently, therefore, the increased number
of arrests for this offence was due to a more stringent enforce-
ment of the law rather than to an increase of law-breaking.
There appears to have been great laxity in the enforcement of
the liquor law generally in Detroit, but a recent agitation has
resulted in a somewhat more vigorous prosecution of offenders.
There is, as I was informed, much abuse of the privilege,
allowed to those selling wine and malt liquor only, of paying a
reduced tax, spirits being very commonly sold under cover of
it. While the prevalence of this evasion of the law is well
recognised, no very determined efforts seem to have been made
to cope with it; indeed, the liquor law in Detroit, and perhaps
in the State generally, cannot be said to have been vindicated
with much success. Probably the unsettled state of the law,
* The Police Commissioners, in their report for 1891-2, stated that,
in consequence of the insufficiency of the force, there had been an entirely
inadequate patrolling of the streets; there were many miles of streets on
which no policeman was seen night or clay.
266
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
and the legal decisions which have declared some of the liquor
statutes invalid, may have tended to paralyse the efforts of
those who would otherwise have pressed for more vigorous
measures. The existence of such a tendency is shown in a
report made by the secretary of the Citizens' Law and Order
League of the United States to the annual meeting of that
body in Philadelphia in February, 1888, in which he says:-
"The decision of the Supreme Court in Michigan nullified the
existing law to such an extent as to discourage the Law and Order
Leagues that were operating there, and the present Local Option
Law recently enacted is now hanging upon the decision of cases
pending before the Supreme Court, and the Leagues are waiting
these decisions to know what chances there are for successful
work."
As regards the sale of spirits by dealers who have only paid
the $300 tax, it should be noted that one of the changes
embodied in the abortive law of 1889 was the abolition of the
reduced tax on malt liquor, and the substitution of a single tax
for retailers of all kinds of liquor.*
As a result, however, of the recent agitation in Detroit.
already mentioned, sixty-four retailers in one precinct, who had
paid the lower tax, after ascertaining that evidence had been
obtained that they were selling spirituous liquor, were reported
by the superintendent of police to have paid the additional tax
without waiting for proceedings to be taken.
The report of the superintendent continues:
"I repeat the opinion expressed in former reports, that further
legislation for the regulation of the liquor traffic, to be effective,
should take the direction followed by several other States, of
limiting the number of dealers who may engage in this traffic, and
of imposing conditions under which licences may be secured and
retained.
* Since the above was written, I read that a law has passed the Michigan
Senate in 1893, fixing a uniform rate on the retail sale of liquor of $500 a
year.
MICHIGAN.
267
'Under the present law of this State, any person — without
reference to character or habits--may engage in the business of
selling liquor, and may continue the same for one year upon pay-
ment of the requisite tax. In many cases the payment even of the
tax depends upon the discovery of the fact of non-payment by the
Police Department, and then upon the necessarily slow process of
getting the offenders before the courts.
"The commencement in this business by any person should be
made to depend upon the prior payment of the tax, and, in addition
to the tax, dealers should be responsible to some authority for
observance of the requirements of the law, under penalty--upon
due conviction-of forfeiture of licence and prevention from
continuing the business for some stated time thereafter.”
Whatever laxity may have been shown in the execution of
the liquor laws in Michigan can hardly be set down as the result
of a general lack of temperance sentiment in this State, as
compared with others, in view of the narrow majority that
defeated the proposed constitutional amendment in 1887, and
the fact that in two successive presidential contests a heavier
prohibitionist vote in proportion to population has been cast
by Michigan than by any other State.
Missouri.
This State has had a local option law since 1887. The
licensing law also embodies to a limited extent the principle of
local option by requiring that every application for a licence
should be supported by a certain proportion of the inhabitants,
amounting, outside the urban communities, to a majority of
the taxpayers throughout the whole licensing area--a require-
ment which, combined with a high-licence duty, and a general
discretionary power of refusal in the licensing authority, has so
operated as largely to restrict the number of licences issued.
In or about the year 1880 a proposal was made in the
State Legislature to submit to popular vote a prohibitory
amendment to the Constitution, when there voted 61 for the
proposal and 63 against it, the whole number of members
268
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
being about 145. The same proposal has been subsequently
renewed and received strong support, but has never been
adopted. In 1887 it was indeed carried in the House, but
failed, owing, as I was told, to the abstention of certain
members in the Senate. The local option law was then put
forward and adopted as a compromise.
The licence fees were raised a few years ago, and it has
been proposed still further to raise them.
The local option law is, in effect, as follows:
On application of one-tenth of the voters in any incorporated
city or town with a population of 2,500 or more, or of a like
proportion in any county, exclusive of any such city or town, the
local authority is required to hold an election to determine whether
intoxicating liquors shall be sold in such city or town, or county.
The election is not to be held within three months of any other
election. If the majority is against the sale of intoxicating liquors,
no one may, in the area concerned, directly or indirectly sell, give
away, or barter in any manner whatever any kind of intoxicating
liquor or beverage containing alcohol, in any quantity whatever,
under penalty of a fine of $300 to $1,000, or imprisonment from six
to twelve months, or both fine and imprisonment-subject to a
saving for the sale of wine for sacramental purposes, and pure
alcohol for medicinal, art, scientific, and mechanical purposes.
After an election has been held under this law, the question
cannot again be submitted to the electors for four years.
The licensing law is contained in a statute passed in
1879, as subsequently amended in 1883, 1885, and 1887.
No one is allowed to sell intoxicating liquors in any quantity
less than a gallon, without taking out a licence as a dramshop
keeper. Application for such a licence must be made to the
County Court, and must be supported by a petition signed, in a city
or town having a population of 2,500 or upwards, by a majority of
taxpayers in the same block, and, in any other city or any incor-
porated town or municipal township, by a majority of taxpayers
therein and also in the block. The petition must be annually
renewed.
In any such city, town, or municipal township, if the requisite
MISSOURI.
269
petition is presented, the court may in its discretion grant the
licence; but, if the petition is subscribed by two-thirds of the
taxpayers, the court, if of opinion that the applicant is a person of
good character, is bound to grant it.
The licence is granted for six months, and the applicant has
on each occasion to give a sworn statement of the full amount of
all liquors received at his shop in the preceding six months, and to
pay thereon a State ad valorem tax of the same amount as is paid
by merchants on merchandise. The applicant has also to give a
$2,000 bond with two or more sureties approved by the court, as a
security for his obedience to the law.
The following half-yearly taxes have to be paid on each
licence-$25 to $200 for State purposes; $250 to $400 for
county purposes; the amount in both cases being fixed by the
County Court.
Local authorities in incorporated towns and cities may also
impose a tax on licences to dramshop keepers within their limits.
A penalty of $50 to $200 is enacted for selling or giving liquor
to a minor, or employing a minor in a dramshop, or permitting
a minor to frequent a dramshop, without the written permission
of his parent or guardian. Damages to the extent of $50 may
also be recovered.
For keeping a dramshop open, or selling or giving any liquor,
on Sunday, the penalty is a fine of $50 to $200; the offender is
also to forfeit his licence, and be disqualified for two years.
The County Court, on proof that a dramshop keeper has not at
all times kept an orderly house, is required to revoke his licence.
The County Court is not to grant a licence to any person whose
licence has once been revoked, or who has been convicted of any
violation of the liquor law, or who has had in his employ any such
person.
Wholesale dealers are forbidden under penalty to permit
drinking on the premises.
Any dramshop keeper, druggist, or merchant selling or giving
liquor to an habitual drunkard, after notice given by a relative or
guardian not to furnish liquor to such person, is liable in damages
to the relative or guardian to the extent of $50 to $500, and is to
forfeit his licence.
By a law passed in 1889, a dramshop keeper is not to allow the
use of any musical instrument, nor any contests or exhibitions on
his premises, nor any billiard-table, gaming-table, bowling alley,
270
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
cards or dice. The penalty for infringement of this provision is a
fine from $10 to $50, and forfeiture of licence with disqualification
for two years.
The immediate effect of the local option law was that votes
were taken in 61 of the 115 counties in the State, and also in 16
towns which, having populations exceeding 2,500, were excluded
for this purpose from the counties in which they lay. The
result of the elections was that 39 counties and 11 towns gave
a majority against liquor, and accordingly about 220 saloons
lost their licences. The entire vote in the State before the
close of 1887 was nearly 79,000 "dry" and 73,000 "wet," or
a clear majority of 6,000 against the grant of licences in those
places in which a vote was taken.
In the years subsequent to 1887 local option elections have
from time to time been held, both in counties and in towns ; but
the number of such elections has been small, and the movement
even in those areas which had once adopted prohibition has
not been well maintained. The validity of the elections has
in a large proportion of cases been defeated on technical
grounds, and the cases where the local prohibition impulse has
been strong and persistent enough to survive such failures have
been few and far between. Up to the end of 1892 the local
option law appears to have been set aside in no fewer than
33 counties, on account either of irregular proceedings of the
County Court ordering the election, or of the errors of the
county clerk in recording it, or of insufficient advertisement.
In nearly all the towns which adopted the local veto it was
also defeated on similar technical grounds. In a few towns
and counties it was revoked by a direct vote of the people.*
On the other hand, in a few instances, it has been adopted a
second time; † and in one county at least it was re-adopted
after four years' trial by a larger vote than it had received
* Scott and Washington counties, and the towns of Marshall (pop.
4,300), Columbia (4,000), and Independence (6,380).
† Eg., Cameron (2,900) and Fayette (2,250).
MISSOURI.
271
before. * These latter cases, however, form distinctly the
exception to the general rule, as is apparent from the fact that
at the close of 1892 prohibition under the local option law
was in force in no more than eleven counties and two cities.
While the foregoing figures show that the anti-liquor vote
under this law has failed to hold its ground, it does not
appear that even during the time and within the area of its
adoption the local veto was as a general rule enforced with
great success. To take a single instance, I was informed that
in Independence, the chief town of Jackson county, which
voted "dry" in 1888, and returned to "wet" in 1892, clubs in
which liquor was supplied were tolerated during the prohibitory
period on payment of a monthly fine to the city. And I was
assured that, whereas under licence Sunday closing was fairly
enforced in the town, under prohibition liquor was sold on
Sundays as well as on other days, so that the chief result of the
prohibitory vote was said to be that liquor was sold seven days
a week instead of six. The following extract from a statement
recently published by a noted prohibitionist in St. Louis
expresses the views of one who considers local option to have
been proved a failure in Missouri. †
"While it is true that a suspension of the law in the counties
which voted against licence is due to court decisions based upon
mere legal technicalities, it is generally admitted, even by the
temperance people, that the law has proved unsatisfactory. Where
saloons have been driven out, drug stores have been opened for
the sale of liquors under the guise of physicians' prescriptions.
Druggists are permitted in this State to fill the prescriptions of
regular physicians for any kind of intoxicants. Taking advantage
of this provision of the law, druggists in local option counties
maintain physicians in connection with their establishments, who
will prescribe liquor for all who apply. As no court can question
* Randolph.
† See an article signed by Mr. Ben Deering which appeared in the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Sunday, December 18th, 1892. From this
article are derived most of the particulars stated above respecting the
working of the local option law.
272
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
the right or propriety of a physician's prescription for a patient, no
legal remedy has been found for this abuse of professional privilege.
In some of the counties druggists do not trouble themselves about
prescriptions, but sell liquors freely to all who ask for it, The
temperance people have become so completely disgusted with the
Local Option Act that they make no effort to carry a local option
election, or to oppose legal proceedings instigated to set aside
the law."
According to the same writer, there were in 1888 less than
3,000 saloons reported in the State, a number which in 1892
had grown to nearly 3,400. As a set-off, however, to the
failure of the local option law, he names 27 counties in which
no saloons are, in fact, licensed, and 15 others having only five
licences, or less, each. The collective population of these 27
counties is over 400,000. They are rural communities com-
prising no towns of over 3,000 inhabitants, and only two
(Cameron and Liberty) over 2,500.
Another county, Greene, is mentioned as having no licences
outside Springfield, a town of 22,000 inhabitants, with 23
saloons.
Returning for a moment to the local option law,
I may
mention that another leading prohibitionist in St. Louis told
me that, when the attempt to submit the prohibitory amend-
ment to the Constitution failed, he supported the movement
for local option. He regarded it as a step in the right
direction; and he hoped that the experience of those places
which adopted it would induce others, which did not at first do
so, to follow their example, and that a tendency towards a
more complete law would be quickened and strengthened.
He declared himself, however, to be entirely disappointed.
with the results; for, though at first a large number of the
counties, as well as many towns, passed prohibitory votes, the
law had not been efficiently enforced; and he stated in general
terms that local option might now be considered as practically
obsolete. From other sources also I heard similar accounts of
MISSOURI.
273
the ineffective enforcement of the law of 1887 in places which
had adopted it.
Though the figures given above show that during the last
few years there has been an increase in the whole number of
licences, there can be no doubt that the raising of the fees
about ten years ago has had a great effect in checking the
demand for them. According to a statement made by the
author of the high-licence law, it operated to reduce the total
number of dramshops between 1882 and 1886 from 3,600 to
2,880, notwithstanding the large increase of population; while,
at the same time, the revenue rose from $501,000 to $1,690,000
for county and municipal purposes. But for high-licence it
was estimated that by 1888 the number would have risen
to 6,000.
Excluding the two great cities of St. Louis and Kansas
City, which will be noticed separately, the whole number of
saloon licences current in 1892 throughout the State very
slightly exceeded 1,000,* giving an average of one saloon for
about 2,000 inhabitants outside those cities. The revenue
derived from these licences (exclusive always of the two cities
above-named) was a little over $1,000,000, or almost $1,000
each, on the average. It has already been noticed that the
licence law admits of the liquor taxes being fixed at varying
rates. As regards the State tax, it was stated by the Governor
in his annual message delivered in January, 1893, that only
one county in the State, Adair, collected the maximum amount
($200 half-yearly), and only five counties collected more than the
minimum. In some, but not in all, counties, the county tax is
also fixed at the minimum rate of $500 a year. The discretion
* Mr. Ben Deering, in the article already referred to, puts the whole
number of licences in the State at 3,378, and claims that this figure is the
result of official returns for the whole State, except the city of St. Louis, in
which he estimated that the saloons numbered 2,000. The ascertained
number in Kansas City in December, 1892, was 352. Deducting, there-
fore, 2,352 for those two cities, there would remain 1,026 for the rest of
the State.
S
274
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
allowed to municipal corporations to impose an additional
liquor tax, to be applied to their own purposes, of such amount
as they may think fit, has been differently exercised in different
places, but in probably every municipality a considerable tax
is impɔsed, and in some cases it is very heavy. Thus in one
town, Columbia, having 4,000 inhabitants and three saloons,
the annual cost of a licence for county, State, and city purposes
is $2,600, while in nearly fifty other towns it varies from $1,000
to over $2,000. In these towns the ratio of saloons to popu-
lation is as 1 to 625. Outside the municipalities, the cost of a
licence may be as high as $1,200, but cannot be less than
$550, a price which in many country districts would of itself
be equivalent to prohibition; while the County Courts, in their
power to raise the tax leviable for county purposes from $500
to $800, and the State tax from $50 to $400, are enabled to
exercise an effectual veto.
From the foregoing facts and figures it will appear that the
average cost of a licence is quite exceptionally high —perhaps,
indeed, higher than in any other State in the Union; and the
result of this condition, added to the severely restrictive pro-
visions of the license law requiring all applications for licences
to be strongly supported by the neighbouring inhabitants,
together with a strong and prevalent anti-liquor sentiment,
and, at all events in many country districts, a small demand
for stimulants, has been that, notwithstanding the little success
which has attended the experiment of local option by popular
vote, the number of licensed saloons throughout the State is
in proportion to population unusually low, while from a large
portion of the rural districts they are altogether excluded.
The city of St. Louis, which according to the census of
1890 ranks fifth among the cities of the United States, having
a population of nearly 452,000, is for all administrative pur-
poses made independent of the county of St. Louis, in which
it is locally situated; and (down to the present year) the muni-
cipality has had control of everything except the police force,
MISSOURI.
275
which is "metropolitan," i.e., regulated by a Board of Commis-
sioners appointed by the Governor of the State. The result
of this exclusion from the county organisation is that no county
tax is levied on the dramshops; and, as the municipal autho-
rities impose only $500 on retail liquor licences, dramshops
are more lightly taxed in St. Louis City than in any other town
in the State, paying only $550, of which the State takes $50.
St. Louis contains a large proportion of Germans, and is
an important centre of the brewing industry. The liquor
interest exercises much influence in the administration of local
affairs, and the licensing power has hitherto been entrusted to
a single official, the collector of revenue, an arrangement
which has given rise to considerable dissatisfaction; but the
Legislature has at length, in 1893, made statutory provision for
transferring this duty to a Board of Commissioners appointed
by the Governor. Allegations have been made of undue influ-
ence in the matter of licensing, and of licences being granted in
defiance of the provision in the law which requires the assent
of the majority of taxpayers in the block. It is said also that
irregularities have been allowed in the collection of the licence
tax. No information is published or easily obtainable of the
number of licences issued, but the number can be approxi-
mately estimated by reference to the revenue returns. Accord-
ing to the annual published statement of the collector of revenue,
the sum received during the year ending April, 1892, on
account of dramshop licences was, for the State, $102,750, and
for the city, $894,000. These figures do not appear to tally,
as, for each dramshop, the State takes $50 a year and the city
$500. The difference may probably be due to irregularity in
making the payments. It may be inferred that the number of
dramshops in the city was from 1,800 to 2,000 ; or say, roughly,
one dramshop to 240 inhabitants.
Public opinion in St. Louis has been stirred of late on the
subject of the administration of municipal affairs, and the
general enforcement of the liquor law is a matter on which
S 2
276
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
much dissatisfaction has been expressed. According to my
information, adequate energy has not been shown in the sup-
pression of unlicensed dramshops, so that quite an appreciable
proportion of the liquor consumed in the place is sold in an
illicit way. The Sunday closing law, as in many other cities,
is greatly violated; indeed, beyond the closing of the front
door, little is attempted towards enforcing it. A large per-
centage of the population of St. Louis is of foreign parentage,
the German element being especially strong. There is a
large consumption of lager beer; and many persons are
employed in the breweries, where a liberal supply of malt
liquor is allowed them for their daily consumption. The
percentage of alcohol in lager beer is of course small, and
it is claimed that, here in St. Louis, where the consumption of
this liquor is admittedly high, it cannot justly be charged with
causing much drunkenness. I was assured that in a quarter
of the town which was chiefly or very largely inhabited by
persons employed in the breweries, the amount of drunkenness
or of crime due to this cause was conspicuously small, but I
am not able to support this statement by official returns from
the municipal courts.
The following figures show the total number of arrests for
drunkenness in St. Louis as stated in the official reports; in
proportion to the population the figures are low as compared
with many other cities:
1884
1885
1886
1887
1892
...
...
...
...
...
...
•
...
...
***
·
••
...
•••
...
...
***
...
:
5,737
4,993
4,137
4,117
4,357
In 1892 there were 5,471 arrests for disturbing the peace,
in a large proportion of which cases drunkenness was probably
an element. The arrests for all offences numbered 22,935.
In Kansas City (population in 1890, 132,716) the licensing
power is vested in a Board of Licence Commissioners
MISSOURI.
277
P
appointed by the Governor of the State. This system has
been in operation about three years. Previously, licences were
granted as of course on any application which was supported
by a majority of frontagers in the block. Applications are
now dealt with by the commissioners at their discretion.
Their practice is to require each applicant to bring an affidavit
from some person certifying him to be of good moral character.
Notice is then given to all the inhabitants in the same block,
who are given an opportunity to put forward objections; and
the commissioners decide in each case as they may think fit.
In the outlying residential quarters a licence will never be
granted if it is objected to. The impossibility of giving a
complete police supervision in the outlying parts influences.
the board in the exercise of their licensing powers: and the
fact that the city gets only $250 on each licence, while an
additional policeman costs $800 or $900, has weight. The
city is not at all satisfied with the existing mode of sharing
the licence fee, the State getting $50 and the county $500.
Since the Police Commissioners have had the licensing, the
number of retail liquor-sellers has been reduced by about 150.
In February, 1893, the number was 352, a ratio to population
of about 1 to 420. The annual cost of each licence is $800.
It is claimed that a great improvement in the condition of the
town has resulted from the weeding out of many disreputable
saloons, and notably from the entire exclusion of the sale of
liquor in some of the lower streets containing houses of ill-fame
and much of the "tough" element of the town.
The following statistics are for the year ending April,
1892-
KANSAS CITY.
Total number of arrests (city cases)
Drunk and disorderly
Intoxication
Keeping dramshop without licence
Selling liquor on Sunday
...
...
...
··
...
...
...
...
...
···
:
:
:
•••
...
...
:
...
5,960
376
716
13
13
278
CHAPTER XV.
OHIO. ILLINOIS.
WISCONSIN.
Ohio.
THE new Constitution of Ohio (1851) provides that "no
licence to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be
granted in this State; but the general assembly may by law
provide against the evils arising therefrom."
The ambiguous language of this provision was the result of
a compromise between conflicting parties at a time when the
prohibitory movement was rapidly growing, and was destined
soon to obtain legal confirmation in some fifteen States in the
Union. The anti-liquor party in Ohio hoped that it would
work in the direction of prohibition, and would prove a long
step towards the total suppression of the drink trade. It has,
in fact, never produced this result. It has not even prevented
the raising of revenue from the liquor dealers; and at the
present time its only effect is to prevent the State Legislature
from adopting any of those measures of restriction (should they
desire to adopt them) which are commonly believed to mitigate
the evils of intemperance.
Ohio supplies an instance of the operation of free trade
in liquor selling, tempered only by taxation; by certain restric-
tions on the mode of carrying on the business; and by a power
of absolute prohibition, which in some parts of the State has
been exercised. There is no legal restriction on the number
of places in which the business may be established, nor on the
persons who may establish it. For a time the consumption of
liquor on the premises where it was sold was forbidden, but
this law had little practical effect.
In order to comply with the terms of the Constitution, the
Dow Law is so framed that the payment required is not in
form a licence fee, nor is it made a condition precedent to the
OHIO.
279
opening of a saloon; but it is a tax imposed on those who are
actually engaged in the liquor trade, on the principle that, as
the trade causes results which entail expense on the State,
those who are engaged in the trade should in fairness be taxed
to meet that expense. This law, passed in 1886, was preceded
in 1882 by a law known as the Pond Law, which was declared
unconstitutional; and in 1883 by the Scott Law, which was
declared constitutional, but some of the provisions of which
were of doubtful legality. The validity of the tax under the
Dow Law was also at first disputed, and in 1886 the collection
of the tax was opposed. The Police Board of Cincinnati,
whose expenses it was expected that the tax would pay, were
active in obtaining a legal decision as to its validity. The tax
as fixed by the Dow Law was altered in 1888, and is now
$250, without reference to the kind of liquor sold. No
discrimination is made in favour of beer or light liquors.
The tax of $250 is assessed upon every person who traffics in
intoxicating liquors, for every place where he carries on such traffic,
paid in half-yearly instalments.
"Trafficking" means the buying or procuring and selling other-
wise than upon medical prescription, or for mechanical, pharmaceu-
tical or sacramental purposes; but does not include the manufacture
from the raw material, and sale at the manufactory by the manu-
facturer, in quantities of not less than a gallon. Wholesale dealers
who are not manufacturers are liable to the tax, and a bonâ fide
social club has been held to be liable.
$50 is paid to the State; the remainder is divided among
certain county and local funds in specified proportions. Sales on
Sundays are prohibited, except by druggists on medical prescrip-
tions; and saloons are required to be closed on pain of a fine from
$25 to $100, and imprisonment from ten to thirty days.
Any municipal corporation is authorised "to regulate, restrain,
and prohibit ale, beer, and porter houses, and other places where
intoxicating liquors are sold at retail" (except for medical, etc.,
purposes). This enables a municipal corporation to pass a
prohibitory ordinance.
Anyone selling liquor to a minor, except on a written order
280
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
from his parent, guardian, or family physician, or to a person
intoxicated, or in the habit of getting intoxicated, is liable to a fine
from $25 to $100 and imprisonment from five to thirty days.
In 1888 a law was passed requiring the trustees of any township
outside a municipal corporation, on petition of one fourth of the
electors, to hold a special election upon the question of prohibition
for the township. If prohibition is carried, the punishment for
selling liquor in the township as a beverage, or keeping a place
for the sale, is a fine from $50 to $500 and imprisonment not
exceeding six months.
In Cincinnati liquor may not be sold between midnight and
six a.m.
By the law of 1888 it is required that the nature of alcoholic
drinks and narcotics, and their effects on the human system in
connection with the subjects of physiology and hygiene, shall be
included in the regular branches of study in the State schools.
The law is sufficiently complied with if oral instruction only be
given, without the use of text books.
There are about twenty special statutes prohibiting the sale of
liquor within specified distances of certain educational and other
places.
Liquor may not be sold on election days, and liquor shops must
be closed. There are penalties on adulteration.
The law provides that “whoever is found in a state of intoxica-
tion shall be fined $5."
A place where a person sells liquor illegally is a common
nuisance, and on his conviction may be closed unless he gives
security.
There is a civil damage law (the Adair Law) operating only
after notice not to serve liquor. If it is sold after notice, the seller
is liable to a fine from $5 to $25, as well as damages for all injury.
Anyone serving liquor so as to cause intoxication is liable to
compensate anyone who takes charge of the intoxicated person
for his expenses.
A tavern-keeper who permits rioting, revelling, or intoxication
on his premises is to be fined from $5 to $100.
In Columbus the liquor law is not vigorously enforced by
the police. The force is under the orders of the mayor as
head of the municipality, and is also subject to a board of five
commissioners, of which the mayor is ex-officio a member, a
OHIO.
281
system of divided responsibility which, combined with the opera-
tion of politics, is not conducive to efficient administration.*
A movement is on foot for obtaining a new charter, under
which the city government would be reorganised in the
interests of a purer administration; but it has to pass the State
Legislature; political exigencies will be stirred; and it is
uncertain what success will reward the reformers, whose object
is to secure that the mayor and a few officers only should be
elected by popular vote, the others to be appointed by the
mayor and be responsible to the municipality. As things now
are, the "spoil" system with the subordination of efficient
administration to party exigencies seems to be a vice peculiarly
prevalent in Ohio, though common enough elsewhere.
In Cincinnati, the largest city of the State, having a popu-
lation of about 300,000, the police force has been taken out of
the local control, and since 1886 has been placed under a
board of four commissioners, two for each party, appointed by
the Governor. The official title of the Board, which appears
on the front page of each annual report, "The Non-partisan
Board of Police Commissioners of Cincinnati," emphasises the
intention of those who instituted it. Here the law, though in
some respects not strictly observed-Sunday-selling in par-
ticular being very generally carried on-is less openly violated
than in Columbus.
The immediate effect of the Dow Law was to reduce the
* The following instance will serve to show how the system works.
Public gambling has been a widespread evil in Columbus. The mayor
was anxious to put down the gambling houses, and gave directions accord-
ingly to the superintendent of police. This officer affected to obey; but it
was intimated to him by members of the Police Board that he had better
not act with too much vigour. The superintendent was in a dilemma.
He was bound to obey the mayor's order, but three of the commissioners
were opposed to the closing of the gambling houses, and, if he closed them,
he would lose his place. The mayor was also in a dilemma. He could
suspend (not dismiss) the superintendent of police; but if he did so the
board would reinstate him. As a natural result little or nothing was done.
282
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
number of liquor shops throughout the State by more than
3,000 (from 15,000 to under 12,000). There has since been an
increase, but (it is thought) not more than proportionate to the
increase of population. In the latter part of 1892 liquor was
sold by retail in about 2,200 places in Cincinnati (being in a
ratio to the population of 1 to about 136).
In this city the midnight closing law is fairly observed;
the police are active in enforcing it, and are able to keep the
violators of this law in check.* In 1890 and 1891 the number
of arrests for selling after midnight was respectively 97 and
395, special efforts having been made in the latter year to put
a stop to this offence.
As regards Sunday closing, the police authorities declare
that they can do little more than see that the front doors are
closed. Public opinion does not support a strict enforcement
of this law, and juries will not convict for its violation. Atten-
tion is repeatedly drawn to this fact in the reports of the Non-
partisan Board of Police. The report of the president of the
board for 1888 states that the police had been active in their
efforts to enforce the midnight and Sunday-closing laws; “but
in the latter law the force has been hampered and restrained
by a lack of disposition on the part of the proper authorities
to have the law obeyed. I have no hesitation in saying
the police are ready and willing at all times to enforce any
law in the statute books when properly sustained by other
departments of the city government."
In the report for 1889 it is stated that the Legislature had
left the door wide open for the escape of violators of the law
by its authorisation of the establishment of the police-court
jury system. "Looking at the matter solely from the police.
standpoint, I take the liberty of saying that public respect for
the law
demands either the abrogation or modifica-
tion of the Sunday laws as to saloons and places of amusement
* The police force, 470 strong, is said to be hardly sufficient for the
requirements of the city.
OHIO.
283
or else a radical change in our police-court jury system." The
reports of 1890 and 1891 make similar complaints. "The
evidence obtained" (it is stated with reference to prosecutions
for breaking the Sunday-closing law) "is conclusive, but no
jury will convict, as in every case there has been a disagree-
ment." In one case, mentioned by way of illustration, an
arrest was made of occupants of premises where intoxicants
were being sold, a musical performance at the same time.
going on, and the doors wide open, yet the jury disagreed
upon the trial.
From another source of undoubted authority I was assured
that much manipulation was practised with the jury lists.
Beer is the popular beverage in Cincinnati. There is a
large German element in the population, and much German
beer is brewed in and about the city, for consumption there
and elsewhere. The beer-drinking German has spread his
taste for that liquor among the native Americans, and inhabit-
ants of Cincinnati keep a supply of beer much more commonly
now than they used. It is, however, the opinion of persons
well able to judge, that drunkenness has not increased in a
greater ratio than the population. The figures following are
taken from the police reports:
Arrests in Cincinnati.
Violation of liquor law
(keeping open after
hours, or on Sunday
or election day; sell-
ing to minors
drunkards, etc.)
Drunkenness...
Disorderly conduct
Total No. of arrests...
or
...
...
1886.
1887.
1888.
1889. 1890. 1891.
*
† 924
298665
2,731 2,651 3,543
1,480 2,920 I,209 1,438 1,646 1,318
12,902 15,244 | 16,220 15,695 16,944| 16,217
125
1,745
133
3,039
904
3,625
* 700 arrests for keeping open saloon on Sunday.
+ 750 arrests for keeping open saloon on Sunday.
400 arrests for keeping saloon open after hours.
284
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
It appears from the report of the Board of State Charities *
for 1891 that the total number of prisoners in Ohio during the
year ending November 15th, 1891 (including those in confine-
ment at the beginning of the year as well as those committed
during the course of it), was 18,692, detained in the State Peni-
tentiary and county jails, the House of Refuge in Cincinnati,
and the workhouses of Cincinnati and Zanesville. † In the
penitentiary alone (which is reserved for those guilty of the
more serious crimes) the number was 2,475, of whom 918
were newly admitted during the year. A large proportion of
the inmates of the workhouses are chronic drunkards who are
repeatedly committed for short terms. Respecting this class
of misdemeanants, the board report that the system of short
sentences is worse than useless, doing no good to the prisoners,
"The
and inflicting a needless expense on the taxpayers.
remedy for this state of affairs, as we have repeatedly recom-
mended in previous reports, is cumulative or indefinite sen-
tences, or both combined, supplemented by a parole and
police supervision.” ‡
The returns from the County Infirmaries show that 13,529
"indoor" paupers (of whom 7,694 remained over from the
previous year) were maintained during the year ending August,
1891, the daily average being 6,533. Of the 7,576 paupers
remaining in the infirmaries at the end of the year, 3,510 were
returned as temperate, 1,579 as intemperate.
* The Board of State Charities of Ohio is non-partisan, consisting of
three members from each of the two parties. They hold office during good
behaviour.
† Boys and girls sent to institutions appropriated to juvenile offenders
are not included, nor prisoners committed to the workhouses at Cleveland
and Toledo, from which no returns seem to have been made. In the
previous year 4,779 persons were under sentence in these two workhouses.
A law passed by the Legislature of Ohio in 1885 provides that every
person convicted for the third time of felony shall be judged an habitual
criminal and imprisoned for life. This law has been to a great extent
nullified by the failure to allege previous convictions in the indictment.
OHIO.
285
The following figures show a considerable fluctuation in the
number of inmates of infirmaries at different periods :-
March 1, 1881
September 1, 1889
1890
1891
"3
""
•
···
...
D
...
:
..
...
...
...
...
·
...
:
...
7,667
12,693
7,694
7,576 *
Illinois.
The law of Illinois provides, in the first place, that the
local authorities of incorporated cities and villages may
"license, regulate, and prohibit" the liquor traffic, subject to
the general law of the State. Another statute enables each
* There appears to have been much abuse of outdoor relief in some
parts of Ohio.
In the city of Columbus, for instance, more than 11,000
different persons, or one-eighth of the population, are said to have been
relieved at the public expense in a single year (ending September, 1891),
irrespective of relief in the infirmary and by private charity. Great
disparity is shown in the administration of outdoor relief, on comparison
of returns from different counties. The system is severely criticised in an
address delivered by the Rev. Washington Gladden at the State Confer-
ence of Charities and Correction in January, 1892. The following passage
indicates in an aggravated form the condition of things which produces an
inefficient administration of the liquor law (and other laws) in many cities:
"I think we come nearer to a true cause of this increase of the dependent
class in our city when we confront the intolerable laxity with which our
city government is administered. It cannot be denied, I think, that the
laws for the preservation of order and the suppression of injurious vice are
very feebly enforced in Columbus. The gamblers, the liquor-sellers, the
keepers of the dens of profligacy have free course. Their nefarious business
goes right on twenty-four hours in every day and seven days in every
week; there is no restraint upon them.
I have no doubt that the
enormous excess of outdoor paupers in Columbus is due in a considerable
measure to the kind of city government which our citizens seem to prefer.
So long as our municipality is organised and re-organised, first in the
interest of one political machine, and then in the interest of the other, with
but secondary and remote reference to responsible and efficient administra-
tion, so long this state of things is likely to continue. The spoilsmen in
politics, and they who make a spoil of the poor, work harmoniously to-
gether, and the people love to have it so." The partisan management of
public charities was also incisively handled in a paper read by Captain
Alfred E. Lee at the same conference,
..
286
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
county board, as regards so much of their county as is not
included in an incorporated place, to grant licences on a
petition from a majority of the voters of the district.
The law is thus one of local option, exercisable in the
towns by the municipality, and in the rural districts by popular
vote. In the latter case the option is one to be exercised
affirmatively, licences not being issuable until the decision of
the majority has been given in favour of their issue.
In Chicago, under the city ordinance, licences are granted
as of course, on payment of the licence fee, subject only to
refusal or revocation for bad character or misconduct. Dis-
satisfaction is felt in some quarters that the will of the people
cannot be in any way expressed and enforced in the city, as it
is in the rural parts of the State, for the purpose of limiting
the number and the situation of the dramshops.*
The following is a summary of the law :-
City Councils and Boards of Trustees in villages have power to
license, regulate, and prohibit the selling or giving away of intoxi-
cating liquor, subject to the general law of the State; and to punish
the selling or giving to minors, insane, drunkards, and intoxicated
persons.
There is a penalty not exceeding $1,000 and imprisonment not
exceeding one year (one or both) for adulterating liquor intended
for drink with cocculus indicus, vitriol, grains of paradise, opium,
alum, capsicum, copperas, laurel-water, logwood, brazil-wood,
cochineal, sugar of lead, or any other substance which
poisonous or injurious to health.
A fine not exceeding $200 is enacted for keeping open on
Sunday any place where liquor is sold or given away.
Selling on election days is prohibited.
Liquor Licensing Act of 1874.-" Dramshop" means a place
where liquor is retailed in quantities less than one gallon.
For selling without licence the penalty is-fine $20 to $100, or
imprisonment ten to thirty days, or both.
A local authority is not to grant a licence except on payment
* Attention was drawn to this point by Mr. C. C. Bonney (President of
the International Law and Order League) at the thirteenth annual meeting
of the Citizens League of Chicago (1891).
ILLINOIS.
287
of at least $500; or, for malt liquor only, at least $150; but this
does not apply to pharmacists selling for medicinal, mechanical,
sacramental, and chemical purposes only.
The County Board of each county may grant licences to keep so
many dramshops in their county as they may think the public
good requires, upon the application, by petition, of a majority of
the legal voters of the town, if the county is under township organi-
sation; and, if not under township organisation, then of a majority
of the legal voters of the election precinct or district where the same
is proposed to be located, and on payment of such sum as the
board may require, not less than $500 per annum (or $150 as the
case may be). The board is not to issue a licence in or within
two miles of any incorporated city, town, or village in which the
corporate authorities have authority to regulate, or in any place
where the sale of liquor is prohibited.
A person having a beer licence, on conviction of selling other
liquor, is liable to fine or imprisonment, or both (and may be pro-
ceeded against summarily for the fine), and "a conviction under
this section shall forfeit the licence held by the defendant, and the
court rendering judgment upon such conviction shall in such
judgment declare a forfeiture of such licence."
((
Any licence may be revoked by the County Board whenever
they shall be satisfied that the person licensed has violated any of
the provisions of this Act, or keeps a disorderly or ill-governed
house or place of resort for idle or dissolute persons, or allows any
illegal gaming in his dramshop, or any house or place adjacent
thereto."
Every licensee must enter into a bond in $3,000 with two sure-
ties, being freeholders in the same county, conditioned that he will
pay to all persons all damages that they may sustain, either in
person or property or means of support, by reason of the licensee
selling or giving away intoxicating liquors.
Anyone selling or giving liquor to (or procuring it for) a minor
without the written order of his parent, guardian, or family phy-
sician, or to (or for) any person intoxicated, or in the habit of
getting intoxicated, is liable to fine and imprisonment.
Places where liquor is sold in violation of the Act are declared
to be common nuisances. The keeper, on conviction, is subject to
fine and imprisonment (twenty to fifty days), "and it shall be part of
the judgment, upon the conviction of the keeper, that the place so
kept shall be shut up and abated until the keeper shall give bond,
288
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
with sufficient security to be approved by the court, in the penal
sum of $1000, payable to the people of the State of Illinois, con-
ditioned that he will not sell intoxicating liquors contrary to the
laws of this State, and will pay all fines, costs, and damages
assessed against him for any violation thereof."
Every one who by the sale of liquor causes the intoxication of
any person is liable to compensate any person who takes charge
of him.
Any relation, employer, or other person injured in person,
property, or means of support by any intoxicated person, or in con-
sequence of the intoxication, habitual or otherwise, of any person,
has a right of action against any person who wholly or partly caused
such intoxication by selling or giving liquor. If the damages
claimed do not exceed $200, proceedings for their recovery may
be taken before a magistrate.
The penalty for drunkenness is a fine not exceeding $5, and, on
subsequent conviction, not exceeding $25. The justice of the peace
may remit the fine in whole or in part if satisfied that the public
welfare and the good of the offender require it.
Common drunkards are deemed vagabonds, and may be
imprisoned from ten days to six months.
Habitual drunkenness for two years is a cause for divorce.
When a person by excessive drinking, gaming, idleness or
debauchery, so wastes his estate as to expose himself or his family
to want or suffering, or any local authority to expense for his
support, proceedings may be taken, as in the case of insanity, for
the appointment of a conservator, who is given the management of
his property, the custody of his person, and, if necessary, the
custody and education of his children.
The ordinances of the city of Chicago make provision for
the licensing of dramshops.
Licences are required to be granted by the mayor to persons
furnishing satisfactory evidence of good character, and entering
into a bond of $500 with two sureties, to observe the ordinances,
and keep closed on Sunday all doors opening on the street.
The licence fee is $500. A separate beer licence at $150 has
been abolished.
Licences are not to be granted in any prohibitory area which
becomes annexed to the city.
Any licence may be revoked by the mayor when he is satisfied
ILLINOIS.
289
that the licensee has violated any city ordinance or any condition
of his bond.
The punishment for selling without licence is fine from $20 to $100.
Licensed premises are required to be closed from midnight to
five a.m.
Druggists are required to take out a permit to enable them to
sell liquor for medicine, etc., and must record all sales (except on a
doctor's prescription).
The relative of a drunkard may give notice to saloon-keepers
not to supply him. Sales to minors, drunkards, and intoxicated
persons are prohibited; and any minor, drunkard, or intoxicated
person who seeks to obtain drink is liable to a fine.
On complaint by two or more persons that a saloon is a resort
of disreputable persons, the mayor is required to investigate the
complaint, and, if true, to revoke the licence. On a report to the
same effect from the police department, he must at once revoke the
licence.
One per cent. of the licence fees is given to the police and
firemen's relief fund.
Ten per cent. goes to the Washingtonian Home of Chicago.
In recent years the licence fees in Chicago have twice
been raised from $52 to $103, and from $103 to $500-
with the result in each case of a certain diminution in the
number of licences issued; and it has been claimed that the
raising of the fees did much to remove "the pest of the
home, the bar in the family grocery," and to weaken the
position of the saloon in politics.
The $500 fee was charged in pursuance of an Act of the
State Legislature, known as the "Harper High-Licence Law,"
which was passed in 1883. In the following year a Bill for
again reducing the fee was reported by the Committee on
Licence, but was afterwards dropped. A minority report,
made by three members of the committee, of whom Mr.
Harper, the author of the High-Licence Law, was one, contained
the following passage :
"The advantages and pecuniary benefits of this " (¿.e., the high-
licence) "law are not only wonderful, but almost incalculable. In
290
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
the city of Chicago the revenue arising therefrom has been in-
creased from $200,000 to $1,750,000, and the city has reduced the
number of saloons from 3,800 to 3,600, or 200 less, while the popu-
lation has increased from 450,000 to 7c0,000, and has added to the
police force 300 men. In Hyde Park, a suburb of Chicago, two
years ago, 214 saloons paid $11,000, and since this law has been in
operation the saloons have been reduced nearly one half, while the
population has largely increased, and the revenue from 127 saloons
is $71,000, nearly tenfold more; and the number of arrests for the
two years prior to the passage of this law was 1,895 as against 678
arrests since.
"In Springfield (the capital city), the number of saloons has
been reduced from 157 to 104, closing up 53 (or 33 per cent.),
while the revenue has been increased from $15,700 to $52,000, an
increase of $36,300, or 231 per cent., notwithstanding the reduction
of saloons and the increase of population of the capital city.
"In Peoria, before this law went into effect, there were 220
saloons, paying a revenue of $22,000; and since then, with an
increased population, and about half the number of saloons-say
126-the city receives $63,000, or nearly thrice as much as hereto-
fore, and the number of arrests have been 194 less than before this
law was enacted."
In the same report the number of saloons throughout
the State was said to have been reduced from 13,000 to 9,000,
while the advantages of a revenue raised from $700,000 to
$4,500,000 were dwelt on.
It will appear, however, from the following table that, so
Year.
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1887
1890
...
•
...
...
...
...
...
Number of Saloons in Chicago.
3,245 (licence fee $52)
3,603
""
3,919
"
3,777 (licence fee $103)
3,184 (licence fee $500)
3,075
3,600
5,500
""
""
""
...
...
...
...
:
…….
...
...
...
:
...
...
...
...
Revenue.
Dols.
168,740
182,226
195,490
385,864
1,463,700
1,721,474
ILLINOIS.
291
far as Chicago, at least, is concerned, the actual limitation in
the number of saloons was not very considerable; and, after
all due allowance made for increase of population, the number
in 1892 was very great—about 7,000.
"The Citizens' League of Chicago for the Suppression of
the Sale of Liquor to Minors," incorporated in 1878, limits
its operation to the enforcement of the law which forbids the
sale of liquor to minors or to drunkards. It does not under-
take the prosecution of offenders against the Sunday-closing
law, nor does it identify itself with any political organisation,
or, as a rule, take part in any movement for legislative inter-
ference with the liquor trade. The agents of the League are
instructed to receive complaints, collect testimony, and prose-
cute the cases openly in the courts. They seek out violations
of the law by visiting the saloons, and are in daily attendance.
at all the police-courts in the city for the purpose of investi-
gating every case where a minor or a drunkard is brought up
for intoxication, and taking proceedings against those who
supplied the liquor. As the result of the League's efforts,
it is claimed that there are fewer boys and girls to be found
in the saloons of Chicago in proportion to its population
than can be found in those of any other city in the world
where liquor saloons are licensed. The magistrates and
police are in full sympathy with the movement.
Complaint, however, has been made in some of the annual
reports of the League that the grand jury and the municipal
authorities had not lent it the support which it was entitled to
expect. Licences have been granted to unworthy persons,
and have not been revoked when good and sufficient reasons
for their revocation have been presented; and grand juries,
consisting largely of saloon keepers and ward politicians, have
refused to indict their brethren.*
At the time when the League commenced its operations
* For several years, it is said, there were from three to seven saloon
keepers on each grand jury, and few indictments could be obtained.
T 2
292
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
the law forbidding the sale of liquor to minors was a dead
letter in Chicago. Children were freely admitted to the
saloons; and at the same time, and, it is thought, largely in
consequence of this abuse, there was a great deal of juvenile
crime. The efforts of the League have, it is claimed, had a
marked effect in diminishing this evil. The figures following,
however, show a large progressive increase so far as arrests are
concerned, though it is necessary to make due allowance for
the vast increase of population, which in 1880 was, according to
the census, 503,000, while in 1890 it had risen to 1,100,000:—-
of
Number
minors ar-
rested for
all offences
Cases prose-
cuted by
Citizen's
League
...
1877. 1885. 1886. 1887. 1888. 1889. 1890. 1891.
6,818 6,550 6,841 7,539 8,923 9,330 11,093 13,111
1,287 2,042 1,973 1,961| 1,649 1,772 1,3ɔ6
The refusal of licences in Chicago to persons of bad
character rests at the mayor's discretion. Some mayors have
exercised their power with firmness, and have been willing
to give ear to representations made to them by citizens and by
bodies such as the Citizens' League. Under other adminis-
trations the weeding process has but partially been applied.
The League, in their report for 1888, state that high-licence has
greatly aided their work, by reducing the number of saloons.
They urge that the licence fee should be further increased from
$500 to $1,000, but express the opinion that a still more
effective limitation would be a statutory restriction on the
number of saloons to one for each five hundred inhabitants.
It does not, however, appear that any active movement
has been undertaken for securing such a reform, and the
g

ILLINOIS.
293
Arrests for disorderly
conduct (including
drunk, and drunk
and disorderly)
political influence of the trade would undoubtedly be power-
fully exerted against it.
The following figures are taken from the annual police
reports of Chicago :-
CHICAGO (population, 1,099,850).
1883. 1884. 1885. 1886. 1887. 1888. 1889. 1890. 1891.

...
Arrests for violation
of saloon ordinance
Total arrests ..
...
Intoxicated persons
assisted home
...
Total number of
police force
...
673 727 849
637 924 924 1,032 1,145 I 255 1,624 1,900 2,306*
In 1883, the number of arrests for drunkenness alone was
2,355, and for being drunk and disorderly 843. In subse-
quent years the figures for these offences are not given
separately; but judging from the returns of 1883, it would
seem that drunkenness was probably charged in a compara-
tively small minority only of the cases included in the category
of "disorderly conduct."
Population
Number of saloons
18,218 23,080 25,407 26,067 27,632 31,164 27,536 37,063 41,463
··
40 146 192 535 570 381 223 383 522
37,187 39,434 40,998 44,261 46,505 50,432 48,119 62,230 70,550
The Citizens' League of the town of Lake, which was
annexed in 1889 to Chicago, appears to have laboured on
broader lines than the Chicago League, and to have had
remarkable success in diminishing the evils of drink. Lake is
a comparatively small town, but one which has had a very
rapid development, as appears from the following statement :-
...
23,000
265
* The total cost of the police in 1891 was $2,622,000.
···
...
···
733 1,336 1,260 1,417 1,951 2,201
....
1881.
1885.
60,000
201
294
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
Owing to the efforts of the League the number of saloons
was actually diminished, notwithstanding the immense increase
of population; and a steady improvement is shown by the
following figures of arrests for drunkenness, and for being
drunk and disorderly :--
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
...
...
...
•
...
...
...
...
••
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
:
...
...
...
...
...
···
···
...
...
...
A
...
620
585
500
420
400
Vagrancy showed a like steady decline.
I was not able to obtain definite information from official
sources regarding the extent to which the Local Option Law
has operated in a prohibitory sense; nor were the anti-liquor
organisations able to supply this information in detail. There
are, as I am informed, a number of counties, especially in the
southern part of the State, which have no saloons in the rural
parts, and also a number of counties in which nearly all the
towns have voted against licence.
An investigation undertaken by the Christian Union in
1885-6, for the purpose of comparing the effects of high-
licence and local option in Illinois with those of prohibition in
Iowa, showed that, of seventy-six towns in Illinois from which
answers to inquiries were received, twenty-six were under pro-
hibition, the largest of these being Canton, credited by the
census of 1890 with a population of 5,600, Oak Park (4,770),
and Sandwich (2,500). Some other towns, including Jackson-
ville (12,900), Rockford (23,500), and Streator (11,400), after
shutting up their saloons for a time, had reverted to licence.*
While a certain number of small towns have thus pro-
hibited the sale of liquor, it does not appear that local prohibi-
tion has taken firm root in the State to any very widespread
extent, or that general public attention is much directed to its
* Christian Union (New York), January 14th, 1886.
WISCONSIN.
295
further development. Outside the rural districts and a limited
number of small towns, it has had little or no success.
Other places have gone beyond the minimum requirements
of the Harper Law in the direction of high-licence. In a good
many towns, even before the passage of that law, the fee was
$500; and at the present time it is by no means uncommon
to charge $1,000, a course which, whatever effect it may have
on the amount of drunkenness (as to which opinions often
differ, and the experience of different places does not seem to
be uniform), has in the great majority of cases, if not always,
reduced the number of licensed retailers.
Galesburg and Edwardsville may be mentioned as instances
of towns in Illinois having a $1,000 licence fee.
A few towns are, by their charters of incorporation, pro-
hibited from issuing licences. In one case, that of Evanston,
near Chicago, founded as the site of a college endowed by
private munificence, no saloon may be opened within four
miles of the college building. An attempt made in the legis-
lative session of 1893 to obtain the repeal of this restriction
was defeated.
Wisconsin.
Local option has been in force in this State since 1889.
An attempt to make the county the area of adoption was
defeated, and the law as it stands gives to each municipality
and township the right of deciding the question for itself.* A
peculiarity of the law in Wisconsin is its extension of the
principle of local option to the question of the amount of the
licence fee to be paid in each locality in which licences are
granted. The law fixes a minimum fee, and authorises a
popular vote to be taken on the proposal to increase the
amount within certain limits; "high-licence" being thus made
conditional to local option.
* A Bill to repeal the local option law was in 1893 defeated in the
House, 38 to 34.
296
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
Town boards, village boards, and common councils, of towns,
villages, and cities, may grant licences (subject to the general law
of the State) to such persons as they deem proper to keep groceries,
saloons, or other places for the retail sale of liquor to be consumed
on the premises.
The annual fee for retail on-licences is to be not less than
$100 in purely rural districts, and elsewhere not less than $200;
but the $100 licence may by popular vote, taken on the requisition
of twelve voters, be raised to $250 or $400, and the $200 licence
may in like manner be increased to $350 or $500.
The fee for off-licences (covering sale in any quantity) is
$200; but this law does not apply to brewers or manufacturers
selling in packages or casks, according to the custom of the trade.
Pharmacists, also, on payment of a $10 fee, may be permitted to
sell liquor in quantities less than a gallon, for medicinal, mechanical,
or scientific purposes only. A pharmacist to whom such a permit
is refused may sell for medicinal purposes only, on a medical pre-
scription. Pharmacists are required to keep a record of all sales
of intoxicating liquor.
The licence fees are appropriated for the support of the poor.
Every applicant for a licence must enter into a bond for his
good behaviour, in the sum of $500, with two sureties being
freeholders and residents of the same county.
The penalty for sale of liquor without a licence or permit is a
fine from $50 to $100, or imprisonment not exceeding six months
nor less than three months. Places where liquor is unlawfully sold
are declared public nuisances, and, on conviction of the keeper,
may be shut up. Justices of the peace, municipal officers, and
constables, on being credibly informed of any offence against the
liquor law, are required to take proceedings against the offender,
on penalty of a fine of $25.
When any person shall by excessive drinking of intoxicating
liquors misspend, waste, or lessen his estate, so as to expose him-
self or family to want, or the town, city, village, or county to which
he belongs to liability for the support of himself or family, or so as
thereby to injure his health, endanger the loss thereof, or to
endanger the personal safety and comfort of his family, or any
member thereof, his wife, or the municipal or Poor Law authorities
may give notice forbidding the sale to him of any intoxicating
liquor for a year. The notice may extend to places outside of that
in which the person resides, and may be renewed from year to
WISCONSIN.
297
year. The penalty is a fine of $50 for each offence; and a person
concerning whom the notice is given may be arrested and made to
declare from whom he has received liquor. There is also a right
of action for damages on the part of anyone injured in person,
property, or means of support, through the intoxication of any such
person.
Selling to minors, or intoxicated persons, or within a mile of a
hospital for the insane, is punishable as a misdemeanor.
Upon sworn complaint that a licence-holder has violated the
law, the licensing authority must summon the person charged, hear
the evidence, and on proof of the offence, the licence is to be
revoked; nor may the same person again be licensed for twelve
months.
Any person found in any public place in such a state of
intoxication as to disturb others, or unable by reason of his con-
dition to care for his own safety or the safety of others, shall upon
conviction thereof be punished by a fine not exceeding $10, or by
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than five days, or by
both such fine and imprisonment; but this section shall not
abridge the powers of cities and villages to provide a different
mode of punishment for such offences.
The sale of liquor on Sunday, or on the day of the annual
town meeting or the annual election, is a misdemeanor punishable
by fine from $5 to $25, or imprisonment not exceeding thirty days
or both fine and imprisonment.
The sale of liquor to Indians, except civilised persons of
Indian descent not members of any tribe," is forbidden.
""
Instruction is required to be given in all schools supported by
public money, or under State control, in physiology and hygiene,
with special reference to the effects of stimulants and narcotics on
the human system.
The local option law provides for a vote being taken for any
town, village, or city, on the application of any number of voters
equal to 10 per cent. of the number of votes cast at the last general
election for Governor. If the majority is "against licence," no
person is to "vend, sell, deal, or traffic in any spirituous, malt, or
intoxicating liquors or drinks in any quantity whatever in the
town, village, or city, and no licence for such sale is to be issued
therein. If any person should vend, etc., or for the purpose of
evading any law of this State give away any spirituous, malt, ardent,
or intoxicating liquors or drink" in any place which has carried a
""
66
298
AMERICAN LIQUOR Laws.
prohibitory vote, his punishment is a fine from $50 to $100 and
costs, or imprisonment from three to six months; and on a subse-
quent conviction within the year both fine and imprisonment. If
the majority is "for licence,” the Board of Supervisors of the town,
or the village trustees or board of the village, or the mayor of the
city (as the case may be) may grant licences according to the law
of 1885.
There is a general saving for druggists, in accordance with the
law of 1887.
The local option law has resulted in prohibition being voted
in a considerable number of rural districts, and in some of the
smaller towns, as, for example, in Beloit (population 5,000), a
manufacturing and college town; Sparta (3,000); Viroqua;
and Lancaster. In Whitewater (3,000) an unsuccessful attempt
was made to carry an anti-liquor vote. Evansville (2,000), I
am told, has never had a saloon, legal or illegal; it was settled
by a colony of Methodists, and before the days of local option,
officers were always elected who refused to grant licences.
Many smaller places, especially farming communities in the
western and southern parts of the State, have made use of the
Act. The east, where the German element is strong, and the
north, where a new lumbering and mining section has been
opened, are generally in favour of liquor; and the moral con-
dition of certain towns in the north is said to be bad, liquor
being sold in houses of prostitution, and political influence
being too often gathered about such places.
Wisconsin has a greater number of foreign immigrants in
proportion to its population than any other State in the Union.
A large number of these are Germans, all beer-drinkers, though
there is not much drunkenness among them, and all opposed
to legal restrictions on the trade. Many Scandinavians also
(especially Norwegians and Danes) find a home here. The
men of this race drink hard liquor, many of them drink pure
alcohol, which they procure at the drug stores. There is a
good deal of drunkenness among them; but, in spite of, or
WISCONSIN.
299
perhaps rather because of, this, some of them adopt advanced
anti-liquor views, and join the cause of prohibition. Apart
from their drinking habits, the Scandinavian immigrants form
a good class of citizens, assimilating themselves to American
ideas and institutions more readily, perhaps, than those of any
other foreign-speaking race. The Irish are whisky-drinkers ;
there is a "temperance" section among them, which, however,
does not usually advocate general prohibition, but is favourable
to local option.
There are many-about 7,000-Indians in Wisconsin, as
many as existed before the State was settled. They live
partly in reservations which are under the Federal Govern-
ment; but some are made full citizens, and then come under
the State law.
The German influence has made itself strongly felt in this
State in the social habits of the people. A resident who has
given long attention to the subject expressed to me his belief
that there is now considerably less drinking of hard liquor than
was practised forty years ago. The German has come and set
up his brewery and his beer garden, and has introduced the
habit of drinking beer among the native Americans. The con-
sumption of beer has without doubt much increased. Mil-
waukee is one of the chief centres of brewing in the country.
The Germans, however, as already stated, do not often get
drunk on their beer; and they do not commit crime due to
drink, though some say that they are apt to injure their health,
and contract organic diseases in middle life. I have, indeed,
heard it said that more actual drunkenness exists among the
Germans than is commonly supposed, and that many of them,
though not as a rule much inclined to speak out, admit the
magnitude of the evil, and would at heart gladly welcome
restrictive legislation. I did not, however, find evidence of
any extensive prevalence of this view among them. The
clergy, both Scandinavian and German, are active in the
temperance cause.
300
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
The importance of the brewing interest has led to an
extensive introduction of the "tied house
system, and
the brewer is commonly a surety on the bond of the saloon-
keeper.
"}
The liquor laws are not generally, it is said, very well
enforced in this State; But I have no detailed information
respecting Milwaukee, the largest town, having a population.
of over 200,000. In Madison, the official capital of the State,
a small town of nearly 15,000 inhabitants, 75 liquor licences
are issued. No application is refused, except for misconduct,
i.e., for misconduct other than the mere breach.of regulations,
which is general, the law being slackly enforced. Neither in
Madison nor in Milwaukee has the option of increasing the
minimum licence fee fixed by law been exercised.
In Madison, for a time, owing to great exertions on the
part of the Law and Order League, led by a small band of
active prohibitionists, Sunday closing and other regulations
were made effective. To attain this end, cases were fought
with determination through the courts.* Witnesses were pro-
secuted for perjury, and convictions were secured by an
extensive exercise of the right to challenge jurors, till at last
the liquor men surrendered; they came in and undertook to
obey the law if they might be let alone. For a time they kept
their word pretty well, till the vigilance of the League abated.
The vindication of the law had not been obtained without
much friction. Detectives employed by the League were.
mobbed and threatened; and many threatening letters were
received by the most prominent of its representatives. Though
successful for the time, the League soon began to lose ground.
* It is worth noting that Wisconsin has abolished the grand jury as
part of the ordinary machinery of the criminal law. Cases are sent direct
to the petty jury for trial by information of the district attorney, or by the
magistrate after a preliminary hearing. Great power is given to the district.
attorney by this system, a power which doubtless is open to abuse; but
it appears to be generally thought that on the whole the discontinuance of
the grand jury system has proved advantageous.
WISCONSIN.
301
Many of those who at first had given it their support did not
care to face the odium which fell upon the movement. Even
those who had been most prominent in advocating the work.
held back when they found what a storm they had raised;
and the growing feeling that the proper officers are paid to
enforce the laws, and that it is not the business of private
citizens to contribute their money for enforcing them through
private agents, checked the flow of subscriptions. The long
and short of the matter was that the League, having for a while
been victorious through the efforts of a few men, and having
encountered an angry resistance which only a few cared to face,
collapsed; and the movement at last came to nothing. One
who had taken his full share in the fight, and was himself a
thorough-going prohibitionist, expressed to me his conviction
that it was useless in the long run for a body of private citizens
to band themselves together for the enforcement of a law to
which there is much opposition. Such action always creates
very great friction, and those who embark on it are sure to
have the regular officials against them. On my suggestion that
in this case it was impossible to enforce such a law at all, seeing
that the appointed officers seemed almost invariably to fail in
making it effective, his answer was that this failure was incidental
to the general demoralisation of local politics, the great evil
with which Americans had to grapple and were grappling.
The liquor interest was powerful in the management of the
political machine. When the machine was broken up or
reformed, and the Government came to be really controlled by
the majority, he believed that the administration of the liquor
law (even the most prohibitory form of it) would succeed,
though the struggle at first would be keen and bitter.
At the time of my visit there was, according to the statement
made to me by observers of political and social tendencies, and
by prohibitionists themselves, no active movement in this
State for any strong anti-liquor reform. The prohibitionist
strength appears to remain about stationary; indeed, the highest
302
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
prohibition vote ever cast was in 1886. There exists, apparently,
a general acquiescence with the law as it is; and it is recog-
nised by prohibitionists that local option is the most they can
expect (for the present, at all events) in Wisconsin. They
would, however, prefer to make the county the unit for voting
instead of the smaller area.
Prohibitionists in this State are to some extent out of
sympathy with that section of their party in the country at
large which is in close relationship with the Women's Christian
Temperance Union, in consequence of the association of the
female suffrage with the anti-liquor movement, a combination
which many prohibitionists in Wisconsin disapprove. And
while on the one side this cause of discouragement exists, a
prominent leader of the anti-liquor movement told me that he
had no belief in its advancement by either of the two great
political parties. Though the Republicans have in the North
been regarded as the opponents, and the Democrats as the
friends, of the liquor interest, in the South the positions are
reversed; the truth being that, so far as the North is concerned,
the Republicans have merely been more successful than their
rivals in bidding for prohibitionist support, and are not as a
party really hostile to liquor.
The civil damage law is rendered inoperative, or nearly
so, by the requirement of a previous notice in each case to
liquor-sellers forbidding them to sell. It is a hard matter for
a poor woman in Madison (for example) to draw up 70 or
So notices, and then to serve them on all the bar-keepers,
warning them not to supply drink to her husband. This
restriction is the result of a recent amendment to the Act,
which originally had a civil damage provision in general
terms.
I was told that opium-taking was to some extent prevalent
in Wisconsin, especially among women. It is practised very
secretly, and the actual extent of it cannot be determined.
The existence of the evil was recognised by the State Legislature
WISCONSIN.
303
in 1891, when an Act was passed prohibiting the sale of opium
except on a physician's certificate.
The passing of the "Temperance Instruction Law" was
the occasion of a warm dispute; some who had taken an active
part in securing the passage of the law advocating the adoption
of a text-book of a pronounced prohibitionist tendency. Other
counsels, however, prevailed. The law requires that the book
should be approved by the State Board of Health; and a
physiology primer of a more general character was at last
selected.
304
(C
CHAPTER XVI.
COLORADO AND CALIFORNIA.
Colorado.
THE liquor legislation of this State contains little that calls
for special notice. In two of its municipalities, however
---Greeley and Colorado Springs by virtue of clauses in
the title deeds on which the land is held, no saloons are
allowed to be licensed. Colorado Springs, now a city of over
10,000 inhabitants, was founded not many years ago by a
company from the East, which bought up a quantity of land
and laid it out in town plots, stipulating in every conveyance
for building purposes that no intoxicating liquor should be
sold on the premises. The object-the main object, at all
events-which dictated this exclusion of the dramshop, was
not the enforcement of abstinence from drink on general
temperance grounds, but the preservation of the place from
those classes which frequent saloons, and especially the
tough" element from the mining camps. The place was
from the first designed to attract, as residents, the higher
classes of society. In the result, the objects of the company
have been well attained. It is a small city of wealthy and
well-to-do people-many of whom have been attracted thither
by considerations of health-with retail shops, but no large
manufactories, and little to attract the rowdy portions of
society. These results are in a great measure attributed to
the absence of the saloon. In every deed of conveyance
from the company to the purchaser a clause was inserted
for the reversion of the property to the company, in the event
of the sale of liquor being permitted on it. Only druggists
had the right of selling in quantities not less than a quart for
medicinal and mechanical purposes. Smaller quantities may
COLORADO.
305
only be obtained on the prescription or a physician. The
validity of the prohibitory clause has been tested in the law
courts, in the case of a house-owner who was sued for forfeiture
of his property for having undertaken to sell liquor; and in
the result the forfeiture was upheld. In connection with the
hotel, the question arose whether the prohibitory clause was to
be enforced to the extent of preventing the supply of wine,
etc., to guests, and it was ultimately agreed that this should
not be interfered with. But there is no bar. A similar
question arose at the club. The liability to forfeiture caused
some difficulty in raising money on mortgage, to meet which
the company agreed that in case of forfeiture the rights of
mortgagees up to half the value of the property should be
allowed to stand. Druggists, as a matter of fact, sell unre-
strictedly, in quantities of a quart and upwards, under colour of
the medicinal and mechanical saving; and the practice is
acquiesced in. To some extent, doubtless, they go beyond
this, and allow dram-drinking in their shops; but it seems
that this evasion of the law does not go on to any great
extent; and, practically, drinking on the premises may be said
to be almost excluded from Colorado Springs. Colorado City,
lying just outside the limits of the Springs, has no lack of
saloons.
In Greeley, I understand that the legal restrictions are
similar, but that less relaxation is allowed.
The general licensing law of Colorado provides as
follows:
The licensing authority is in cities the City Council, in incor-
porated towns the Board of Trustees, and elsewhere the Board of
County Commissioners.
In cities or towns the Council or Board of Trustees has "the
exclusive right to license, regulate, or prohibit the selling or giving
away of any intoxicating, malt, vinous, mixed, or fermented liquor
within the limits of the city or town, or within one mile beyond the
outer boundaries thereof, except where the boundaries of two cities
or towns adjoin, the licence not to extend beyond the municipal
U
306
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
year in which it shall be granted, and to determine the amount to
be paid for such licence."
The retail licence fee, however, must not be less than $600 in
cities, $500 in incorporated towns, and elsewhere $300.
Where the County Commissioners are the licensing authority,
they have power to "grant licences to keep saloons, hotels, public-
houses, or groceries," and a saloon or grocery is defined to include
all places where spirituous or vinous liquors are sold by quantities
less than one quart. The board may reject or grant an application
in their discretion, and on complaint made to them may revoke a
saloon or grocery licence, if satisfied that privileges granted have
been abused, or that the licensee has violated the law.
In every case the applicant, before receiving his licence, must
execute a bond in not less than $2,000 with two good and sufficient
sureties of the county. The validity of the licence is limited to
twelve months.
The licensing authorities may, in their discretion, grant licences
for malt liquors only, on payment of half the fee.
There is a civil damage clause, limited to the case of habitual
drunkards, after notice not to sell.
The general law enacts the following penalties:-
For selling liquor in quantities less than a quart without a
licence, a fine of $50 to $200.
For procuring intoxicating liquor of any kind for an habitual
drunkard, a fine of $100 to $300, or imprisonment 3 to 12 months,
or both.
For selling to United States troops, or State militia, except as
ordered by the officers under the direction of the War Department
imprisonment for 3 months or fine of $50, together with forfeiture
of licence.
For selling between sunrise and sunset on an election day, a
fine of $10 to $100 for the first, and $50 to $200 for a subsequent
offence.
Permitting a minor or habitual drunkard to frequent a saloon,
or to drink (unless the minor be accompanied by his parent or
guardian), a fine of $5 to $50, and, on a second offence, forfeiture
of licence and disqualification for six months. A minor or habitual
drunkard found in a saloon is also to be fined.
Every tavera-keeper, or other retailer of spirits, who sells spirits
to a common drunkard, and every person who sells spirits to an
Indian, is to be fined $50.
COLORADO.
307
Sheriffs and constables are required to arrest all persons found
violating the law respecting minors or habitual drunkards, and
saloon-keepers are to post up conspicuously the words, "No minor
or habitual drunkard allowed here."
Under the ordinances of the city of Denver, the fine for drunken-
ness in a public place is $1 to $25, and it is made the duty of the
police to arrest offenders and keep them in custody until sober,
unless they are taken charge of by relatives or friends. Additional
penalties are also imposed for selling without a licence.
By an ordinance passed in 1892, an application for a new
licence has to be accompanied by a petition from a majority of the
frontagers in the same block. If the premises are at the corner,
there must be a majority along both fronts. This requirement,
however, does not extend to the annual or half-yearly renewals.
No licence can be given for premises within 500 feet of a public
school.
The same ordinance provides that liquor is not to be supplied
to females, nor may females be permitted to be in saloons or dram-
shops for the purpose of drinking, or be employed in the liquor
business.
At the beginning of the present year there were about 600
licences ("on" and "off") in Denver, all paying the $600 fee;
no beer licences had been issued. I was informed by a
prohibitionist in Denver that the law was not very actively
enforced there. The requirement, however, that the majority
in a block must assent to the grant of a licence in the block,
acts as a check to the grant of licences to disorderly persons;
but it seems also to have the effect of relieving the licensing
authority, to some extent, of their sense of responsibility in
this respect.
As regards the exercise of the licensing power in the State
generally, the same informant told me that the County Com-
missioners were sometimes elected on the prohibition issue.
He mentioned two or three counties where no licences were
issued by the commissioners, and he thought there might be
a few others in the eastern part of the State, the farming
region. Colorado, however, is a mining State, and the mining
community does not in general favour total abstinence.
U 2
308
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
California.
Under the constitution of California, any county, city,
town, or township may make and enforce within its limits
all such local police, sanitary, and other regulations as are
not in conflict with general laws (Art. xi. s. 11). The effect
of this is to give to every municipality and every area of
local administration home rule in dealing with the liquor
traffic. Cases have been taken through the courts testing the
validity of particular ordinances and regulations; but it is now
well understood that each local authority has power to make
such arrangements as it may think fit, regulating, restricting,
or entirely prohibiting the sale of liquor within the area which
it controls.
California has thus no general liquor laws, and it is not
possible here to enter into any extended examination of the
methods of procedure adopted by the various localities.
throughout the State.
The position of California is, of course, peculiar among
American States, since it is the only one in which wine is
manufactured on a really extensive scale. In 1889 this State
produced nearly 15,000,000 gallons of wine out of a total
production in the United States of less than 25,000,000
gallons. According to the statements in the national census
of 1890, there is an established home demand for Californian
wine to the amount of 1,000,000 gallons a month, and there
were exported in 1889 about 312,000 gallons, valued at
$217,000. An increasing quantity is shipped to France,
where it is transformed into "French" wine; and much of it
returns in that character to the United States. Viticulture, it
is said, promises to increase in the near future. In 1889
California contained 155,000 acres of bearing and 45,000
acres of non-bearing vines, grapes being raised for the table,
for raisins, and for wine.
CALIFORNIA.
309
The city ordinances of San Francisco provide as follows :-
❝ xxxix.
Every person who sells spirituous or malt ΟΙ
fermented liquors or wines, in less quantities than one quart,
shall be designated as a 'retail liquor dealer,' and as a 'grocery
and retail liquor dealer,' and shall pay licences as follows :—
"First. Those making sales to the amount of $15,000 and over
per quarter shall pay a licence of $41 per quarter.
Second. Those making sales of less than $15,000 per quarter
shall pay a licence of $21 per quarter, provided that on and after
January 1, 1886, no licence as a 'retail liquor dealer,' or as a
grocery and retail liquor dealer' shall be issued by the collector
of licences, unless the person desiring the same shall have ob-
tained the written consent of a majority of the Board of Police
Commissioners of the city and county of San Francisco, to carry
on or conduct said business; but in case of refusal of such consent
upon application, said Board of Police Commissioners shall grant
the same upon the written recommendation of not less than twelve
citizens of San Francisco owning real estate in the block or square
in which said business of 'retail liquor dealer' or 'grocery and
retail liquor dealer' is to be carried on. All licences issued under
this section shall be known and designated as 'retail liquor
dealer' and 'grocery and retail liquor dealer' licence.
(6
Third. Every person who sells cider, sarsaparilla, ginger-pop,
or soda or mineral water, except from a fountain, in quantities of
less than one quart, shall, in addition to the licence required to be
paid, be subject to the conditions and provisions contained in sub-
division three of this section. No licence shall be required by
physicians, surgeons, or apothecaries, or chemists, for any wines or
spirituous liquors they may use in the preparation of medicines, or
which may be dispensed by them for medicinal purposes, provided,
however, that the same shall not be sold by the glass or be con-
sumed on the premises of the vendor.
“Fourth.—Every person violating any of the provisions of this
section, or falsely representing himself as being a citizen of San
Francisco, and owning real estate in the block or square therein
specified, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” *
CC
* Order No. 1589 (July 28, 1880), as amended by order No. 1845
(January 19, 1886). The legality of this ordinance was tested in a case in
which the United States Circuit Court gave judgment against the ordinance,
but on appeal to the Supreme Court this decision was reversed.
310
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
Licences are issued for the period of three months, and the
penalty for infringement of the above order is a fine not exceeding
$1,000, or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.
It will be seen from the foregoing order that the grant or
refusal of a licence rests primarily at the discretion of the
Police Commissioners, but, in case of their refusal, the licence
may still be obtained on a recommendation being signed by
twelve landowners in the same block. As a matter of practice,
the commissioners require every new application to be backed
by the support of some persons in the block.
It is further provided that bar-rooms must be closed between
midnight and 6 A.M. *
By order No. 1587, "prohibiting offensive trades, occupations,
and nuisances, and defining misdemeanors,” it is provided that no
person shall be drunk in a public place or place open to public
view; or be on any public highway or in any public place in a
state of drunkenness or intoxication, or be on any private premises
or in any private house in a state of drunkenness or intoxication
to the annoyance of any other person. And the penalty for breach
of any of the numerous provisions of this order is a fine not exceed-
ing $1,000, or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.
Under a general law enacted in 1890, no liquor may be sold or
given to a minor under 18 years. No minor may be permitted to
enter a saloon or public place where liquors are sold, under penalty
of a fine of $100 to $300.
The effect of these ordinances is to fix the annual licence
fee for saloons in San Francisco at $84, since but few licences
are taken out on the higher scale of $41 a quarter. The
number of saloons is very great, in 1890 about 3,100, or a
ratio of one saloon to 96 inhabitants, a higher ratio probably
than in any other city in the country. In 1892, 13,435
quarterly retail liquor licences were issued, whence it would
appear that the number of liquor shops had grown to about
3,350, but according to the police report the number on the
* Order No. 1587, as amended by Order No. 1785 (September 26,
1884).
CALIFORNIA.
311
30th of June, 1892, was 3,192. This superabundance of
dramshops, together with the more than doubtful character of
many of their proprietors, has given rise to much dissatisfac-
tion; and a movement has arisen, hitherto unsuccessful, for a
reform in the direction of an increased licence fee, and a
diminution in the number of licences.
A petition, said to have been signed by nearly 1,200 of the
eading business men of the town, was presented in 1886 to
the Board of Supervisors, urging that no licences should be
issued to any person of bad character, and that the fees should
be fixed at $1,000 for the retail sale of liquors generally, and
$500 for wine and beer. This petition was actively supported
by the Society for the Suppression of Vice in an address to
the citizens of San Francisco, drawing attention to the increase.
of crime and suicide, and the demoralisation due to the exces-
sive consumption of liquor.
A body of citizens, organised under the title of the High
Licence Association, have advocated a licence tax of $600,
and estimated that its effect would be to reduce the number to
about 1,500 (which would still leave the ratio of saloons to
population pretty high), while it would at the same time
increase the revenue by more than $600,000, and reduce the
city expenses in connection with crime, police, and pauperism,
by at least $100,000.
The advocates of reform further hoped that the City
Legislature would impose such other restrictions as good
government and good morals demanded, foremost among
which restrictions was mentioned the separation of the saloon
business from the groceries. In regard to these "corner
groceries," it is urged that they "are the most active and
successful in the work of making drunkards and destroying
homes; in them boys and girls are taught to drink; servants
are bribed with drink, and the wife of many a mechanic and
labourer is by them supplied with liquor, which is charged in
the family account as 'flour,'' sugar,' etc.; and here many a
312
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
working man, calling to settle a family bill, is deluded into a
game of cards and whiskied or beered up until the cunning
proprietor has secured the whole or a considerable portion of
the hard earnings that should, and otherwise would, have been
applied to the purchase of additional necessaries or comforts
for the family, or laid by for some rainy day. It may be
accepted as a fact that the worst enemy of the working man
and his family-the enemy that keeps him and his family in
poverty and interposes the greatest obstacle to his prosperity—
is the corner grocery bar."
Still more recently the grand jury of the city and county of
San Francisco, in their published report upon the various
departments of the City Government, dated December 21st,
1892, make the following observations :—
"We also recommend that the licence on the sale of liquor
should be increased from $21 per quarter to $51. This is too
moderate an increase to be called a high-licence, but is suggested
as an experiment in that direction. It is the opinion of the jury
that a much higher licence would be advantageous in every way.
The chief of police favours high-licence as an effective help to his
department in the suppression of crime. He believes it would
result in closing up many of the worst places in the city. Its
results elsewhere justify this belief.
"The licence collector reports 13,435 quarterly retail liquor
licences issued during the year. Of these 3,600 were for the com-
bined sale of groceries and retailing of liquors. These corner
groggeries we regard as one of the very worst features of our city
life. No bar should be permitted where groceries are sold. It is
a great source of corruption to the young, and a combined con-
venience and temptation to which no community has any right to
subject its weak members.
"We recommend the needed legislation to separate the sale of
groceries and the retailing of liquor, in addition to the moderate
increase of licence above-mentioned."
The total number of arrests by the police of San Francisco
for the year 1889-90 was officially stated to be 23,549,
CALIFORNIA.
313
common
including 11,618 for drunkenness. For the year 1891-2 the
offences for which arrests were made numbered 29,259,
including 14,652 cases of drunkenness (besides 544
drunkards"), and 195 breaches of the liquor law. The chief
of police remarks that the increased number of arrests for
drunkenness (2,542 more than in 1890-1) is to be accounted
for by the increased number of police and the use of the patrol
waggon and signal system. San Francisco is said to have a
higher suicide rate than any other American city. The police
force in 1892 numbered 456 men, claimed to be propor-
tionately a smaller force than in any other seaport city in the
United States.*
<<
Ten or twelve years ago an account (which has not been
published) was taken of the nationality of saloon-keepers in
San Francisco, when it was found that of about 2,600 licensees,
1,250 (in round numbers) were Germans, 650 were Irish, and
only 200 were native Americans. A great number of nation-
alities were represented, including more than 100 French.
Restrictive ordinances similar to those of San Francisco
are common in other towns of California; but, where each
place has power to settle its own regulations, uniformity is of
course not to be expected. Among other things the licence
fee is a varying quantity, rising in some instances as high as
$1,000. In Los Angeles the fee is $50 a month, paid monthly
in advance; and the applicant is required to get the support of
three-fourths of the frontagers in the same block.
California contains fifty-four counties, some of them being
of very great extent, and has a population averaging only eight
to the square mile. It contains nine towns with populations of
10,000 and upwards. I heard altogether of two counties and
about forty towns or districts, which by the operation of local
ordinances either were or had in recent years been under
prohibition.
The counties are Modoc and Sutter, the former in the
* This must be exclusive of Portland, Maine.
314
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWs.
north-eastern corner of the State, and the latter a small county
in the interior, north of Sacramento. With the exception of
Alturas (1,013) in Modoc county, neither of them contains a
town with a population of as much as 1,000.
The other places referred to are-Pasadena (4,882),
Alhambra (808), Artesia, Compton (636), Covina (93), Garden
Grove (126), Monrovia (907), The Palms, Pomona (3,634),
Redondo (603), San Dimas, South Pasadena (623), Whittier
(585), Potter Valley (219), Willits (815), Palermo, Buena Park,
Orange (866), Westminster (238), El Modena, Tustin, Lompoc
(1,015), Ontario (683), Coronado Beach, Del Mar, Escondido.
(541), Elsinore, Fallbrook, Piedmont, San Jacinto, San
Marcos, Wildomar, Valle Vista, Winchester, Ceres (206),
Orange Vale, College City (387), Riverside (4,683), Chico
Vecino, Pacific Grove (1,336).
Some at least of these places have a special character as
residential centres and winter resorts for the wealthier classes,
and the desire to maintain that character and keep up the
value of real estate is believed to have had some influence in
determining the local authorities to keep out the saloon, while
at the same time prohibition is not pressed to the extent of
interfering with the convenience of tourists and visitors at the
hotels.
The prohibitory ordinance of Pasadena was passed in 1887,
and runs as follows :-
"It shall be unlawful for any person or persons either as
owner, principal, agent, servant or employee, to establish, open,
keep, maintain, or carry on, or assist in carrying on, within the
corporate limits of the city of Pasadena, any tippling house,
dramshop, cellar, saloon, bar, bar-room, sample-room, or other
place where spirituous, vinous, malt, or mixed liquors are sold
or given away.
Provided that the prohibition of this
ordinance shall not apply to the sale of liquors for medicinal
purposes by a regularly licensed druggist upon the prescription
of a physician entitled to practise medicine under the laws of
California.
315
California, nor shall such prohibition apply to the sale of such
liquors for chemical or medicinal purposes."*
Riverside, one of the places included in the foregoing list,
has abandoned prohibition and resorted to high-licence. It
has, as I am informed, a single saloon paying a fee of $1,000
a year.
Another small town, Pomona, adopted in January, 1892,
an ordinance of peculiar stringency, by which any person con-
cerned in keeping a liquor shop, or a place where liquor is
distributed to members of an association, is to be imprisoned
for ten days and fined $150 for every day on which the offence
is committed. There is a saving for wholesale dealers in wine,
and for druggists selling on a medical prescription, and for the
sale for chemical and mechanical purposes. Any person
visiting an illegal liquor shop or club is to be fined from $50
to $100 or imprisoned for not more than fifty days, or both;
and persons suspected of violating the ordinance are to be put
under police surveillance.
* The legality of this ordinance was disputed, and the case went to the
Supreme Court of California, which decided (by six Judges to one dissent-
ing) that the ordinance was good, being within the powers conferred by
Art. xi. Sec. II of the State Constitution. It was objected to on the
ground that it deprived the liquor dealer of his property without due
process of law, and was therefore unconstitutional. It was also urged that
the ordinance was "in conflict with general laws" (within the terms of
the above section), inasmuch as the Legislature had passed Acts for the
purpose of encouraging the manufacture of wine and brandy in the State.
It was, however, held that this legislation did not detract from the power
of municipalities to regulate or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors in
bar-rooms. The decision was expressly limited to the question of the right
of the city to prevent " tippling houses, dramshops, and bar-rooms." (Ex
parte Campbell, Pomeroy's California Reports, vol. 74, p. 20.)
316
CHAPTER XVII.
GEORGIA.
(Local Option. High License.)
THE State of Georgia has a three-fold claim on the attention
of students of liquor legislation in the United States. In the
greater part of the State, outside of the more important centres
of population, the sale of liquor is altogether forbidden; its
chief city, after a temporary experience of prohibition, which
it abandoned, has now a licensing law with special features;
and one of its towns has made probably the first experiment in
the country of a system resembling, in some respects, the
Swedish method, the municipality taking over the liquor traffic
into its own hands.
Local prohibition has been brought about in three dis-
tinct ways by the operation of the general local option law;
by special prohibitory or local optional legislation, affecting,
particular areas; and by Corporation Acts conferring powers of
local self-government on individual municipalities.
The general local option law of Georgia was enacted in
1885, and provides in substance as follows:-
1885. CHAP. 182. GENERAL LOCAL OPTION LAW.
A local option election is to be held on the application of one-
tenth of the qualified voters in any county. The election is to be
distinct from any other election, and is not to be held in the same
month with any general election. If the majority is "against the
sale," no person within the county may "sell or barter for valuable
consideration, either directly or indirectly, or give away to induce
trade at any place of business, or furnish at other public places any
alcoholic, spirituous, malt, or intoxicating liquors, or intoxicating
bitters, or other drinks which, if drank to excess, will produce
intoxication."
There is a saving clause for domestic wines and cider (but not
to be sold in bar-rooms by retail), and for sacramental wine, and
Georgia.
317
for the sale of pure alcohol by druggists for medicinal, art,
scientific, and mechanical purposes.
Elections under this Act are not to be held more frequently
than once in two years, and no such election is to be held for
any county, city, town, or other place having prohibition under a
local law.
A great number of local Acts have been passed making
special provision for prohibiting or regulating the liquor traffic
in particular counties or localities. Thus, without going
further back, I find that
40 such Acts were passed in 1884-5
1887
24
1888
II
67
and 17
""
""
""
""
در
""
""
""
""
""
""
""
>>
""
""
""
1889
1890-1
About 160 local liquor statutes were thus passed within
eight years. Such Acts may roughly be classified as follows :—
1. Acts prohibiting the sale of liquor in a county, town, or
district, or repealing such prohibition, sometimes prohibiting
for a county exclusive of a particular town, and sometimes
subject to a power of reversal by popular vote.*
2. Acts providing for submission of the question to local
option. The passing of Acts of this class has been discon-
tinued since the general local option law of 1885.
3. Acts prohibiting within a certain distance (varying from
one to five miles) of a particular church or place of education,
such Acts being very numerous.†
4. Acts regulating the traffic in a county or town;
* For example, Acts were passed in 1889 prohibiting the sale of
liquor in Polk and DeKalb counties; Wilks county the same, exclusive of
the town of Washington. Campbell and Clayton counties have Acts
excluding the manufacture. In 1889 prohibition in Smithville (pop. 500),
in Lee county, was repealed, and in Pike county it was repealed as regards
Barnsville (1,800) and Molina (200).
† In 1891 a general Act was passed forbidding the sale of liquor
within three miles of any church or schoolhouse, except in incorporated
towns.
318
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
sometimes requiring each application for a licence to be sup-
ported by a majority, or by two-thirds of the freeholders
within the licensing area, or within three miles of the
premises; sometimes introducing a high or even prohibitory
licence fee (in one county it is fixed at $10,000).t
5. Acts providing for the election of an agent to sell liquor
for medicinal and mechanical purposes. ‡
In addition to this large body of special liquor legislation,
a great quantity of Corporation Acts are passed, many of
which confer large powers of self-government on particular
municipal corporations, including often the power to make
ordinances regulating or prohibiting the liquor traffic.
Georgia has an area of 59,000 square miles, and is therefore
slightly larger than England and Wales. According to the
census it had in 1890 a population of 1,837,000, or about
thirty-one inhabitants to the square mile. It contains ten towns
of over 5,000 inhabitants, of which five have over 10,000, and
two, Atlanta and Savannah, over 40,000.
No official returns are made showing the results of elections
under the local option law, nor is any official information forth-
coming to show the extent to which prohibition has been adopted
throughout the State. From information, however, received
through private sources, I believe that it may be stated that of the
137 counties into which the State is divided, prohibition is the
law in just about 100, most of them rural counties containing
no considerable town. The number has been slightly greater
(about 108), but a few counties have gone back to licence. In
* In Laurens two-thirds, and in Effingham county a majority, of free-
holders residing within three miles; in incorporated towns and villages in
Harris county two-thirds of freeholders in the area affected.
+ Wayne county $1,000, Telfair county $5,000, Emanuel county
$10,000. A prohibitive licence fee has sometimes been passed when a
proposal for direct prohibition would not have received the necessary
support.
Acts of this character have been passed within the past few years
for Oglethorpe, Hart, Newton, and Emanuel counties.
GEORGIA.
319
some of the "dry" counties, however, exception is made for
certain towns; and it may be said generally that the larger
towns do not put themselves under prohibition.
As regards enforcement, the substance of the information,
which I received-mainly from persons favourable to prohibition
was to the effect that the law was fairly well enforced in most
places where the sentiment in favour of it was strong enough.
There is, of course, a “jug" trade (¿.e., an introduction of liquor
in bottles, jars, and casks for private consumption); but this is
legal and cannot be stopped. In some places there are "blind
tigers," but on the whole drinking, it is said, is much checked.
As regards the "jug" business, this, in the opinion of one of my
informants, is apt to be a diminishing quantity; when prohibi-
tion is new there is much of it, but with the lapse of time the
demand decreases, and less liquor is introduced in this way. In
proof of this tendency, he mentioned the experience of an
express company in a place where prohibition had been voted,
and where the agent told him that at first they carried a large
number of jugs of whisky, a service which had since gradually
and constantly fallen off. On the subject of the "jug" trade,
more will have to be said in connection with prohibition in
Atlanta.
One gentleman-a prohibitionist, exceptionally well posted
on the liquor laws of this State-told me that prohibition was
apt to be less well enforced in some of the counties which had
adopted it under the general Local Option Act, than in those
having special Acts. The reason he assigned was that a special
Act could not be got through the Legislature without a peti-
tion; and, if a counter-petition was presented, the promoters
of the Bill had to satisfy the Legislature that they were in the
majority. Consequently a special Act was not passed without
a fairly thorough canvass of public opinion in the area affected,
nor unless that opinion declared itself decidedly in favour of
* The usual term n the South for illegal liquor shops.
320
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
the proposed legislation. An Act passed under these circum-
stances was in general, he said, pretty well carried out. Under
the general law a vote was sometimes forced on by injudicious
enthusiasts, sometimes carried hastily, and the result proved
failure.
A lawyer, who some years ago held office as Judge of the
Circuit Court for three counties near the centre of the State,
told me that when he went into one of these counties to hold
his first court a local option election was being held. The
majority declared against licences; and on his last circuit,
before the expiration of his term of office, he found a marked
diminution of crime. Only two prisoners were brought up for
trial (one for homicide and one for breach of the prohibitory
law); and the sheriff's fees for the year on account of prisoners
in gaol, which in former times had been from $300 to $500,
were only $20-practically nothing. The county in question
has had prohibition ever since, and is said to be quite steadfast
in it. It contains an agricultural population; a good many
negroes, though it is not a "negro county," the whites being in
the majority; and no large town (the chief place was credited
with a population of 803 in the census of 1890). Those who
want liquor get it by the bottle or in larger quantities from out-
side, and there is said to be no considerable violation of the
law.
In this as in other States, the strictness with which prohi-
bition is enforced varies in different places, according to the
zeal of the local officials. Elections sometimes turn on the
question of a strict or slack enforcement.
The presence of the negro element in the population of the
South is on all sides recognised as giving a peculiar turn to the
liquor question in this part of the country; and it becomes
specially urgent in the agricultural districts, where the negroes
are often in the majority and always numerous, and where the
"cross-road doggery" is the breeding-ground of much that is
demoralising, and that may be a public danger.
GEORGIA.
321
·
The city of Atlanta was under prohibition for two years,
Fulton county (which includes Atlanta) adopting it by popular
vote under the general local option law, in 1885, and
renouncing it after a keenly-fought contest in 1887.
A cause which materially contributed to the voting-out of
the saloon, was the very unsatisfactory condition o the city
under the old licence law. The number of dramshops was
large, and many of them were of a disreputable kind; drunken-
ness and disorder prevailed; the liquor business was largely
controlled by men of indifferent character, and the liquor
interest ruled in municipal affairs. This state of things led men
to support the prohibition movement who were not in a general
way prohibitionists, but who sought to strike a blow
at the pre-
vailing misgovernment. The saloons were voted out by a
majority of about 225 votes in November, 1885.
In the vigorous and somewhat bitter campaign which pre-
ceded the re-submission of the question to the popular vote
two years later, the results of prohibition in Atlanta were fully
discussed by friends and opponents from their respective
standpoints.* The prohibitionists argued that the law had not
had a fair trial, inasmuch as licences current when the vote
was taken had been allowed to continue in force until the
expiration of the period for which they had been granted, an
indulgence which had enabled some of them to run on for
nearly a year after the time when prohibition came nominally
into force. Moreover, it was urged that legal difficulties had
arisen in the enforcement of the law, difficulties which, when
* For a month before the election much excitement prevailed, and a
good deal of heated language was used. That the bitter feeling was kept
alive for some time after seems to be shown by the following extract from
the mayor's inaugural address in 1889: "By wisely and justly dealing
with this irritating question (i.e., the liquor traffic), I am satisfied that we
can aid in restoring harmony and peace to our people, and banishing this
question from their discussions. We never knew unfriendly division
before its introduction, and fortunate will we be if we are instrumental in
satisfactorily removing it."
V
322
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
the machinery of administration had got fairly into working
order, would disappear. Nevertheless, they maintained that
much good had resulted; crime had diminished, prosperity had
increased; the poor especially had benefited, their material
condition giving evidence of marked improvement in better
homes and a brisker trade among the small retail shops.
As regards the existence, extent, and causes of an increase
in the general prosperity of the place during the prohibitory
period, many conflicting statements were made and opinions
expressed; and it might be difficult to reach any decided
general conclusion upon this point, one way or the other. Upon
the subject of crime some figures will appear later.
With respect to the alleged benefit derived by the poor
from the closing of the saloons, it was said that many more
working-men had purchased homes for themselves and their
families than had done so previously during an equal period,
while several coal dealers gave evidence of increased sales of
fuel to people of this class. The municipal relief committee
observed in their report for 1886 that the calls for relief by the
indigent poor had not been so numerous during that year as
the preceding one. In confirmation of these statements a
gentleman long resident in Atlanta told me that in a particular
quarter of the town, where he was personally interested in
charitable work, the benefit to the families of workmen was
marked. The portion of their wages which they used to spend
on drink was saved; and when the saloons were re-opened
there were deep complaints among the women of the change
in their home circumstances. Others gave me a similar
The drain upon the weekly wages to pay the debts
incurred for drink stopped; people of this class had not the
forethought or the means to get liquor in by the jug from a
distance; and the result was an increased call for superior
dwelling accommodation; the small grocers and other shop-
keepers did a larger cash business, and less on credit, a fact
which one of my informants assured me he had verified by
account.
GEORGIA.
323
conversation with tradesmen who dealt with the poorer classes,
and by inspection of their books. One gentleman, who on
other grounds had a decidedly unfavourable opinion of the
results of prohibition in Atlanta, admitted to me that in this
respect a certain degree of good had ensued from it. Alto-
gether the evidence seems to give substantial ground for
believing that a section, at all events, of the working-classes
was benefited by the removal of the temptation offered by
the open saloons.
Statements were, however, made during the election campaign
in November, 1887, which, if to any considerable extent true,
would show that prohibition as it affected the working-classes was
not in all respects a success. It was confidently and circum-
stantially alleged that many operatives (especially among the
Germans) left the city, and betook themselves to other places
where they were not subject to such restraints. Instances also
were mentioned of workmen who habitually on pay-day sent
to the nearest place for whisky by the bottle or jug, and in this
way lost more time from drink than they ever lost before.
The familiar argument was urged that while the rich man
could have his jug it was unfair that the poor man, who was as
well able to take care of himself, should be deprived of his
glass of beer or whisky.
Whatever view may be taken on the whole question of
prohibition in Atlanta, it is not disputed that during the pro-
hibitory period an extensive "jug" trade was carried on; and,
whatever its effects may have been as regards the working-
man, I was assured by some who had had full opportunity to
observe its operation, that among men of a higher social grade
it was a very serious evil. Men in business, clerks, and others
(as I was informed) drank to an unprecedented extent, having
bottles of whisky open in their houses and offices, with which
they regaled themselves and their friends, and much drunken-
ness resulted among men who before had not been at all in the
habit of drinking. Some, it is said, fell into the habit through
V 2
324
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
a mere spirit of opposition to a law which sought to coerce
them. "Jugs" of whisky came into Atlanta by the carload,
and, as I have been told, the sidewalk in front of the Express
Company's office would be covered with such jugs waiting for
delivery among persons in the town who had ordered consign-
ments from Griffin and other places.
While not disputing the existence and the evils of the "jug"
trade, the advocates of prohibition appear to be less impressed
with the extent of it, and claim that it was greatly outweighed
by the benefits already indicated. They attach great import-
ance to the closing of the open saloons; indeed many regard
this as the one great advantage to be gained by prohibition;
and they maintain that in this instance it worked great good,
through removing temptation from many who had not yet
acquired a taste for strong drink. Those who wanted liquor,
it is admitted, could obtain it, but it was not attempted to
prevent them; and some even among the prohibitionists
admit that people who really want liquor will find means to
get it, under any law. But it is on this side maintained that
the entire consumption was very much diminished.
However this may be, some strong and circumstantial
statements were publicly made shortly before the election of
1887, about both the quantity of liquor brought into Atlanta
in "jugs," and the evil effects produced by it, statements
which I believe were not publicly questioned or disproved.
The following extract is taken from the published report of a
speech delivered by the Hon. Clark Howell :—
"The prohibition law has brought nothing but dissension.
Almost every home has become a bar-room, and every young man
has his bottle, so as to return the hospitality of his neighbour. I
found five young men the other night, who until two years ago had
never tasted liquor, in a deplorable plight, each with his bottle in
his hip pocket. I had occasion lately to enter the room of a friend,
and found there six of the best-known young men of Atlanta drunk
and asleep, while upon the table stood six empty bottles."
GEORGIA.
325
By another speaker it was asserted that on October 29th,
1887, there came into Atlanta on one train from Griffin
twenty-one two-gallon jugs, fifty-nine one-gallon jugs, seventy-
five half-gallon jugs, five five-gallon jugs, and three five-gallon
demijohns, besides quarts and smaller quantities, the total
amount on a single train from a single place being 357
gallons.
From the same place there were said to have been sent to
Atlanta during the whole month of October 3,974 packages
containing from a gallon to a barrel. A few months previously
one house had despatched 1,400 packages in four days.
In the same month of October, Atlanta, according to the
same authority, received 550 packages of liquor from Madison,
150 from Augusta, more than 200 from Lawrenceville, more
than 250 from Gainesville, besides various quantities from
Chattanooga, Birmingham, Louisville, and other places; also
twelve car-loads of beer; altogether, from nine places, 32,500
gallons of whisky, besides beer, the whole valued at $142,000.
It is obviously impossible that this can have been a
normal month's supply for consumption in a city of 60,000
inhabitants.
As regards the illegal sale of liquor in Atlanta itself, it was
stated, on the authority of the Collector of Internal Revenue,
that fifty-seven receipts had been issued in 1887 for payment
of the United States liquor dealers' tax in Fulton county. As
the local option law did not admit of the sale of liquor for
any purpose whatever in prohibitory places, this tax could only
have been paid for the purpose of selling in violation of the
State law. The collector also testified to a great increase of
distilling in the State.
The result of the voting in November, 1887, was a majority
of 1,128 for a return to the licensing system, the total number
of votes cast being something over 9,000. Only one precinct
out of sixteen gave a dry" majority, and
side of the city. The
((
that one was out-
persons who two
majority included
326
AMERICAN LIquor Laws.
years before had voted the other way, either through dissatis-
faction with the municipal corruption and mal-administration
with which the liquor business was bound up, or from a posi-
tive belief in the virtues of prohibition which experience had.
not confirmed.
Since that time, Atlanta has had a licensing system regu-
lated by municipal ordinances passed under the powers con-
ferred on the city by its Act of Incorporation. The
regulations are of a stringent character, and contain certain
features which I have not met with in the legislation of any
other State or city in the country. They constitute, indeed, a
licensing code which in form and in substance is worthy of
attention. They will be found set out in extenso on pp. 416-
425. Meanwhile some of their leading provisions are here
summarised:
Licences are of three kinds: (1) wholesale, for the sale in
quantities of a gallon and upwards; (2) retail; and (3) retail, for
malt liquor only. Licences of the first two classes may be issued
only in specified business portions of certain streets enumerated in
the ordinance (that is to say, within what are known as the fire
limits). Beer licences may not be issued within those limits, but
may be issued outside of them "on business portions of business
streets within practicable and efficient police supervision, and in
localities where there is no reasonable objection thereto."
*The charter provides "They" (the mayor and General Council)
"shall have full power and authority to regulate the retail of ardent spirits
within the corporate limits of said city, and at their discretion to issue
licence to retail, or to withhold the same, and to fix the price to be paid
for licence at any sum they may think proper, not exceeding $2,000."
The mayor and General Council of said city shall have the power
and authority to regulate the sale of liquors at wholesale in said city"
(Law of 1889).
(6
(:
Stay w
The said mayor and General Council shall have full power and
authority to prohibit the selling of lager beer, or other fermented drinks,
without the obtaining of a licence for that purpose, provided the owner
or keeper of each house or saloon kept for that purpose shall not be
required to pay exceeding the sum of five hundred" (originally one
hundred) "dollars for a licence for one year."
GEORGIA.
327
The mayor and General Council may in every case in their
discretion grant or refuse an application for a licence. Before the
issue of a wholesale licence, the applicant is required to pay the
licence fee, and to make an oath and give a $2,000 bond to observe
the law.
An applicant for a retail licence has to produce a certificate
from two or more of his "sober, respectable, near neighbours, not
interested in the application," one of whom must be an adjoining
neighbour, recommending the applicant as fit to be trusted with a
licence. He must also produce the written consent of the owner
or agent of the premises, and must give a bond in $1,000 with two
sureties for the keeping of a decent and orderly house, and for
compliance with the liquor law, and make an affidavit that he has
not been previously convicted of any breach of it. In case of any
breach of the conditions of the bond, the amount thereof is declared
to be liquidated damages, and recoverable by action in favour of
the city. No person may be surety on more than one bond at the
same time. Before a licence is granted, the police are personally
to examine the locality and give notice to adjacent tenants or
owners, and also to the owner of the place proposed to be licensed,
and are to report to the mayor and Council. Retail licences are
to be issued only to persons "of good character, sobriety, and
discretion."
The licence fees are:--
For a wholesale licence
For a retail licence
For a retail (beer) licence
...
..
...
...
...
...
(Raised from $100 in 1891).
•••
...
$25.00
$1000.00
$250.00
Licensed premises (whether wholesale or retail) are required to
be closed from ten at night till five in the morning; a place for
which a retail licence is granted must have no screen, blinds,
painted glass, or other obstructions to the view through the doors
and windows, and (subject to a saving clause for bar-rooms in
hotels) must front, or have its main entrance on, and be substan-
tially on a level with, a public street, subject to a power to license
the sale "in basements sufficiently open to view."
Conviction of an offence against the licensing law not only
subjects the offender to fine or imprisonment, or both, but operates
328
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
ipso facto as a forfeiture of his licence.* Any one convicted of
selling spirits under cover of a beer licence is to be imprisoned for
thirty days, as well as being fined.
The mayor and Council are to forfeit the licence of any retailer
whose place becomes a nuisance or of ill-repute by disorder
thereat or otherwise."
Minors are not allowed to enter bar-rooms, and the words "No
minors allowed in here" have to be conspicuously posted on the
premises.
(C
Anyone appearing on the streets in an intoxicated condition
is to be punished by a fine not exceeding $100, or imprisonment
not exceeding 30 days, or both; but may avoid the punishment
by giving such evidence as will lead to the conviction of the
person who furnished him with the liquor by which he became
intoxicated.
By the census of 1890, Atlanta is credited with a population
of 65,500; but it claims at the present day to have gone con-
siderably beyond that figure. It certainly increased rapidly
during the decade 1880-90, and has now all the appearance of
continued growth and prosperity. It is, perhaps, the most
active and enterprising town in the southern States. Before
the experiment of prohibition was tried in 1885, the retail
liquor shops numbered about 130 to a population of about
50,000. The number now is 70, or about one to every
thousand of the population.
Among the various residents, men in official positions and
others, from whom I sought information, I found a prepon-
derance of opinion favourable to the existing law, which
appears to be well enforced, and to have gained the public
favour to an extent sufficient at least to banish any widespread
or active movement in favour of a return to prohibition, or a
resort to any other radical change of system. One who had
voted on both occasions for prohibition told me that the
existing law was, in his opinion, the best and most efficient
* The validity of this provision has been upheld in the courts
(Sprayberry v. the city of Atlanta, 1891).
GEORGIA.
329
that could be devised for a city of the size of Atlanta, its
operation comparing favourably with that of prohibition, when
the "jug" trade and the sale of pseudo-" temperance" drinks
were a serious evil. Here, as in Minneapolis, merit is claimed
for the system of confining the saloons within a strictly limited
area in the centre of the town.* The bar-rooms, too, are said
to be punctually closed at 10 p.m., and on Sundays to remain
closed throughout the day.
I was assured that these and other regulations of the law—
that, for instance, which forbids the sale of liquor to persons
under age-were observed with much strictness; and the claim
that the law is better enforced in no other city in the United
States of equal size seems to be not without justification.†
Prohibitionists, indeed, say that there is drunkenness, and that
illegal liquor-selling goes on; and they object, of course, to the
existence of the open saloon, and point to the prevalence of
crime. A prominent lawyer and ex-Judge, one of the leading
prohibitionists in Atlanta, told me that, in his opinion, great
good could be done by stopping the retail sale of liquor, and
putting an end to on-licences, while leaving the wholesale trade
undisturbed. This plan, he thought, would put a stop to most
of the mischief caused by drink, while not attempting the
impossible. A vast proportion of people, he said, drink because
*In the mayor's annual addresses, reference is repeatedly made to the
importance of this limitation, in the interest of a proper police supervision.
† In proof of the exact observance of the hour for closing, a resident
told me that, some friends from Boston whom he was entertaining having
expressed their disbelief in the accuracy of his assertion that drink could
not be obtained after 10 p.m., he offered to pay their expenses to New
Orleans and back if they could get served after that hour. They started
out with confidence, but returned crestfallen. The Police-Committee in
their annual report for 1891 say: "We believe that Atlanta has the liquor-
traffic, where the same exists at all, under the best control of any city in
the Union; and though this is strong language, we use the same after
mature consideration. It is impossible to get liquor after ten o'clock at
night, before five o'clock in the morning, or on Sunday at all; and under
no circumstances are minors allowed in bar-rooms.'
"9
330
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
it is so easy to get a drink, and because their friends invite
them to it. Numbers of such people have not the forethought,
and many have not the money, to lay in a stock of liquor.
Many people, too, have no place where they could drink
liquor, even if they had it, except the saloon. Some few years
ago a candidate was run for the office of State senator on the
issue of bringing in a Bill prohibiting sales by retail or for
consumption on the premises. He was beaten only by a
small majority, his opponent being a strong candidate, a
wealthy man, holding views such as would gain the support of
many moderate people. More recently, it was sought at the
municipal elections for Atlanta to carry six councilmen and
an alderman pledged to endeavour to stop the issue of retail
licences in that city. This attempt, however, was easily de-
feated. On the whole, I found little evidence that any radical
change in the liquor law was to be expected in Atlanta for
some time to come; or, indeed, that the existing condition of
things was otherwise than satisfactory, by comparison at least
with that in most other cities. The town is orderly; and I
found no evidence of the existence of much drunkenness.
The following table contains some statistical information
extracted from the yearly municipal reports. No classified
statement is published of the crimes for which arrests are
made; it is, therefore, only possible to give the total number
of arrests for each year. The prohibitory years (1886 and
1887) show a diminished return of arrests. In the last three
years the increase is marked; but against this must be set the
increase in population, the extension of the city boundary, the
improved efficiency of the police, and (as I am informed) the
increased number of offences created by new ordinances.
Arrests for mere drunkenness have also, I am told, been made
of late more frequently than in former years.
GEORGIA.
331
Arrests
•••
Fines in Recorder's Court
Cost of police
Number of police
...
City poor relief
Retail liquor-licence
:
...
...
...
...
...
1883.
5,578
вд
20,800
39,600
51
ATLANTA (Population 65,533).
...
1885.
6,305
(1,151
State,
5,154
City).
58
$
$
3,500* 10,700
37,700
1886.
5,578
(901
1887.
1888.?
7,817
6,138
(978 (1,165
State, State,
4,677 5,160 6,652
City).
$
$
21,900 23,800
51,384
49,250
60
10,379
(1,565
State, State,
City).
$
28,200
58,200
1889.||
City).
$
27,700
74
57,200
76
$ $ $
8,700† 12,400‡ 11,800
12,500 775 52,700
8,814
City).
$
37,000
77,000
98
$
9,000
60,700
1890.
12,837
(1,448
State,
11,389
City).
$
46,400
102,100
118
$
8,700
67,950
1891.
13,351
(2,051
State,
I 1,600
City).
$
41,100
120,000
133
$
19,050¶
70,400*
**
* Leaving a small balance in hand. The committee desire an increased appropriation to meet
legitimate wants. A city hospital is wanted.
† Only $525 in private subscriptions for the poor were sent in to the police in 1886, as against $4,000
sent three years previously; but the smaller amount proved sufficient. The Relief Committee, in their
report, state that the calls for relief by the indigent poor of the city have not been so numerous this year as last.
In this year, a warden of the poor was first appointed; this innovation acted as a check on pauperism.
§ The Tax Committtee, in their report, declared that 1888 was the most prosperous year in the
history of Atlanta's city government.
In 1889, the city limits were greatly enlarged-nearly doubled in area.
Including a grant of $9,000 to the new city hospital.
** The number of liquor-licences issued in 1891 (including, apparently, wholesale as well as retail) was
74; also one brewer's licence. A city licence-fee is also collected in Atlanta for every business undertaking.
The total number of such licences for 1891 was 7,156, and the amount collected for general business
licences (exclusive of liquor and of dray and hack licences) was $57,300. The Tax Committee, in their
report, state that there is much evasion in the payment of the licence; this, however, does not appear to
refer to liquor licences.

332
AMERICAN LIQUOk Laws.
A statute passed in August, 1891, inaugurated a new
departure in the liquor legislation of this State. Under this
measure, in the small city of Athens (population 9,000), in
Clark County, containing the State University, three com-
missioners are established, of whom one retires annually--his
place being filled by nomination of the two remaining
commissioners, subject to the approval of the mayor and
Council. The duty of the commissioners is to establish and
maintain a dispensary for the sale of liquors, and place it in
charge of a manager under their supervision. The manager is
appointed and may be removed by them, and he has to give
a bond of not less than $2,000 for the faithful performance of
his duties. He has to be paid a fixed salary; his remuneration
must not be dependent on the amount of his sales.
No person
holding any corporate office in the city, or any county office, is
eligible as commissioner or manager. The commissioners are
to receive for their service such sums as the mayor and Council
determine--not less than $100 each per annum.
All bills for the maintenance of the dispensary and purchase of
stock are to be paid by the City Treasurer. The manager is to
sell only for cash, and is to turn over all his receipts daily to
the treasurer.
The commissioners have to make regulations for the operation
of the dispensary. "The quantity to be sold to any purchaser
shall be determined by them, but in no event shall wine or liquor
be furnished in less quantities than one half-pint, and none shall
be drank in the building or on the premises where the dispensary
is established. The dispensary shall not be open before sunrise,
and shall be closed each day before sunset, and it shall be closed
on Sunday's, public holidays, election days, and such other days as
the commissioners shall direct."
Liquor is not to be supplied to any student of the University,
whether minor or adult, either directly or indirectly, except on the
written order of the Chancellor of the University.
The commissioners are to fix the prices to be charged for
liquors, which, however, are not to be sold for a profit exceeding
fifty per cent. above the actual cost, "it being the purpose of this
GEORGIA.
333
Act that the dispensary shall be managed in such a way as to pay
its expenses, and any revenue derived shall be simply an incident
to, and not the object of, the dispensary.”
Liquor is to be sold only in sealed packages, and the manager
is to report monthly to the commissioners the amount of his sales
and the stock remaining on hand at the end of the month.
All liquor is to be examined and analysed by a chemist and
passed by him as pure before sale.
No liquor is to be sold in the dispensary to persons purchasing
for the purpose of selling again, either lawfully or unlawfully, and
the commissioners are required to make such rules, and to require
the manager to make such investigation, as will prevent persons
from so purchasing; and, if the commissioners are satisfied that
any person is purchasing liquor repeatedly for the purpose of re-
selling, they may direct the manager not to sell to him except on
a medical certificate.
The manager is not to allow any person to loiter in or about
the dispensary, and any person refusing to leave is liable to
punishment.
The mayor and Council are required to pass such ordinances
as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act, and are
to provide suitable penalties for the violation of its provisions and
of the commissioners' regulations; and are to appropriate any
sums necessary from time to time for the dispensary.
The commissioners have to report annually to the mayor and
Council, and any net profits of the dispensary for the year are to
be equitably divided between the city of Athens and the county of
Clark upon a plan to be agreed upon by the Mayor of Athens
and the Ordinary of Clark county. If they fail to agree, they
shall each choose an arbitrator, and these two, with a third se-
lected by themselves, are to settle a plan of division for the year.
The sum awarded to the city and county respectively may be
appropriated by the respective authorities for any purpose for
which they may lawfully appropriate money.
This law is, I believe, unique in American legislation. It
has not as yet been adopted by any other place in this State,
but it may have had some influence in shaping the new law of
South Carolina.*
* In a village in New York State, Union Springs, the saloons have
been placed under the control of a committee including the local clergy.
334
American Liquor Laws,
The general licensing law of Georgia, which applies to
those portions of the State which are not subject to prohibition
or to any special local law, provides that application for a
licence to sell spirituous liquors in any quantity less than a
gallon (and, under a law of 1890, in any greater quantity)
must be made annually to the Ordinary of the county, who
has power to grant or refuse the application. On grant of a
licence the applicant must take an oath not to sell to a minor
without the consent of his parent or guardian, and must give a
bond in $500 conditioned to abide by his oath and to keep
an orderly house. The county retail licence fee is $25.
The above provisions as to licensing do not apply to any
corporation, town, or city which by charter has power to grant
licences at an equal or higher fee.
Another general law provides for the inspection of liquors.
(Code of 1882, secs. 1580-7.) City and incorporated town
authorities, and in counties the Ordinary, may appoint inspectors
to examine liquors every month, and require the destruction
of such as are injuriously adulterated. Dealers are required under
penalty to have their liquors inspected before sale.
Penalties are enacted for selling without a licence, keeping open
a tippling house on Sunday, selling to minors, or on election days,
etc.; and by an Act of 1891 the court sentencing the offender is
required to cancel his licence, whereupon he becomes disqualified
for a year from obtaining another.
The following public laws are also in force —
1887, Chapter 168. In counties having prohibition with a
saving clause for any kind of wines (domestic or other), dealers of
such wines, unless also manufacturers, are required to pay a tax of
$10,000 annually; and such wines are not to be sold in less quan-
tities than a quart, and are not to be drunk on the premises.
1887, Chapter 154.-The sale of opium (except on medical
prescription) to persons habitually addicted to its use, after written
notice of such habit from a near relative, is prohibited.
1889, Chapter 175.-It is made a misdemeanor for any seller
of spirituous liquors to sell or furnish liquors or other intoxicating
drinks to any person who is intoxicated.
GEORGIA.
335
1890, Chapter 153.-The possession or consumption of liquor
in a place of divine worship is prohibited, subject to a saving clause
for medical men, and for cases of accident, and wine for communion.
1891, Chapters 281, 702. The sale of liquor within three miles of
any church or school-house, except in incorporated towns and cities,
is forbidden under penalty, subject to a saving clause for domestic
wines, and for physicians, and for manufacturers selling to legally
authorised dealers in original packages of not less than 40 gallons.
1891, Chapter 688.-Domestic wine is defined to mean wine
made from berries, grapes, or other fruits grown in the State.
336
CHAPTER XVIII.
MARYLAND. VIRGINIA.
KENTUCKY. SOUTH CAROLINA.
(Local Option. State Dispensaries.)
Maryland.
MARYLAND has no general law with regard to the liquor traffic.
The practice in this State is to legislate separately, according to
the wishes and requirements of each separate locality. It is,
therefore, impossible to give here any full or general account
of the subject as it affects the whole body of the people.
As an example of the piecemeal character of the legislation
of Maryland, it may be mentioned that in 1890 about thirty
statutes were enacted by the State Legislature, dealing in one
way or another with the liquor trade in as many separate cities,
towns, counties, districts, and villages, the Acts in some cases
prohibiting the sale either within the area dealt with, or within
a certain distance of that area; in other cases giving a right of
local option; in others regulating the trade in various ways.
Similar laws were also passed in 1888. In 1890 local option
votes were taken in three counties, and prohibition was carried
in one of them. Of the two others which rejected it, one had
been under prohibition during three years previously.
The following is a summary of the law affecting the City of
Baltimore, passed in 1890, prior to which year the duties were
low, and there was little restriction on the issue of licences,
The County of Baltimore, in which the city is locally situated,
has a licence law of its own, separate and differing from the
law in force in the city.
The licensing authority for the City of Baltimore is a Board
of three Licence Commissioners appointed by the Governor.
Licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail may be
granted for one year to citizens of the United States of temperate
MARYLAND.
337
habits and good moral character. The vote of the members of the
board is required to be taken, after a public hearing, on the question
of granting or refusing every application for a licence; and the
board has to keep a full record of all applications, and all recom-
mendations for and remonstrances against the granting of licences,
and of their action thereon. Certain particulars have to be stated
in the application and verified by affidavit; and the application
must be supported by ten voters residing or doing business in the
ward. A licence must always be refused when in the opinion of the
board it is not necessary for the accommodation of the public, or
the petitioner is not a fit person.
If a licensee violates any State law relating to the sale of
intoxicating liquor, the board is required to revoke his licence.
The licence fee is $250, whether for an hotel or restaurant, a
grocer (for consumption off the premises), or a distiller, brewer, or
wholesale dealer; one-fourth of it goes to the State, the remainder
to the city.
The usual prohibition is enacted against selling to minors and
drunkards, and against selling on election days and Sundays, except
in hotels to guests. Liquor may not be sold between midnight and
5 a.m. (except at entertainments by special permission of the Board
of Police.)
Druggists do not require a licence, but are not allowed to sell
liquors except on a written medical prescription, and have to keep
a record of all such sales.
Persons selling liquor without a licence are liable to a fine from
$500 to $5,000, or imprisonment from three to twelve months, or
both fine and imprisonment. Any licensed person convicted of
violating the Act or the conditions of his licence is subject to a fine
from $100 to $500; for a second offence his licence is revoked, and
the fine is $500 to $1,000, with or without imprisonment three to
twelve months. The licence of any person who permits minors to
frequent or loiter about his place, or disreputable or disorderly
persons to make it a customary place of visitation or resort, may
upon proof be revoked by the criminal court, or by the Licensing
Board; and he is disqualified for two years from obtaining another
licence.
Upon complaint by any voter of the city (who gives security for
costs) that a licence has been corruptly or knowingly issued to a
person who has not complied with the provisions of the Act, the
State's Attorney is required to proceed against the board.
W
338
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWs.
The term "intoxicating liquor" includes all fermented and
distilled liquors and mixtures containing more than two per cent. of
alcohol (or less if intoxicating).
The effect of the law of 1890, raising the licence fees and
conferring on the commissioners a discretionary power to refuse
licences, was immediately to produce a reduction in the number
of saloons and places where liquor was sold, from about 3,200
to somewhat less than 2,000. In 1892 there was a very slight
increase.
The number of arrests for drunkenness and disorderly
conduct for the years 1890 and 1891 (35,638) shows a diminution
of more than eight per cent. as compared with the two preceding
years; a decrease which is more marked when the fact is taken
into account that the city limits were extended in June, 1888,
and that the old Licence Law was in force during the first four
months of 1890. A comparison of the same two biennial
periods shows a much larger proportionate falling off in the
offence of selling liquor on Sunday.*
As between 1890 and 1891, no material difference appears
in the number of arrests for most crimes, but there is a con-
siderable diminution in the latter year in arrests for selling
without licence and to minors. The illegal selling of liquor
on Sundays fell off very much under the new law.
One of the city coroners, in making a very small return of
inquests held by him, attributed to the same cause the prevention
to a great extent of homicides and fatal accidents.
The report of the warden of the Baltimore City Jail for
1891 shows that 7,677 prisoners were committed during that
year for drunkenness and breach of peace; and the warden
takes occasion to criticise the practice of committing men for
* The figures are derived from the Report of the Board of Police
Commissioners for the City of Baltimore. As the police of the city are
under State control, and the State Legislature sits only once in two years,
the report is made to that body biennially.
MARYLAND.
339
thirty days for being drunk, whether they are habitual offenders
or not. Such a sentence, he urges, is unreasonably severe in
many cases, while for the habitual drunkard it is altogether
inadequate.
The report from the hospital department of the jail shows
1,164 cases of alcoholism and forty-six of delirium tremens
treated during the year.
According to the report from the Baltimore City Almshouse,
1,800 persons, out of 2,400 admitted in 1891, were of intemperate
habits. Nearly one-half of the whole number admitted were
foreign born. There were but few cases of alcoholic insanity
in the city insane hospital.
Virginia.
This State has a general local option measure, passed in
1886, and a somewhat elaborate licensing law. The licence
fees are low. Special legislation has been less common than
in some others of the southern States.
Local Option Law.-[Chapter 248 of the Acts of 1885-6; §§
581-587 of the Code of 1887.] An election is to be held for (1) a
county, or (2) a magisterial district in a county, or (3) a city, or (4)
any town constituting a separate election district, on the application
of a number of voters (1) in each magisterial district in the county,
or (2) in the particular magisterial district affected, or (3) in the
city or town, equal to one-fourth of the persons voting at the last
preceding November election.
Section 584 of the Code is as follows:-" Notwithstanding the
election is held for the whole county, the vote shall be by districts,
and if it appear from the abstracts and returns that a majority of
the votes cast in any magisterial district have been cast against
licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors, no licence shall be
granted for the sale of wine, spirituous, or malt liquors, or any
mixture thereof, in such district. If, on the other hand, it appear
from the abstracts and returns that a majority of the votes cast in
any magisterial district have been cast in favour of liquor licence,
then a licence may be granted for the sale of wine, spirituous, or
malt liquors, or any mixture thereof, in such district. Where the
W 2
340
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
election is held in a magisterial district only, or in a city, if it
appear from the abstracts and returns that a majority of votes in
such election have been cast against licence, no licence shall be
granted for the sale of wine, spirituous, or malt liquors, or any
mixture thereof, in such district or city." Similarly in the case of
a town where a vote is taken (Acts of 1889–90, c. 203).
A local option election is not to be held within 30 days of any
county, corporation, State, or national election.
A no-licence vote extends to prohibit within the area affected
the sale by distillers, and by manufacturers of wine and malt
liquors. Druggists may sell on a medical prescription; but must
take out a retail licence, except for liquors used in preparing
medicines.
Licence Law.-A liquor licence is granted by a Commissioner
of Revenue of the county or corporation in which the business is
to be carried on, but in the case of a retail licence or a licence for a
bar-room, malt-liquor saloon, or ordinary, only on a certificate from
the county or corporation, or Hustings Court of the county or city.
In the case of a city having a Board of Commissioners of Excise,
the application must first be endorsed "approved" by the com-
missioners (hereafter mentioned). The county, corporation, or
Hustings Court is then to hear the evidence for or against the
application, and hear and determine the question of granting it.
Any person who may think he would be aggrieved by the
granting of the licence may contest it. If the court, after hearing
the evidence, is fully satisfied that the applicant is a fit person
to conduct the business, and will keep an orderly house, and that
the place at which it is to be conducted is a suitable, convenient,
and appropriate place for conducting such a business, the court,
on the execution by the applicant of a bond in not less than
$250 nor more than $500 for his faithful compliance with all the
requirements of the Act, may grant the licence.
There is an appeal to the Circuit Court against either the grant
or refusal of a licence.
Under a law of 1890 (Statutes of 1889–90, c. 244) three kinds
of licences are issued :-(1) wholesale (5 gallons or more, and in
the case of beer 12 bottles or more); (2) retail (not exceeding 5
gallons, for off-consumption); (3) bar-room, ordinary, or malt-
liquor saloon (on consumption only).
A person desiring to do a wholesale and retail, or a retail and
bar-room, business must take out a separate licence for each, on
VIRGINIA.
341
penalty of a fine of $100 to $500, and, in the discretion of the
court, imprisonment not exceeding 12 months; the tax, however,
on the second licence is reduced by one-half.
A druggist who sells liquors (except in prepared medicine) must
take out a retail licence.
"It shall be the duty of the Judge of the Circuit, County, or
Corporation Courts to give this Act, and particularly the provisions
thereof in reference to the sale of ardent spirits, wine, malt liquors,
or any mixture thereof, in charge to the grand jury at every regular
grand jury term of their respective courts, and to send before the
grand jury the constables and the Commissioners of Revenue,
with the view of ascertaining whether any person in their districts is
engaged in the sale of liquors without a licence."
Special provision is made for sample liquor merchants: the
tax on their licence is fixed at $350.
The licence taxes are :-
Wholesale
"",
""
""
...
""
...
(malt liquor only)
Retail (in the country or in towns and villages of
not more than 1,000 inhabitants)
) malt liquor only
(
>>
""
...
...
··
""
""
(elsewhere)
Bar-room (in the country or in towns and villages
of less than 1,000 inhabitants)
75
And an additional sum equal to 15 per cent. of the
rent or rental value of the bar-room.
(elsewhere)
...
...
··
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
And 15 per cent.
Malt liquor saloon (in the country or in towns of
1,000 inhabitants, or less)
""
""
(elsewhere)
Ordinary (in the country or in towns with a
population of 2,000, or less) ..
(elsewhere)
...
...
...
…….
...
...
...
...
···
...
...
$350
150
..
75
30
125
125
40
60
75
125
of
With the addition in either case of a sum equal to 8 per cent. of the
rent or rental value of the house and furniture used for the purposes
the ordinary up to $1,000 of such rent or value; and on the rent or
value in excess of $1,000 and under $2,000, 5 per cent. ; and from
$2,000 upwards, 3 per cent.
A licence for an ordinary includes the privilege of selling liquor
for consumption on, but not off, the premises.
342
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
Any person who for compensation furnishes lodging and diet
to travellers, sojourners or boarders, and sells liquor for con-
sumption on the premises, is deemed to keep an ordinary, and is
required constantly to provide the same with lodging and diet for
travellers, and (unless dispensed with by the court) stabling or
pasturage and provender for horses.
In 1890 a State Board of Commissioners of Excise was
established, with the duty of appointing three commissioners of
excise for every city in the State, to act as a Licensing Board, with
the duty of inquiring into the character of every applicant for a
licence, the "suitability, convenience, and appropriateness of the
place at which the proposed business is to be conducted, and the
general propriety of approving the application." Petitions of
resident citizens for and against the application are to be con-
sidered by the board, which has power to summon witnesses.
After hearing all the testimony adduced, and "making the investi-
gation necessary to satisfy themselves on the matters referred
to their discretion, the board may approve or disapprove the
application as it seems right and proper to do.”
The object of this measure is thus explained in its preamble,
which recites that "there exists in the cities of the Commonwealth
a growing dissatisfaction with the system under which licences for
the sale of ardent spirits are granted; and whereas the Legislature
recognises the justice of the urgent and imperative demand, grow-
ing out of this dissatisfaction, for a change in the present system,
and is disposed to surround the granting of these licences in large
municipal corporations with all the safeguards suggested by an
enlightened and progressive public policy." From private informa-
tion I am given to understand that this law was passed to enable
the State to collect the liquor licences in money instead of coupons,
and that it was not enacted in the interest of temperance.
On the motion of the county or city attorney or of any other
person, the court which granted the certificate may revoke the
licence.
No bar-room, saloon, or other place for the sale of intoxicating
liquors may be opened on Sunday. Penalty, fine $10 to $500, and,
in the discretion of the court, forfeiture of licence; but this is
subject to the police regulations of any city, and any ordinance
prescribing an equal penalty.
For furnishing liquor to a minor, "having good reason to
believe him to be such," without written authority from his parent
VIRGINIA.
343
or guardian, or to any student of the Hampton Normal
and Agricultural Institute, the penalty is fine $10 to $300, and
recognisances for good behaviour for twelve months.
For selling liquor on election day, fine not exceeding $1,000,
and imprisonment not exceeding one year.
"If any person, arrived at the age of discretion, profanely
curse or swear, or get drunk, he shall be fined by a justice one
dollar for each offence."-(Code, section 3,798).
Special Legislation, 1887.-An Act having been passed in 1884,
providing for local option in Amhurst county, two out of the four
magisterial districts carried prohibition, but the other two rejected
it. These latter districts appear to have been debarred from
taking a vote under the General Local Option Act of 1886, and an
Act was therefore passed conferring on them this right.
1892. An Act was passed authorising the Board of Supervisors
of Elizabeth City county to levy and apply to county purposes a
liquor tax equal to the tax levied by the State. †
1892.-An Act was passed making special provision for sup-
pressing illegal sales of liquor in Lee, Pulaski, Scott, Wise,
Dickenson, Buchanan, Bland, and Russell counties. Places where
liquor is illegally sold are declared public nuisances, etc.
The Secretary to the State Temperance Association tells
me that the special law for these eight counties " was aimed at
blind tigers." These counties will not, under the local option
law, permit the sale of liquors in any district; and, to evade
it, liquor was put in some obscure house, and a man could go
there, deposit the money in a till, get his liquor, and go away
without seeing anyone at all-not even the man who put it
there for sale.
Upon the general subject of local option, the same informant
* I understand that at the present time only one district in Amhurst
county is "dry."
† A correspondent writes to me:-"The Elizabeth City County Act
was passed to enable that county to collect more liquor revenue by raising
the licence, and getting more money for county purposes. In raising the
licence, however, the number of saloons was reduced; the little doggeries
could not afford it."
344
AMERICAN Liquor Laws.
writes to me that the law of 1886 was at once taken up with
much energy, and made a lodgment in every one of the 100
counties in the State, in twenty of which all licences were with-
drawn, while in the remainder they were confined to the cities
and towns."Local option" (he writes) "in my opinion is
the most effective remedy against licence. By submitting the
question every two years under our law, a discussion of the
same is indulged in by all; it educates the people; they hear
it presented in ways they had never heard of, nor thought of.
It creates a public sentiment, and, unless a law is sustained by
public sentiment, it cannot be enforced. The law and public
sentiment are inter-dependent-united they stand, divided they
fall."
From others in this State who, equally with the writer of
the letter of which the foregoing is an extract, desire the com-
plete suppression of the liquor trade, I heard a less favourable
account of the position and prospects of local option. I am
assured that, except in purely rural areas, prohibition has now
a footing in only a small portion of the State. One corre-
spondent (a thorough-going prohibitionist) writes from Nor-
folk: "I think, upon the whole, local option does much good
as an educator towards prohibition; but it never settles any-
thing. There is also a tendency on the part of many tem-
perance people to rest on their oars as soon as local option is
adopted in their own town.”
The general disposition, which at first appeared, to adopt
the Act of 1886 does not seem, on the whole, to have been
very well maintained. Some counties, which adopted the Act
as a whole, soon gave up the districts in which the court
houses were situated, because it was evaded and brought dis-
credit upon the law. A "dry" majority at one election has
frequently been reversed at the next, and many instances of
repeated changes to and fro between wet and dry are mentioned.
So far as the cities are concerned, local option has had little
operation. Of eighteen cities in the State, one only is
VIRGINIA.
345
prohibitory. Richmond (population, 81,000) is said to be a
long way removed from any disposition to vote "dry." A
local option vote was taken there a few years ago, and the
majority against prohibition was, I believe, something like five
to one. There is a large wholesale business in Richmond,
and the liquor interest has much strength.
Lynchburg, however (pop., 20,000), nearly carried a pro-
hibition vote a few years ago.* Roanoke (16,000) also came
near to voting dry.
The licensing authority in Richmond appears to be, practi-
cally, the Judge of the Hustings Court. The points con-
sidered in the case of an application are the character of the
applicant and the location of the premises, which must not be
in a residential neighbourhood where it would be objection-
able, and must not be close to a church or school. Applica-
tions are referred to the captain of police in the district in which
the premises are situate, in order to ascertain that there is no
objection in that quarter. There is no restriction in respect of
number, and the licence fee is low-$125, and less for beer.
There are about 500 bar-rooms in Richmond, and 300 retail
licences; but, as a bar-keeper often takes out a retail licence
to enable him to sell for off-consumption, the 300 licences do
not imply that number of dealers in addition to the 500 bar-
keepers.
No trouble, I am told, is experienced in regard to the beer
licences, through people selling spirits under cover of them.
As a matter of fact, few beer licences are issued. Sunday
closing is not strictly enforced. The side-door business goes on,
but is conducted quietly; disturbances are rare, and anything
disorderly in a saloon on Sunday would lead to a prosecution.
No police statistics as to arrests are published.
The Judge of the Hustings Court has jurisdiction (which
* Prohibitionists, indeed, claim that they had a majority, but were
deprived of their victory by a miscount.
346
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
he told me that he practically exercised) to take away licences
for cause.
Kentucky.
In addition to general licensing and local option laws,
Kentucky has passed a considerable body of special legislation
affecting particular localities, and amongst other matters deal-
ing with the liquor question in various ways. The new Con-
stitution, however, adopted in 1891, and superseding the
Constitution of 1849, has put a stop for the future to the
system of special legislation, from which serious abuses had
arisen. It has also involved the passing of much new legisla-
tion of a general character, the old laws, however, being
allowed to continue in force until re-enacted with reference to
the new order of things.
Of special liquor Acts no less than sixty were passed in
1890 alone, some of them prohibiting the sale of liquor in a
particular county or town, or within one, two, or three miles of
a particular church or school; others providing for the taking
of a local option vote; others giving licensing powers to
certain municipalities; and in one case at least fixing a high
licence fee. In some instances the sale by retail or in
quantities less than a fixed amount (e.g., ten gallons) is alone
forbidden.
The existing general licence law provides in substance as
follows:
Licences to sell spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors by retail (¿.e.,
in quantities less than five gallons) are granted by the County
Court. Notice is to be given of each application; “and if the
majority of the legal voters in the neighbourhood shall protest
against the application, it shall be refused." The County Court
determines what constitutes "the neighbourhood."
* One of the evils arising out of the facilities allowed for special legisla-
tion was the growth of special jurisdictions ousting the ordinary Courts of
Justice and setting up separate tribunals for particular localities.
KENTUCKY.
347
The taxes on licences are as follows:-
On a licence to keep a tavern
If with privilege to retail spirituous or vinous liquors,
or both
If with privilege to retail malt liquors
If with privilege to retail spirituous, vinous, and malt
liquors
On a licence to retail spirituous or vinous liquors, or
both
··
··
..
..
··
On a licence to retail malt liquors
On a licence to retail spirituous, vinous, and malt
liquors..
··
tA
10
100
50
150
100
50
150
The licence is valid for a year, and is not assignable.
The County Court has power to grant licences to keep taverns,
but may not grant a licence to anyone who has not paid the licence
tax, or who is of bad character, or who does not keep an orderly
house, nor unless the Court believes the applicant is prepared with
houses and stabling,* bedding and provender, to keep an orderly,
law-abiding tavern. The Court must also be satisfied that the
keeping of a tavern at the place proposed is necessary for the
accommodation of the public. The licence is liable to be revoked
for cause.
The County Court is to fix the prices to be paid in taverns for
liquor, lodging, stabling, &c.
The privilege to sell spirituous liquors is not implied in any
licence to keep a tavern, or other place of entertainment, unless it
is so specified.
A licence-holder who furnishes liquor to a known inebriate is
liable to a fine of $20; and, if notice forbidding the supply of
liquor to such person has previously been given, a relative is
entitled by action to recover not less than a like amount."
Any person who, not being licensed, sells in any quantity wine
or spirituous liquors for consumption on the premises is deemed
guilty of keeping a tippling-house, and is to be fined $60, or, if he
keeps it for three months at a time, $200.
Any person who, without lawful authority, sells by retail any
vinous or spirituous liquors is liable to be fined $20.
* The provision as to stabling does not apply to cities or towns having
over 15,000 inhabitants.
348
AMERICAN LIquor Laws.
A fine of $50 is prescribed for selling or giving liquor to an
infant.
A Local Option Bill, intended to supersede the existing
Statute* dealing with that subject, was introduced at the
Session of 1893, and in March was still before the Legislature.
As I was given to understand that it was likely to pass with-
out important alteration, I give the following summary of its
provisions :-
On application of a number of voters in each precinct of the
territory to be affected, equal to 25 per cent. of the votes cast at
the last general election, the County Court Judge is to cause an
election to be held on the proposition whether or not spirituous,
vinous, or malt liquors shall be sold, bartered, or loaned therein, or
whether or not any prohibition law in force by virtue of any general
or special Act shall become inoperative. The area for which the
vote may be taken is any county, city, town, district, or precinct.
If the majority is against liquor none may be sold, bartered, or
loaned on pain of a fine from $100 to $200 for each offence; but
this prohibition does not extend to any manufacturer or wholesale
dealer who, in good faith and in the usual course of trade, sells by
wholesale in quantities not less than five gallons. Druggists also,
unless they have been specially included in the reference to the
electors, are excepted so far as regards the sale for medicinal
purposes on a medical prescription. Physicians are subject to
penalties for improperly prescribing intoxicating liquor, and the
druggists are required to keep accurate registers of all sales of
liquor, and to preserve every such prescription for twelve months.
* By this Act, passed in 1874, the County Court Judge, on petition
from twenty voters in any civil district, town, or city in his county, was
required to cause an election to be held on the question whether or not
spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors should be sold in such district, town, or
city.
If the majority was against the sale, any person selling was to be fined
from $25 to $100 for each offence; but the prohibition did not extend to
sales by wholesale, nor to sales by druggists for medicinal purposes on a
medical prescription. A physician improperly giving such a prescription
was liable to a fine of $25.
An election under this law might not be held oftener than every two
years.
KENTUCKY.
349
If at an elect on held for an entire county the majority vote for
licence, this vote is not to affect any town or portion of the county
in which the sale of liquor has previously been prohibited by
local option vote or special Act, unless (in the case of a local
option place) the majority of the votes cast in the place itself are
in favour of licence.
A local option vote is not to be taken more frequently than
once in three years, nor within thirty days of any regular political
election.
All saloons must be closed, and all traffic in and giving of
liquor is prohibited on the day of a local option election, under
penalty of a fine of $100.
No official returns are made showing to what extent local
prohibition is in force. I understand that, geographically,
more than one half of the State is under prohibition, the rural
precincts having widely adopted it, as well as some towns.
Among the latter, the vote in some cases is apt to swing to
and fro between "wet" and "dry"; but in the centres of
population the liquor interest generally prevails.
The "coloured" vote is an important element in the
disposal of this question; and the negroes usually incline to
vote for whisky. Although many and various expedients have
been adopted for keeping down the negro vote, yet on issues
where the white population is strongly divided, as it is on the
saloon question in the towns, it has a weighty influence in
fixing the majority.
In Kentucky, as probably in all the old slave States, the
opposition to the saloon is largely due to a sense of the specially
dangerous effects of liquor on the coloured population, and to
the crimes of violence to which it is apt to lead. The com-
paratively scanty immigration from the European countries to the
South results also in fewer saloons and a less active resistance
to anti-liquor legislation.
Though adopted, territorially speaking, in so large a part of
the State, local prohibition does not affect nearly the same
proportion of the population. It operates chiefly in the rural
350
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
districts in the South, where there are most negroes, and where
the necessity of keeping down the traffic for the causes already
mentioned is most generally felt. That it has had the effect of
wiping out the "cross-road doggery" is considered by many
to be its chief merit; and the opinion appears to be strongly
held that, while it may not have much affected the private use
of liquor, its results have, on the whole, been beneficial in
country districts. I did not, however, find evidence of much
success in places where resistance to the law was at all per-
sistent, and the opinion was more than once expressed to
me that, except in purely rural communities, prohibition was
not usually well enforced, though the conditions varied locally
according to the strength and direction of the local sentiment.
South Carolina.
A new departure in American liquor legislation was taken by
the Legislature of South Carolina in December, 1892, by the
passing of a "Dispensary Law" which is said by its supporters
to be an adaptation of the Swedish system to American
methods and requirements-the principle being no liquor at
all where it is not wanted, and, where it is wanted, no private.
profits on the sale, and security for the quality of the liquor.
The new law has followed, and is, in part at least, the
result of, an agitation carried on by the prohibitionists at the
time of the State primary elections in 1892, when, through
their action, separate ballot-boxes were put at all the polling-
places for Democratic voters to cast a ballot on the question
of prohibition. The agitation had derived strength from the
lax enforcement of the existing law, especially in regard to the
sale to drunkards and minors. On this vote the prohibitionists
obtained a majority, but many voters took no part in it. The
question had not been made a prominent issue at the election,
and people had not been generally canvassed or roused on it.*
* The total number of voters at the primary elections was 88,500, and
SOUTH CAROLINA.
351
When the Legislature met, several Bills were brought forward,
the prohibitionists themselves urging a measure of complete
State prohibition. The Act, as finally passed, was a com-
promise, but is by some regarded as a great step in advance,
in the direction of a complete suppression of the trade.
In more quarters than one, however, I found indications
that the cause of temperance was not the only motive which
operated for the passing of the new law. It was, as I was
assured, to a very great extent a financial measure, designed to
increase the revenue of the State by adding to it the profits of
the liquor trade; and the Act itself, of which a summary
follows, shows that, if fairly enforced, the authorised profits
would be about 100 per cent. on the original cost of all liquor
consumed in the State, less the expenses of administration;
which profits would be apportioned-one-half to the State,
one-fourth to the county, and one-fourth to the municipality.
It was carried by the party in power, for whom it attracted
support from the prohibitionists, and also from those whose
chief aim was to aid the revenue, which, owing to a falling
off in the income derived from the phosphate-workings, and
from railroads and other causes, required fresh sources of
contribution.
The following is a summary of the main provisions of the
new dispensary law, which itself occupies ten closely-printed
pages.
The State board of control, consisting of the Governor, the
Comptroller-General, and the Attorney-General, is to appoint in each
county a county board of three persons, "believed" (by the State
board) "not to be addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors." It
is the business of these county boards to appoint dispensers of
liquor. The Act declares that "there may be one county dispenser
appointed for each county, except the city of Charleston, for the
county of Charleston, where there may be ten dispensers; and
about 70,500 of them voted on prohibition, for which there was a majority
of about 10,000.
352
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
except for the city of Columbia, for the county of Richland, where
there may be three dispensers appointed." There is, however, a
proviso that, “in the judgment of the county board of control, other
dispensaries may be established in other towns in any county."
Apparently, therefore, there is no limit on the number of
dispensaries, except in Charleston and Columbia.
An application for a permit as county dispenser must be by
petition, stating "the applicant's name, place of residence, in what
business engaged, and in what business he has been engaged two
years previous to filing petition; that he is a citizen of the United
States and of South Carolina; that he has never been adjudged
guilty of violating the law relating to intoxicating liquors, and is not
a licensed druggist, a keeper of an hotel, eating-house, saloon,
restaurant, or place of public amusement; and that he is not
addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage." This
petition must be signed and sworn to by the applicant, and must
also be signed by a majority of the freehold voters of the incor-
porated town or city in which the permit is to be used; each of
whom must state that before signing he has read the petition and
understands the contents and meaning, and is well and personally
acquainted with the applicant.*
A county dispenser, before receiving his permit, must enter into
a penal bond for $300 with sureties, and give a sworn undertaking
in statutory form to comply with all the requirements of the Act.
"Before selling or delivering any intoxicating liquors to any
person, a request must be presented to the county dispenser, printed
or written in ink, dated of the true date, stating the age and
residence of the signer for whom and whose use the liquor is
required, the quantity and kind requested, and his or her true name
and residence, and, where numbered, by street and number, if in a
city; and the request shall be signed by the applicant in his own
true name and signature, attested by the county dispenser or his
clerk, who receives and files the request, in his own true name and
signature and in his own handwriting. But the request shall be
refused if the county dispenser filling it personally knows the
* Charleston has a population of 55,000; but I do not know what is
the number of freehold voters. It seems likely, however, that applicants
for the post of dispenser of liquor in Charleston will need to have a
remarkably large circle of friends who are "well and personally acquainted
with them."
SOUTH CAROLINA.
353
person applying is a minor, that he is intoxicated, or that he is in
the habit of using intoxicating liquors to an excess; or if the
applicant is not so personally known to said county dispenser
before filling said order or delivering said liquor, he shall require
identification, and the statement of a reliable and trustworthy
person of good character and habits, known personally to him, that
the applicant is not a minor, and is not in the habit of using
intoxicating liquors to an excess."
Blank forms of request for the purchase of liquor are to be
supplied by the State board of control; and each dispenser is to
make full returns monthly to the county auditor, together with a
sworn statement certifying that he has made a full disclosure of all
business transacted by him.
For the purpose of supplying liquor to the dispensers, the
Governor (subject to the approval of the Senate) is to appoint a
State Commissioner, "believed by him to be an abstainer from
intoxicants," whose business it is to purchase pure liquor (giving
the preference to manufacturers and brewers doing business in the
State), and sell it to the county dispensers at a price not exceeding
50 per cent. above the net cost. This provision, however, does not
apply to beer shipped in cases, or bottles thereof shipped in
barrels.
No liquor (except beer) is to be brought into the State, or
transported within it, otherwise than in a package bearing a
certificate with the signature and seal of the State Commissioner,
a requirement which carriers are bound under a penalty of $500 to
observe.*
Manufacturers of distilled, malt, or vinous liquors, doing busi-
ness in the State, are allowed to sell to no one in the State except
the commissioner, and he is to sell only to the county dispensers in
packages of not less than one half-pint, nor more than five gallons.
The county dispensers are not allowed to break the packages, nor
to obtain their supplies from anyone but the State Commissioner,
and purchasers may not open the packages on the premises.
The dispensers are not to charge more than 50 per cent. above
cost, and in sales to druggists for compounding medicines, etc., not
more than 10 per cent.
The proceeds of sales by the State Commissioner go to the State ;
* The constitutionality of this provision seems to be doubtful in view
of previous decisions respecting the regulation of inter State commerce.
X
354
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
those of sales by the dispensers, after payment of expenses, are
equally divided between the county and the municipality.
Severe penalties are enacted against all concerned who may be
guilty of disobedience to the law.
Anyone concerned in keeping a "club-room or other place in
which any intoxicating liquors are receive 1 or kept for the purpose
of barter or sale as a beverage, or for distribution or division
among the members of any club or association by any means
whatever," is to be punished by a fine of $100 to $500, and
imprisonment three to twelve months.
A place where liquor is illegally sold may be declared a
nuisance (through proceedings taken before a judge in equity),
and may be closed, and a perpetual injunction may be obtained.
The Governor is authorised to appoint State constables for the
enforcement of the law.
A perusal of the clauses of this statute suggests a doubt
whether it is likely to prove the vehicle for a satisfactory or
permanent settlement of the question. Between the date of
its passing and that at which it came into operation, attempts
were made to overthrow it on technical grounds, but its
validity as a constitutional measure was, I believe, upheld.
I found, however, that grave doubts were entertained whether
it would be possible to enforce it in some parts of the State,
especially in Charleston; and many of the prohibitionists
themselves seemed by no means to favour it even as a step in
the right direction. In Charleston there is an active trade in
liquor, and it was expected that the new law would there
encounter much opposition. An ex-mayor of that city told
me that during his term of office he had attempted to get the
Sunday closing law enforced, but found the task impossible.
Juries would not convict, many cases could not even be got
to trial, the grand juries refusing to indict. The attempt had
to be abandoned, and the authorities have since been obliged
to content themselves with requiring the front doors to be
closed, leaving customers to find admission by the side door.
The sudden closing of the bar-rooms, and of the whole trade,
SOUTH CAROLINA.
355
except through the State dispensaries, would, it was thought,
lead to trouble, evasion, and not improbably-if any active
steps were taken to enforce the law-to serious resistance. It
seemed certain that the liquor-sellers in Charleston would
adopt every expedient to render the law inoperative, and
previous experience did not encourage a confident expect 1-
tion that the opposition to it would be effectively broken
down. One who had long resided and held official positions
in this State told me that, with the inauguration of the dis-
pensary system, he expected to see a large trade carried on in
different parts of the State with the nearest points in Georgia
and North Carolina; and by sea whisky, he said, could not
be kept out. It might be concealed as dry goods, or in a
hundred ways, but it would come. When I was in Charleston
I heard the opinion more than once expressed that no long
time would elapse before the new law was repealed. In some
parts of the State, and especially in the north, the prohibi-
tionists were, in the spring, vigorously agitating the question,
and the clergy were impressing it on people as a religious duty
to refuse to allow the establishment of a dispensary.
What turn the political question would take seemed un-
certain; but it appeared to be not unlikely that the party in
power would lose the support of the prohibitionists, who, it was
thought, would not improbably run candidates of their own for
the governorship and other offices. The development of the
liquor question in this State (as in others) will greatly depend
on general political issues.
The dispensary law contains a saving for all existing laws
prohibiting the sale of liquor in any part of the State. A
general local option law was enacted in 1882 allowing the
direct veto in any incorporated city, town, or village. Outside
of these incorporated places the issue of licences was altogether
forbidden by a law of 1880; but several counties were, by sub-
sequent Acts, exempted from this provision. Onwards from
the year 1875 many special Acts were passed prohibiting the
X 2
356
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
sale of liquor near churches, places of education, and factories.
In 1878 a general prohibition was enacted on the sale of
liquor within a mile of any place of worship or education out-
side a city, town, or village (save in two counties which were
subsequently excepted).
The following special legislation has been enacted in recent
years:-
1879-82. Special Acts placed twenty-seven towns under pro-
hibition, some of which have since abandoned it. Liquor-selling
was also forbidden in the neighbourhood of certain factories.
1883. Barnwell county went under prohibition, but the Act was
repealed in 1886. Iconee county did the same (with a saving for
manufacturers); repealed in 1885.
1882-84. Prohibition in seventeen towns, one or more o
which afterwards repealed it.
1882. Act of incorporation of the town of Shiloh; retail liquor
licence not to be less than $20,000.
1885-87. Prohibition in fifteen towns, and near some cotton
mills.
1886-88. Local option as to sale in the incorporated cities,
towns, and villages in five counties (subject in two of them to a
petition being presented by a majority of owners of real estate).
1888. Prohibition in six towns..
1889. Several prohibitory places withdrew the right of drug-
gists to sell as medical prescriptions.
1889.
Prohibition in ten towns.
1890. Prohibition in Marlboro' county and in sixteen towns.
1891. Prohibition in Williamsburg county and about eighteen
small towns. In another town prohibition for ten years.
On the whole I was given to understand that not very
many counties were under local prohibition; some which had
adopted it had given it up; and the general standard of en-
forcement was not high. "Blind tigers" were said to be
numerous; and one resident in the State expressed to me his
conviction that much more drinking went on in country dis-
tricts than many people supposed, both at home and in the bar-
rooms of country towns, where he had seen much drunkenness.
SOUTH CAROLINA.
357
He mentioned that in one county in this State, which
went under prohibition, shopkeepers put up jars of coloured
fluid in their windows, calling themselves druggists, and sold
liquor to all comers for "medicinal purposes"; prohibition
there was worse than useless; while the raising of the ques-
tion and the taking of the local option vote had stirred up
ill-feeling, divided families, and led, in not a few cases, to
serious quarrels.
All the towns under prohibition are small; not one, I
believe, has a population amounting to 3,000; most of them
have much less than that number.
358
CHAPTER XIX.
OTHER STATES.
New York.
THE liquor question in New York State hardly appears to be
in a condition offering much for the guidance of legislators
attempting to deal with this question. The liquor trade is
exceptionally powerful in New York City, and that city has a
preponderating influence in the State. Proposals dealing with
some part of the subject are repeatedly brought forward in the
Legislature, some of which become law, but the treatment of
such matters is affected by political and party considerations.
which it would be long and tedious, and for the present
purpose (I believe) little profitable, to discuss. A high-licence
measure has at least twice passed through both Houses of the
Legislature, and been vetoed by the Governor; but the high
licence party are still in the field, and hope in time to win
their cause.
A consolidating Act was passed in 1892,* which embodies
the greater part of the law now in force on the subject in this
State.
The licensing authority in every city and town in the State is
a Board of Excise Commissioners; but in towns they are elected
at the annual town meetings, while in cities they are appointed by
the mayor, or (as in New York City and Brooklyn) nominated by
the mayor, subject to confirmation by the Board of Aldermen.
An applicant for a licence must be a citizen of the United
States, resident in the State, and be of good moral character
approved by the Board.
* Chapter 401 of the Laws of 1892, entitled "An Act to revise and
consolidate the laws regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors."
"Towns" includes the rural sub-divisions (townships).
NEW YORK.
359
Six kinds of licences are recognised by the Act-
I. Hotel, on and off. 2. Saloon, on and off. 3. Saloon, beer,
on and off. 4. Store, off. 5. Druggist, off. 6. Additional, for
opening between I a.m. and 5 a.m.
In cities of over 30,000 inhabitants a refusal by the Board to
grant a licence may be reviewed upon a writ of certiorari, and the
court may compel the issue of the licence if it determines that
the application was denied arbitrarily, or without good and valid
reasons.
On conviction of certain offences the licence is ipso facto
void; the Board of Excise also may revoke a licence on a second
(in some cases on a first) conviction, subject to appeal by
certiorari; and the Board is bound to hear complaints of
violations of the law by a licensee, and, on proof, cancel his licence.
(C
The law of 1892 recognises the direct veto by enacting.
that the foregoing provisions are not to apply to any town
where the majority of voters vote for local prohibition; but no
provision appears to be made for the taking of such vote.
As a matter of fact local option has had some operation in the
State through the action of Boards of Excise Commissioners
elected with a view to the refusal of all licences. I endeavoured
to ascertain to what extent this had taken place; but I was
not able to obtain any official or precise information. I was,
however, informed by a gentleman who took interest in the
matter, on the prohibition side, that it would be safe to reckon
150 dry" townships in the State. Another reckoned the
number to be from 100 to 150.*
The rules of the Board of Excise for New York City
provide that no licence for a bar-room will be issued for a new
place except on the closing of an existing place. Application
for a new licence must have the consent of the owner of the
property, and it must be shown that the requirements of the
neighbourhood demand it, or that it will serve the public
* Ithaca (the seat of Cornell University) has lately for the first time
refused all licences. I heard of another place which had just reopened
saloons after being "dry" for thirteen years.
360
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
convenience. A new place will not be licensed in the im-
mediate vicinity of a church, schoolhouse, hospital, or asylum.
A third corner will not be licensed for a new place. An on-
licence will not be granted at any place connected with a
grocery or provision store.
The following table, taken from the reports of the Com-
missioners of Excise, shows the number and classification of
licences granted in New York City in the years 1888 and 1889,
the latest years for which I could obtain the figures :—
On-licences :-
Hotels
...
Description of Licence.
""
Liquors, beer and wine
Beer only
Beer and wine only
Restaurant ...
Steamboat
Off-licences :-
""
...
"
...
·
...
···
...
...
""
Class I
55
""
رو
>>
دو
""
Total on-licencest
Storekeepers, Class 4, Grade A
B
""
>>
">
1 2 3 4O NO
OA
с
D
Total off-licences
Aggregate, on and off
...
...
···
•
►
1
...
...
...
::
...
Number of Licences.
1889.
1888.
119
139
5,862
222
1,307
118
42
7,809
43
24
42
862
971
8,780
108
154
5,857
194
1,266
152*
56
7,787
29
17
42
1,010.
1,098‡
8,885$
1
Licence
Fee.
$
250
200
200
30
50
100
50
250
150||
100||
50||
* Under a restaurant-licence no bar is permitted, and liquor may be
served with food only. There were, in 1889, 575 other restaurants, where a
bar was permitted; but many of them had no bar. Of these, 375 were
Class 3, 76 Class 5, and 124 Class 6.
†The total number of places having on-licences in 1889, other than
hotels, restaurants, and steamboats, was 6,742—a decrease of 78 from the
preceding year.
+
An increase of 127, chiefly from the growth of the grocery and beer-
bottling businesses.
§ In 1891 and 1892 the total numbers were respectively 9,506 and
9,327, and the receipts $1,501,500 and $1,523,780.
|| These fees were raised in 1893 to $200, in consequence, it is said, of
the extent to which drinking on the premises was carried on.
NEW YORK.
361
The receipts for licences were $1,430,420 in 1888, and
$1,442,770 in 1889.
In 1888, the Board held 1,177 trials in examination of
complaints for violation of the Excise Law, of which 940 were
upon complaints against persons holding beer and wine
licences, for selling spirits, * and 107 were against storekeepers
charged with allowing consumption on the premises, and 875
licences were revoked.
In the following year the numbers fell off, there being only
167 cases brought before the Board, and 40 revocations.
1888, 767 applications were rejected; in 1889, 358.
In
The rule that no new licence for a bar-room is granted
except on the discontinuance of an old one operates, as the
city extends northward, to reduce the number at the crowded
southern end. There has been in late years a diminution of
beer licences by 900, and an increase of general on-licences by
400-a net reduction of between 400 and 500.† The new
premises are generally of a higher class, representing more
capital, and they take out a full licence. The rule has given a
fairly high selling value to the licence of a small beershop
down town, when it can be sold to an applicant desiring to
open a high-class saloon in one of the new streets at the other
end. Restaurant licences have increased; hotel licences.
remain about the same; new hotels have been built, but
some of the old ones have now to take an ordinary
saloon licence, not coming within the present definition of an
hotel.
There is much opposition in various quarters to any very
large reduction in the number of saloons, on account of loss of
The saloon commands a high rent, and is therefore
revenue.
* I was told at the office of the Commissioners of Excise that this kind
of offence had given a good deal of trouble.
†The report of the Excise Board, presented in 1893, shows the sub-
stitution of general for beer licences to have continued, the number of the
former having risen to 6,644.
362
AMERICAN LIquor Laws.
more highly taxed than the same premises would be without a
licence. Consequently the reduction of saloons would mean
an increase of taxation to the general public, unless indeed it
were combined with the adoption of a higher licence fee.
Though beer licences are being replaced by general
licences, I was told, by one who should know, that beer has in
recent years come into increased consumption in New York,
the Irish taking to it.
A very complete record is kept at the office of the Board.
of Excise of all matters relating to each licence-holder and
licensed house, with full indices for ready reference.
A member of the Board of Excise expressed himself to me
in terms strongly favourable to the English system of attaching
the licences to the premises, on the ground that it gives a
better control. A house will command a higher rent as a
saloon than if let for any other use. It is therefore the owner's
interest (if the licence attaches to the house) to take care that
the licensee is a man of good character, who will comply with
the law and not imperil the licence.
The figures in the following table are taken from the
Report of the Police Department of New York City (pop.
1,515,300). Sunday closing is not strictly enforced.
Arrests—
Intoxication
Intoxication and disorderly
conduct
Disorderly conduct
Violation of Excise Law...
···
""
...
...
...
All offences
Persons aided, suffering from
alcoholism
Strength of police force
Cost
…….
1
...
...
...
•••
...
189".
23,170
8,314
...
4,743
(3,975 on Sunday)
84,556
3,525
...
1891.
PROWA
26,002
8,679
15.339
3.420
(3,160 on Sunday)
90,124
409
3,643
$4,737,161
NEW YORK.
363
Arrests-
The following figures are for Brooklyn (pop. 806,300):—

Intoxication
Disorderly conduct
Violation of Excise Laws
All offences
Licences issued...
Strength of police
···
...
...
...
...
..
...
...
...
...
...
··
:
..
...
...
...
1890.
22,547
338
...
38,314
..
1,250
1891.
22,552
399
69
37.319
3,959
1,319
Connecticut.
The following account of the licence law in Connecticut,
by the Hon. Francis Wayland, LL.D., Dean of the Law School
at Yale, clearly describes the leading features of the Act, which,
in some respects, is peculiar. There is also a local option law,
operating by direct popular vote, which may be taken in each
town (township):-
'The controlling principle which underlies the present Licence
Law of Connecticut is this: that as the traffic in intoxicating
liquors is liable to serious abuse, being frequently so prosecuted as
to be dangerous to the peace, good order, and well-being of society,
it should be entrusted only to suitable persons in suitable places
It assumes that the legitimate province of a licence law is to restrain
and regulate—to restrain, by withholding licence from unsuitable
persons, or from those who desire to sell in unsuitable places; to
regulate, by punishing those who violate the provisions of the law.
"The same principle is often applied to the sale of poisonous
drugs—the traffic in these articles being restricted to 'licensed
pharmaceutists,' i.e., those who have been found, on examination, to
be suitable persons to engage in an occupation which presents so
many opportunities of inflicting serious injuries upon others.
"In Connecticut, a candidate for a licence to sell intoxicating
liquors must present to the Licensing Board an application endorsed
by five legal voters and taxpayers, not one of whom must be a
licensee or an applicant for a licence. No man can endorse more
than a single application. The certificate of the town clerk to the
364
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
fact that the endorsers are voters and taxpayers must accompany
the petition. Further, the application, so endorsed, is to be
published in a newspaper at least two weeks before it is acted on
by the licensing board.
“When the law has been complied with in these particulars,
prima facie proof has been furnished that the applicant is a
suitable person.' But there remains another test. Any citizen of
the town in which the applicant proposes to do business may file
with the licensing board his objection to the granting of a licence
to said applicant, and the objector shall be duly heard after reason-
able notice to both parties. If the objection is sustained, the licence
will not be granted. If no objection is filed, or if, having been filed
and heard, it is not sustained, the applicant is obliged to take one
step further; he must sign a bond in the sum of $300, conditioned
on his compliance with the provisions of the Licence Law. The
surety must be someone who is not a dealer in intoxicating liquors,
and is not a surety on any other bond.
"The authority to license is entrusted to ' County Commissioners.'
These officials-three for each county-are elected by the Legis-
lature, each for the term of three years, and one chosen every year.
Not being elected by popular vote, they are largely independent of
popular clamour, while a majority of the members of the board must
always be familiar with their official duties. To this board is also
confided another very important function, viz., the power of re-
vocation. As all licences are granted on the basis of suitability,
when it is made to appear to the County Commissioners that in a
given case the law has been violated, they may conclude that the
offender is not a suitable person, and may revoke the licence.
But
if a licensed person shall have been convicted of a violation of the
law, 'he shall, in addition to the penalties prescribed for such
offence, incur a forfeiture of his licence and all moneys that may
have been paid therefor, and the County Commissioners shall
thereupon revoke his said licence, and he shall not thereafter for
the space of one year from the date of said revocation be capable of
receiving any licence to sell spirituous and intoxicating liquors.'
“In the latter instance, as will be observed, revocation follows
inevitably upon conviction; in the former case, revocation may be
the result of a hearing upon complaint only made. In no case is
there any appeal from the action of the Commissioners.
"The whole proceeding means simply this: the commissioners
granted a licence to A. B. in the belief that he was 'a suitable
CONNECTICUT.
365
person' to engage in an occupation dangerous, in unsuitable hands,
to the well-being of society. He has proved unfaithful to the trust
and it is withdrawn.
"The County Commissioners are also to appoint as many 'pro-
secuting agents' as may be deemed necessary for each county, whose
business it shall be to prosecute offenders against the law.
"The minimum fee for a licence is fixed at $100; the maximum
fee at $500. Practically, the amount is usually $100, and very rarely
exceeds $200. The design of the law is to determine the fitness of
a man to be a legalised liquor-dealer, not by his ability to pay a
large fee, but by other and, it is thought, more logical and justifiable
methods. Experience has not yet demonstrated that the richest
rum-sellers are by any means the most trustworthy.
"Druggists licensed by the ' Commissioners of Pharmacy' may,
in compounding prescriptions, use intoxicating liquors, and may
sell them upon the prescription of any practising physician; but no
druggists' licence shall authorise the sale of intoxicating liquors to
be drunk on the premises.
“The principal offences against the Connecticut Licence Law
are sales on Sunday, on election days, after midnight, to minors,
to intoxicated persons, to an habitual drunkard, knowing him to be
such; to any husband, after having received notice from his wife
not to sell or to deliver intoxicating liquor to him; or to any wife,
after having received notice from her husband not to sell or deliver
said liquor to her, etc. etc.
There are provisions for seizing liquor in unlicensed places,
for giving effect to 'local option,' for appointing agents to sel
intoxicating liquor in towns which have voted 'no licence'; but as
these and a few other features are found in the licence laws of many
of our States, they have not been thought deserving of especial men-
tion-our object being to call attention to those features which are
believed to be peculiar to the Connecticut law. Of these, the most
important are those which seek to determine who among applicants
are 'suitable.' They have certainly diminished materially the
number of applicants, and as certainly have provoked the active
hostility of almost every liquor-dealer in the State.
"The law has only been in operation a few months; but already
it has vindicated itself against the charge of 'inefficiency.' Not
the least gratifying indication is, that the necessity of procuring the
endorsement of 'five legal voters and taxpayers' (meaning those
'persons who pay a tax upon real or personal property, assessed
366
AMERICAN LIquor Laws
upon the grand list of the town in which they reside'), practically
cuts off many utterly worthless and irresponsible applicants, who
had heretofore found no difficulty in obtaining a licence. And this,
not because they are poor, but because they cannot find five citizens
who are willing to stand sponsors for their good character, or even
good intentions.
"The design of the law in providing that the endorsers shall be
taxpayers' as well as 'legal voters,' that no man shall endorse
more than one application, and in requiring publication of the
application with the names of the endorsers, will, it is believed,
readily occur to any intelligent person at all familiar with the
history of temperance legislation."
،
Arkansas.
The following report on local option and the liquor
trade in Arkansas was published in the St. Louis Post-Dis-
patch, March 26th, 1893. The difficulty of obtaining the
repeal of special prohibitory laws when demanded by a change
in the local sentiment seems to be peculiar to this State-
at least, no such difficulty was brought to my notice in any of
the southern States which I visited, where I found many cases
of the repeal of such laws.
LITTLE ROCK, Ark., March 25.-" The authority vested in the
Legislature to enact special laws prohibiting the sale of intoxicants
within a specified distance of a church or school-house in any
locality where a majority of the citizens residing in the territory
desire the banishment of the saloon has been freely exercised
during the present session of the General Assembly. The whole-
sale liquor dealers of St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Louisville have
had their representatives here, but, despite all their arguments,
only one bill of this character has been defeated, that exception
being the one which proposed to prohibit the sale of liquor within
ten miles of the Hope Female College in Hempstead County. In
this case the merchants and business men of Hope and Washing-
ton took a hand in the fight, and the influence was too great for
the Legislature to ignore it. All other Local Option Bills intro-
duced in either House have passed without debate, and by large
majorities.
"The laws of Arkansas provide three ways by which the sale
of whisky and other fermented liquors may be prevented.
ARKANSAS.
367
"At every general election the voters of each county decide
whether or not the county shall grant a licence to saloon-keepers.
At the election in September, 1892, one-third of the counties in the
State voted against licence, as follows:-Ashley, Bradley, Calhoun,
Cleveland, Columbia, Dallas, Drew, Franklin, Fulton, Grant, Hot
Spring, Izard, Johnson, Lawrence, Lonake, Madison, Marion,
Polk, Pope, Saline, Sharp, Union, Van Buren, and Washington.
"Licence for dramshops is denied if a majority of the adult
citizens within three miles of a church or school-house petition the
County Court, remonstrating against it. This is the second way
by which the sale of liquor may be prohibited.
"The third and most effective scheme by which the saloon may
be shut out of a community is by special act of the Legislature.
Special laws of this character have been enacted since 1883, and
none of them have been repealed. No matter how numerously
signed the petition may be praying for the repeal, the Legislature
always refuses to obliterate the circle within which the sale of the
ardent is prohibited.
(C
During the present session of the Legislature two Bills were
introduced asking the repeal of Local Option Laws. The first
concerned Jonesboro, the county seat of Craighead County. Hon.
Emmet Rodgers, an active, intelligent, and energetic young jour-
nalist, was elected Representative from the county by a majority
of almost two to one, the issue in the primary canvass being the
question of the repeal of the four-mile law at Jonesboro, enacted by
the Legislature of 1887. Mr. Rodgers was in favour of the repeal of
the law. In the formation of the House committees, Mr. Rodgers
was made chairman of the Committee on Temperance. He
brought to the Legislature a petition signed by nearly all the
citizens of Jonesboro and vicinity affected by the law, asking for
its repeal. The House, after considering the question an entire
afternoon, defeated the Bill. Mr. Rodgers resigned the chairman-
ship of the committee a few days ago. He said he believed in
local self-government; was in favour of recommending the passage
of bills prohibiting the sale of intoxicants within localities where
the majorities of citizens desired such laws, and was also willing to
make similar reports upon Bills to repeal such laws when desired
by a majority of citizens and taxpayers. He believed the rule
should be allowed to work both ways.
"The second case in which the Legislature declined to repeal
one of these Acts was that in which Batesville, Independence
368
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
County, was interested. This law prohibits the sale of intoxicants
within three miles of the Arkansas College, located in that town,
and was enacted by the Legislature of 1891. Since that time a
couple of fruit distilleries have been established near Batesville,
and a majority of the citizens came to the conclusion that if they
could only throw off the shackles of prohibition times would be
enlivened in their midst, and instead of the blind tiger a few
saloons might be established in the town from which the county
Much time
and municipality might derive considerable revenue.
was consumed in discussing the Bill, which finally suffered defeat
like the Jonesboro measure.
C.
In about one-half of the territory in the State of Arkansas the
sale of intoxicants is prohibited. In addition to the twenty-four
counties which voted against licence at the September election,
Local Option Laws are in force at the following places, the limits
averaging from three to ten miles."
[Here follow the names of about fifty places.]
"Thirteen Bills prohibiting the sale of liquor in as many
localities have been introduced in this Legislature, nine of which
have passed, the remainder being on their second and third
readings. Should all the Local Option Bills now pending become
a part of the statutes, which they undoubtedly will, the territory in
Arkansas in which the sale of whisky is prohibited by special Acts
would extend over an area aggregating about 3,927 square miles.
The counties which refused to vote for licence last September
contain 18,950 square miles. This added to the number of square
miles in the territory made prohibition districts by special legisla-
tion gives a total of 22,877. There are 53,850 square miles in
Arkansas, of which 22,877 are under prohibition rule, and in
30,973 whisky is allowed to be sold. Not less than 10,000 of the
latter include swamps and inaccessible territory, and if absolutely
correct figures could be obtained it could be shown that over one-
half of the State of Arkansas was under control of the pro-
hibitionists. More Bills affecting the liquor interests were intro-
duced in this Legislature than on any other subject. The dealers,
both wholesale and retail, are much alarmed over the drift of
legislation, and during the coming two years they propose to
organise and have something to say as to who shall be members of
the next Legislature in order to stem the tide which threatens to
engulf their interests."
TEXAS.
369
Texas.
The Constitution of 1876 requires the Legislature of the
State to pass a local option law. That law provides as
follows:-
The Commissioners' Court for each county, whenever they
deem it expedient," may order an election to be held for the
county or for any justice's precinct, town, or city therein; and they
are bound to order an election when petitioned by 200 voters of
the county or 50 voters in any justice's precinct, town, or city. A
subsequent election is not to be held in less than two years; but a
failure to carry prohibition in one area does not prevent a vote
being taken in another area, wholly or partly including the former.
Conversely, however, where prohibition has been adopted in a
larger area, a vote for repealing it cannot be taken in a smaller
area contained in it.
""
"
(6
The penalty for illegal selling in a prohibition area is a fine
from $25 to $100 and imprisonment twenty to sixty days; for
keeping a blind tiger, imprisonment two to twelve months and fine
$100 to $500, and a separate offence for each day. "Blind tiger
is defined to mean "any place in which intoxicating liquors are
sold by any device whereby the party selling or delivering the
same is concealed from the person buying or to whom the same is
delivered."
The licensing law fixes the following liquor taxes :—
State tax.
300
Sale of liquor by retail (less than one quart)
(one quart and less than five gallons) 200
(five gallons and upwards) ...
(malt liquor only)
300
50
""
Commissioners' Courts of the several counties may levy an
additional tax equal to one-half the State tax.
...
69
$
در
Incorporated cities and towns may levy an additional tax equal
to that levied by the Commissioners' Court.
A year's taxes must be paid in advance.
Every dealer has to enter into a bond of $5,000* with at least
* The validity of this requirement has been sustained by the United
States Supreme Court.
Y
370
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
10
(C
two sureties approved by the county judge, as security for obedience
to the law, and for keeping an open, quiet, and orderly house.”
On breach of any condition the county attorney is to proceed for
the recovery of $500 on the bond.
County clerks are to issue licences on payment of the taxes and
execution of the bond.
I did not myself visit Texas; but, through the assistance.
of a friend holding an official position which placed him in
communication with representative men in all parts of the
country, I was enabled to obtain from persons resident in that
State, and well acquainted with its condition, information in
reply to questions regarding the practical working of local
option.
From their statements it appears that but a slight measure
of success can be claimed for this law. I am given to under-
stand that the majority of the counties and portions of
counties which passed a prohibitory vote have since reversed
it, and that very few are now under prohibition. Local option,
in short, has generally been a failure. There are no towns of
any considerable size under prohibition. There has been little
or no special prohibitory legislation such as has been common.
in some of the other southern States.
There is said to be no general dissatisfaction with the
existing licensing law, nor any active movement for bringing
about a change in it. Whisky-selling under a beer licence has,
however, been prevalent.
Though generally it has failed, local prohibition is never-
theless declared, in the exceptional cases in which it has
been efficiently enforced, to have had beneficial effects. One
writer says, "If public sentiment is very strong, I think it
is fairly well enforced; but if not, it is a farce. I think
that, as a general rule, where it has been enforced the effects
have been beneficial and satisfactory, and it is continued."
371
CHAPTER XX.
CANADA.
THE Dominion of Canada has been the scene of much pro-
hibitionist activity and of various experiments in local optional
prohibitory legislation. The liquor question is here somewhat
complicated by the circumstance that legislation proceeds from
two sources-the Dominion Parliament and the Provincial Legis-
latures, whose respective powers in some degree overlap, and
in some degree are not yet clearly defined. In Quebec and
Ontario, also, the continuance of old laws, existing prior to the
confederation of the provinces in 1867, imports yet a third
element into the mass of legislation affecting the liquor traffic.
The action of the Parliament at Ottawa may be very briefly
summarised. In the years 1873, 1874, and 1875 petitions were
presented to the Dominion Parliament praying for a prohibitory
law. In 1874 commissioners were appointed to investigate the
working of prohibition in the United States, and they presented
a collection of facts and statistics considered favourable to
prohibitory legislation. Reports recommending a prohibitory
law for the Dominion were submitted by a Select Committee of
the Senate and Commons, and adopted by both Houses.
Legislation was, however, hampered by doubts as to the juris-
diction of the Dominion Parliament to legislate, but at last, in
1878, the Canada Temperance Act (generally known as the
Scott Act) was passed. The Act is a local option measure,
enabling any county or city throughout the Dominion, by a
popular vote, to prohibit therein the sale of liquor (except by
wholesale for removal outside the county), and providing
for the punishment of offenders by fines of not less than
50 dollars for the first offence, 100 dollars for the second
offence, and by imprisonment not exceeding two months for
any subsequent offence. Provision is made for the issue of
Y 2
372
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
warrants for search and seizure. Liquor can, however, be sold
for sacramental, medicinal, and trade purposes, on production
of a certificate from a clergyman, doctor, or two justices. The
Act was, at one time, adopted to a considerable extent in
Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritime Provinces; but it has
now (except in the Maritime Provinces) fallen generally into
disrepute.
The constitutionality of the Act was for some time a matter
of doubt and litigation. The British North America Act gives
to the Legislature of each province the exclusive power to make
laws in relation to shop, saloon, and tavern licences, in order to
the raising of a revenue for provincial, local, or municipal
purposes; also in relation to property and civil rights in the
province, and generally all matters of a merely local or private
nature in the province. It was argued that these provisions
conferred on the Provincial Legislatures exclusive power in all
matters relating to the drink traffic. The matter came finally
before the Privy Council, which rejected this view, and held
that the Act was within the general powers of the Dominion
Parliament to make laws for the peace, order, and good
government of Canada.*
The Scott Act, however, was not the first experiment in
prohibitory legislation tried in Canada. The Legislature of
New Brunswick, as long ago as 1855, had passed a prohibitory
law for that province; but, a general election immediately
following, the law was repealed before it was ever put in force.
And at the time when the federation of the North American
provinces took place in 1866-67 a law (generally known as
the Dunkin Act) had for some years been in operation in
Upper and Lower Canada, enabling municipalities to pass
bye-laws prohibiting the sale of liquor, which law, like all
* Russell v. the Queen (1882), 7 App. Ca. 829. Questions of ultra
vires have arisen in connection with other Acts of both the Dominion and
the Provincial Legislatures. A Licensing Act, passed in 1883 by the
Parliament of Canada, was subsequently repealed on this ground.
CANADA.
373
other prior laws, remained unaffected by the union, and
operates in many places in the province of Quebec down to the
present day.
The recent tendency of the prohibition party in Canada
has been to abandon the movement for local option and to
agitate for a general prohibitory law, either for each province
separately, or, preferably, for the whole Dominion.* No
province has yet passed such a law. A popular vote in its
favour was, however, in 1892, carried in Manitoba, and it
remains to be seen whether the Provincial Legislature will
proceed to give effect to that vote; if it does so, the legal
question may be tested whether or not such a law is ultra vires.†
* At the meeting of the Dominion Council of the Alliance for the
Suppression of the Liquor Traffic, on the 23rd of September, 1892, the
committee on legislation presented their report, in which the following
paragraph appeared:
"That we deem it unwise to make any general effort for the adoption
of the Scott Act or local option measures in other constituencies, for, while
the Scott Act has been to some extent useful in educating public sentiment,
the time has now come when it is unwise for temperance workers to expend
their energies on anything short of national prohibition."
A warm debate followed on this clause. Mr. J. R. Dougall opposed it
on the ground that it was a reflection on the Scott Act and on the local
option work accomplished by the Dominion Alliance in the past. Ultimately
the clause was sent back to the committee for verbal changes, so that there
should be no appearance of discouraging local option efforts.
Later it was
presented amended to the effect that, while the Alliance desired to be under-
stood as working for the suppression of the liquor traffic, and would urge
people to continue their efforts, yet it would heartily endorse every
legitimate means to further that end by weakening the liquor interest and
educating the people. As amended it was adopted.-Montreal Daily
Witness.
The Council proceeded to discuss measures for pressing prohibition in
the Dominion and Provincial Legislatures by forming local political clubs
and refusing to support any candidate who did not pledge himself to
support the cause.
† Since the above was written the Legislature of Manitoba has petitioned
the Dominion Government for permission to enact a prohibitory law, but
no further steps were taken, during the session of the Provincial Legislature
in 1893, towards prohibition.
374
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
Still more recently the Legislature of Ontario has decided to
submit the question of prohibition for that province to the
electors, and the vote is to be taken early in 1894.
A Royal Commission was appointed in 1892 by the
Canadian Government to investigate the whole question of
liquor legislation.* It commenced its public sittings at
Halifax, N.S., in July, 1892, and proceeded to take evidence.
throughout the Maritime Provinces, going on thence to Quebec
and Montreal, at which latter place it adjourned towards the
end of September, with the intention of proceeding to the
western part of Canada, before sitting in Ontario. It was
understood that the Commission would also prosecute its
inquiries in the United States, and would in all probability
not present its final report till after the summer of 1893.† The
official report of the earlier proceedings was not obtainable
when I was in Canada.
The Scott Act, which, as already indicated, extends
throughout the Dominion, was first adopted by the city of
Fredericton, New Brunswick, in October, 1878; since April,
1886, no place has newly adopted it. Between these dates
* Canadian Royal Commission on Liquor Traffic.—Sir Joseph Hickson,
Knight; Herbert S. McDonald, Esq., County Court Judge; Edward F.
Clark, Esq., of Toronto; George Auguste Gigault, of St. Cesaire; and
the Rev. Joseph McLeod, D.D., of Fredericton, N.B., are appointed
commissioners for the purpose of obtaining for the information and con-
sideration of Parliament the fullest and most reliable data possible, respect-
ing, first, the effects of the liquor traffic upon all interests affected by it in
Canada; second, the measures which have been adopted in this and other
countries with a view to lessen, regulate, or prohibit the traffic; third, the
results of these measures in each case; fourth, the effect that the enactment
of a prohibitory liquor law in Canada would have in respect of social
conditions, agricultural business, industrial and commercial interests, of the
revenue requirements of municipalities, provinces, and of the Dominion,
and also as to its capability of efficient enforcement; fifth, all other
information bearing upon the question of prohibition.
† In the spring of 1893 the Commission had extended its investigations
into Kansas, and was subsequently in Maine.
CANADA.
375
it was adopted in sixty-three counties and cities. It is now in
force in only thirty, of which twenty-four are in the Maritime
Provinces.
Nova Scotia.
Taking these provinces first, we find that in Nova Scotia,
with eighteen counties and one city, the Act was adopted by
thirteen counties, and is now in force in twelve (Colchester
county having abandoned it). Practically, however, prohibition
is the rule throughout nearly the whole of the province, in
counties where the Act has not been adopted as well as in
those in which it is in force, seeing that, outside the city and
county of Halifax,* no licence is, in fact, issued, and whatever
retail trade in intoxicants exists is illegal.
A summary of the licence law of Nova Scotia will be found
on p. 400, from which it will be seen that in those parts of
the province where the Scott Act is not in force the liquor
traffic is regulated by a provincial Licence Act passed in 1886,
authorising the issue of, first, hotel licences; second, shop
licences; and, third, wholesale licences (as to which latter a
question of ultra vires has been raised). The signatures of
two-thirds of the ratepayers in a district have to be obtained
before a licence can be granted; and the effect of this require-
ment (which existed also in the old law prior to 1886) has been
that in many counties no licence has been issued for twenty or
thirty (in the case of Yarmouth fifty) years. The Act of 1886
abolished saloon licences, providing only for sale in hotels to
bonâ fide guests, and in shops in quantities not less than a pint
for off-consumption. The Provincial Secretary has stated in an
official memorandum that the prohibitionists who secured the
passing of this legislation admit that it has not fully succeeded
* In Halifax city (population in 1891, 38,500) there are 67 shop and
30 hotel licences. In the county outside the city only two licences are said
to be issued.
+ In Halifax city three-fifths.
376
AMERICAN LIquor Laws.
in stopping bar-drinking; that it is said that there are as many
bars as before, and that public opinion will not allow of full
enforcement; but that the prohibitionists attribute the failure
to the fault of the officials. In rural districts, where there is a
strong temperance sentiment, he says that the Act is well
observed.*
The Royal Commission (already mentioned) commenced
its inquiry in Nova Scotia, where evidence was taken at
various places during July and August, 1892. It would be
hardly possible within the limits of this statement to attempt
a complete summary of the evidence, even if a full report of it
were available. The newspaper reports show that a great
number of contradictory opinions were expressed by the friends
and opponents of local option and prohibition, as regards both
the past working of the existing laws and the possibility of
successfully enforcing a general prohibitory law. The abolition
of bars and the reduction in the number of licences in the city
of Halifax does not appear to have reduced drunkenness-the
convictions numbering in 1885, 608; in 1886, 752; in 1887,
746; in 1889, 715; in 1890, 908. Unlicensed selling seems
to have increased, and 106 cases of this offence came up
between March, 1887, and November, 1889. There was also
evidence that, since bars were made illegal, men would get a
bottle of spirits from a shop and share it outside. In the
province, generally, it seems certain that drunkenness has
greatly diminished during the last thirty or forty years; but
opinions differ as to the share in this result attributable to
restrictive laws.
Evidence, however, was given of the marked and steady
growth of temperance for years before the Scott Act. The
evidence as to the extent to which the law was successfully
enforced was conflicting and inconclusive; but from the
positive statements of some witnesses it seems evident that in
some, if not in most, of the towns drink is obtainable by
* Parliamentary Paper C. 6,670, 1892.
CANADA.
377
anyone who wishes for it.* On the whole, however, there
can be little doubt that the consumption is small; nor (outside
Halifax-perhaps not even there) does a great amount of
drunkenness appear anywhere to prevail. Some witnesses
favoured general prohibition on the ground that it would be
more easily enforced than prohibition by local option. At
Yarmouth (population, 6,000), where no licence has been issued
for more than fifty years, there seemed to be a good deal of
drinking; the "bottle peddlers" being the chief cause of
trouble. Out of 154 summary convictions in 1891, 76 were
for offences connected with drink, and it was said that a great
many more drunks" were sent home than the number ar-
rested. There appeared, however, to be considerable activity
in Yarmouth in the enforcement of the law.
(C
New Brunswick.
Since the passing and repeal of the prohibition law of
1855, New Brunswick has been subject to licence laws of
constantly-increasing stringency; the present Act was passed
by the Provincial Legislature in 1887 (for summary, see p. 402).
A committee of the Executive Council of the province has
recently reported † "that, in communities where there is a
strong public sentiment in favour of the Scott Act, it has
worked well and has lessened in a marked degree the evils
resulting from drinking in taverns; this is true more particularly
of country districts. In the larger towns and cities the Act has
not been so well enforced, and the committee think it cannot
* One who had recently been through the Maritime Provinces with the
Royal Commission told me that he believed there was only one town
throughout those provinces where drink could not be purchased. This
was Marysville, in New Brunswick, near Fredericton, the whole town
being the property of a single owner who allowed no liquor to be
introduced.
+ Parliamentary Paper C. 6,670, 1892.
378
AMERICAN LIquor Laws.
be truthfully said that very beneficial results have, as a general
rule, followed its adoption in such cities and towns, though,
undoubtedly, an exception must be made in the case of one or
two towns where the Act has been quite rigidly and success-
fully enforced." One reason assigned for the fact that more
satisfactory results have not ensued is the number of legal
questions that have arisen. The committee declare them-
selves unable, owing to the absence of statistics, to give any
trustworthy information in regard to the diminution of crime.
The Liquor Licence Act of 1887, which is in force wherever
the Scott Act is not adopted, is declared by this committee to
be a very efficient licence law, the principal features being
high licence, limited number, early closing on Saturday, and
separation of the saloon from other kinds of business.
The evidence taken before the Royal Commission was, as
in Nova Scotia and elsewhere, inconclusive as regards the
practical efficiency of the Scott Act. It was evident, however,
that in some places it was very ineffective. At St. Stephen
(population, 2,700), where the Act was adopted, 634 summary
convictions out of 763 since 1886 had been for drunkenness.
In this place the following statistics were given :~
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
...
...
...
...
···
..
•
No. of Licences.
36
27
19
17
15
***
...
···
...
...
Scott Act
...
S
...
...
..
••
..
••
...
...
...
Cost of Police.
$1,060
1,085
828
...
...
...
...
...
733
711
612
731
1,006
In 1882 no attempt was made to enforce the Act because
of cases before the courts. It was said to have been better
enforced in 1880 and 1881 than it had been since. At
Fredericton (population, 6,500), the first place in Canada to
CANADA.
379
adopt the Act, it appeared that a considerable amount of
The fines levied under the Act were
illicit selling went on.
as follows:-
1882
1883
1884
1886
ness)--
1887
1888
-
1889
1890
1891
1885
1886
1887
1888
...
1885
1886
...
1887
1888
...
1889
1890
1891
...
...
...
...
...
...
:
:
...
..
...
...
...
:
:
...
...
...
...
...
:
...
…….
1889
1890
1891
1892 (seven months)
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
:
...
:
...
...
...
...
...
...
:
At Moncton (population, 8,700) the corresponding figures.
were
...
...
...
...
:
...
...
•••
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
:
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
···
...
•.•
...
...
•••
:
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
:
:
...
...
•••
:
...
Arrests at Moncton (about two-thirds being for drunken-
...
...
...
...
...
:
...
...
...
···
...
...
...
...
••
:
...
...
...
:
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
:
...
$1,000
1,500
750
1,650
900
1,050
1,250
800
700
...
...
$ 40
950
1,050
2,000
1,800
1,650
I,900
335
311
205
306
309
278
263
In New Brunswick (as elsewhere) the evidence before the
Royal Commission testified to the prevalence of perjury and
"defective memory" among witnesses in liquor cases. The
statistics of convictions for drunkenness (see p. 394) show a
higher number for New Brunswick than for any other province
in the Dominion, except British Columbia.
380
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
Some further details respecting the Scott Act in New
Brunswick will be given later in connection with the general
question of the effects of that Act.*
Prince Edward Island.
For twelve years, from 1879 to 1891, prohibition was the
law throughout Prince Edward Island. In the latter year,
however, the Scott Act was renounced by Charlottetown,
where for some months there was free and unrestricted trade
in liquor, the Legislature, which on the adoption of the Act
throughout the island had repealed the old provincial licence.
law, refusing to re-enact it. In 1892 a strict police law was
enacted, requiring the sale to be carried on in a single room
only, open to the street, without blinds or any other obstruction
to the view, and without chairs or other furniture, or back
door; and no other business except the sale of liquor, oysters,
and cigars was to go on in the same room. The law in
Charlottetown is, therefore, free trade, subject to police
regulation. This arrangement was said to work well, and
to have put a stop to the traffic in back places and grocers'
shops. The stipendiary magistrate was of opinion that the
Scott Act had had no material effect on drunkenness, one way
or the other. There had been 364 convictions for breach of
the Act during nine and a half years while it was in force in
Charlottetown (population, 11,300 in 1891).
The following figures were given of liquor (spirits, wine,
and beer) entered for consumption at Charlottetown :—
1887-8
1888-9
1889-90
1½ year to December, 1890
June, 1892
,,
> "
...
...
...
...
:
:
...
•••
33,623 gallons.
30,357
30, 124
43,012
""
* Page 396.
""
(imported
33,835 gallons.)
43,370 gallons (imported
40,532 gallons.)
>>
CANADA.
381
A portion of this amount went to the rural districts of
the island. Such figures are not conclusive of the amount
consumed in any place, as the liquor may be transported
after it has paid duty, and can no longer be traced.
،،
At Summerside the evidence of the licensed vendor of
liquors (for medicinal purposes, etc.) under the Scott Act
threw some light on the manner in which this branch of the
law was evaded. Prescriptions" were given for various
amounts, from a bottle up to ten gallons, some practically
unlimited, the liquor being taken by instalments, as required.
One order, undated, ran :—“ Give bearer one bottle of whisky.
He pays." Another was for eight bottles of brandy. This
witness thought his sales had averaged about $8,000 per
annum. The Mayor of Summerside gave the following
return of arrests for drunkenness in that town (population
in 1891, 2,900):-
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880*
1881
1882
1883
...
...
...
...
...
:
··
...
...
...
:
···
...
...
...
...
...
···
...
:
...
...
···
...
...
29
54
60
31
16
35
I2
10
I 884
1885
1886
1887
1888
...
…….
••
:
...
...
...
* First year of Scott Act.
...
...
...
:
1889
1890-1 (16 months)
...
...
...
...
...
..
...
:
...
22
37
30
30
46
43
51
The two following tables are taken from a Parliamentary
paper, published in 1892 (C. 6,670):–
I.--Statement showing the number of cases tried at
Summerside for offences against the Scott Act from
1879 (when the Act was first adopted in that town) to
1889; also cases tried for drunkenness since the
incorporation of the town (from a return by the
town clerk of Summerside) :-
382
American Liquor Laws.
Year.
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
Year.
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
Offences against Canada
Temperance Act.
Con-
victions.
no to to
The Act was not in force
during these years.
6
24
IO
24
18
IO
19
15
16
Con-
victions.
19
16
7
48
woww ...
Dismissals. Total.
35
34
60
2
79
25
956~~-
7
7
I
15
Offences against Canada
Temperance Act.
NWFW Ov
The Act was not in force
during these years.
25
17
20
15
3
16
2
تا الان
41
26
20
IOI
III
47
31
Dismissals. Total.
II. A similar statement respecting Charlottetown (from
a return by the clerk of the City Police Court,
Charlottetown) :—
22
32
9
89
61
54
161
Offences against Bye-laws relating
to Drunkenness.
190
72
Con-
victions.
34
56
51
31
19
40
34
9
23
17
36
25
23
54
Con-
victions.
729
357
231
256
193
218
Dismissals. Total.
250
229
284
I
299
213
262
299
3
Offences against Bye-laws relating
to Drunkenness.
Dismissals.
8
со
13
424
11
Mumma Go
I
I
I
II
35
56
3
51
31
22
40
34
9
23
17
36
25
23
54

Total.
737
370
235
250
197
218
250
230
285
300
224
262
302
CANADA.
383
Quebec.
In the province of Quebec the Scott Act was at different
times adopted in six counties; it is now in force in three only,
Brome, Chicoutimi, and Richmond. The Prime Minister of
the province, in a report dated 1889, remarked that the Act
did not seem to have produced any influence on the amount
of crime in the counties in which it had been adopted, and
that in Chicoutimi it was said to be a source of disorder, in so
far that it led to the illicit sale of liquors. The report
continues: "In the province of Quebec, the most efficient
prevention of intemperance and its consequent evils is, as
regards the Roman Catholic population, and especially that of
French origin, the moral influence and vigilant action of the
clergy. This explains why the introduction of the Canada.
Temperance Act has been almost exclusively confined to the
English and Protestant country.
"
While the Scott Act has had only a restricted operation in
this province, local prohibition has been adopted by bye-law
(under the Dunkin Act) in many of the smaller municipalities,
and is now in force in about 250 of such municipalities out of
a total number of about 900. † Moreover, in 121 munici-
palities, which have not passed a prohibitory bye-law, no licence
is in fact issued. The Roman Catholic clergy are opposed to
a general prohibitory law. They, however, appear to favour
the passing of these bye-laws, which, it is said, are through
their influence well enforced. It is common for the priest to
encourage young persons at their confirmation to take a
pledge of abstinence till they come of age.
* Parliamentary Paper C. 6,670, 1892.
For a summary of the liquor laws of the province of Quebec, see
p. 403. The figures in the text were supplied to me by the secretary of
the Dominion Alliance.
384
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWs.
Ontario.
In Ontario, a remarkable revulsion of feeling has been
manifested with regard to the Scott Act. In 1879 it was
adopted by one county, and in 1881 by another; in 1884 and
1885 a wave of prohibitory sentiment passed over the province,
and votes in favour of the Act were passed by these two
counties and by twenty-three others-twenty-five in all out of
the forty-one counties in the province. By May, 1889, the
Act had been abandoned in all of them, as well as in two
cities, Guelph and St. Thomas, which had adopted it. The
four years, 1885-8, may be termed the Scott Act period, the
Act being in force during those years, respectively, in nine,
twenty-five, twenty-five, and seventeen counties.
Prior to the adoption of the Scott Act, the Legislature of
Ontario had passed a licence law, which with subsequent
amendments is still in force, and of which a summary is given
on p. 404.
A feature of this law is the fact that it is
enforced through provincial, and not municipal, machinery.
Licences had previously been granted by the municipal
authorities, and to their officers had been entrusted the duty
of enforcing the law. The result of this system was that those
interested in the liquor trade were brought to the front in
local politics, and obtained such an undue share of power
and
influence as enabled them to control, in a great measure, the
licensing authority and the executive officers of the law. The
evils of such a system are seriously felt at the present time in
the province of Quebec, and especially at Montreal. The new
arrangement in Ontario, providing for the appointment by the
Provincial Government in each electoral district of three
commissioners to grant licences, and an inspector to enforce
the law, worked well on the whole; and it is claimed that the
efficient administration of the law, which resulted from its
separation from the sphere of local politics, was steadily
producing an improvement in the drinking habits of the
CANADA.
385
people, when the passing of the Scott Act and the subsequent
action of the prohibitionists in regard to it led to unforeseen
changes.
When the Scott Act was passed, the Provincial Government of
Ontario determined that, as the Act was a Dominion Act, and
contained provisions for its own enforcement, it was the affair
of the Dominion, and not of the provincial authority, to see.
to its administration. Accordingly, the commissioners and
inspectors ceased to be appointed under the provincial licence
law in places which adopted prohibition, and for a time the
Act was in general very ineffectively enforced. Complaints.
were raised by the prohibitionists; and the matter was pressed
by them on the Provincial Government, who then consented
to take steps for enforcing the Act. The commissioners and
inspectors under the licence law were re-appointed for the
purpose of carrying out the prohibitory law, the prohibitionists
being even invited to nominate persons to fill these posts, and
their nominees being appointed.
Various causes are assigned for the entire break-down of
the Act, and its abandonment by so many counties at the
earliest possible moment after they had adopted it. One
cause which is alleged is the injudicious zeal of the pro-
hibitionists, and the opposition thence arising. An instance
given me was that of the county of Halton, which was the first
in this province to adopt the Scott Act, and was regarded as
the stronghold of prohibition, and the model for all other
counties to imitate. The commissioners, the inspectors, and
even the magistrate who tried the cases (without appeal), were
nominated by the prohibitionist party. The result was that
such a revulsion sprang up in popular sentiment that it became
impossible to obtain convictions. The inspector might walk
into a place where liquor was being served and drunk before
his eyes; when the case came before the magistrate, witnesses
would swear positively that no liquor was sold. Perjury was
naked and unashamed. The inspector would be hooted as he
Z
386
American Liquor Laws.
entered and left the court, and the prohibitionists themselves
would not stand up beside him or openly support the law.
An examination of the returns of voting on the adoption of
the Scott Act shows that in some cases the total vote cast was
a small one, much smaller than the vote at ordinary elections.
It is repeatedly said also that many of those who voted for the
Act were not teetotallers, did not intend to become so, and
had no sentiment in favour of prohibition; but acted in
obedience to external influences-their pastors, wives, or
friends-and with no very definite idea of what they were
voting for. I have no means of judging to what extent this
may have been the case; certainly there is a very common
belief in Ontario that many votes of this class were given.*
A prohibitionist, whom I asked how he accounted for the
failure of the Act, gave me in substance the following explana-
tion, which shows how intimately the working of a law of this
kind becomes involved in the operations of political parties.
The Liberal party, he said, having passed the licence law in
Ontario, and having been in power for the past twenty years,
those interested in the liquor trade have gravitated towards the
Liberals as the dominant power, which it was better to con-
ciliate than oppose; and thus, contrary to the general experience
elsewhere, the licensed victuallers are, for the most part,
members of the Liberal party. They, the Licence Commis-
sioners, and the inspectors, had a good understanding, and
agreed together in the fair administration of the law. When,
by a wave of enthusiasm, the Scott Act was carried in many
counties in the province, and it became the duty of the
inspectors to enforce prohibition, a great deal of friction arose.
* I have repeatedly been informed that people voted for the Act who
never intended to observe it; and a case was related to me of several
such voters in Simcoe county who, shortly after they had helped to carry
the Act, were discovered drinking in an illicit rum shop. People, I was
told, were induced to vote by being assured that the Act would not
affect them.
CANADA.
387
Either the inspector tried to do his duty, which was a difficult
matter, the liquor-seller, formerly his friend, becoming his
bitter opponent; or he let things go on much as before, in
which case the prohibitionists were in arms against him. The
Liberal party comprised three-fourths of the prohibitionists in
the province, as well as most of the liquor-sellers. Thus a
feud sprang up in the party over the Scott Act and its execu-
tion. The danger to the party's predominance thence arising,
the irritation of the traders at the injury done to their interests,
and the disgust of the prohibitionists at the failure of the high
hopes they had cherished of the benefits to ensue from the Act,
all combined to bring about a strong reaction against it, and
this resulted in its abandonment throughout the province.
It has already been stated that, when the Canadian
provinces were confederated, certain legislative powers being
conferred on the Federal Parliament, a reservation was made
for all then existing provincial laws, and that among these laws
was one (generally known as the Dunkin Act) enabling munici
palities in Ontario and Quebec to pass bye-laws (subject to
the approval of the electors) prohibiting the sale of intoxicating
liquor. A clause containing this law was subsequently in-
cluded in the Licensing Act of Ontario, but after the passing
of the Scott Act it was repealed. When the Scott Act itself
fell into disuse in Ontario, a movement was started by the
prohibitionists in favour of re-establishing the bye-law clause.
This proposal involved a constitutional question, whether the
province, which was specifically vested with the power of
regulating the liquor traffic, could legislate afresh for its
suppression. This point has not yet been decided by the
final court; but the Provincial Legislature undertook to pass
the clause, laying special stress on the fact that it was merely
the re-enactment of a law existing previously to confederation,
and included in the general saving for pre-existing laws. It
was also argued that if the Provincial Legislature could not
legislate for prohibition it could not repeal a prohibitory law
Z 2
388
AMERICAN LIquor Laws.
already existing, and that therefore the repeal of the old
bye-law clause was ultra vires.
From September, 1890, to May, 1892, the prohibitory bye-
law had been adopted by popular vote in 24 municipalities in
Ontario, out of 35 municipalities in which a vote was taken.
In all other parts of the province the licence law is in operation.
In Toronto (pop. 181,200) 150 tavern licences and 50 shop
licences are issued; the city appears to be orderly, and the
Sunday closing and other provisions of the law are said to be
well observed.*
The following table, containing a complete return of com-
mitments for drunkenness in Ontario during thirteen years, is
taken from the Provincial Treasurer's annual report on the
working of the Licence Acts. It shows to what extent the
record was affected in the different counties which adopted the
Scott Act. It will be seen that the adoption of the Act was
generally, but not always, followed by a diminution of com-
mitments; and, in the first year of the Scott Act period, there
was a sensible falling off in the sum total for the whole province;
but in the last two years of that period the figures had begun
to grow again. Allowance being made for increase of popula-
tion, the figures for 1891, under licence, were, on the whole,
more favourable than those of any year while the Act was in
force.
If the figures for the 25 Scott Act counties are taken
separately, and the years 1886 and 1887 (when the Act was in
force in all of them) are compared with 1890 and 1891, the
yearly average number of commitments for the first two years
comes out at 1,103, and for the last two years at 1,301, a
difference of 200 in favour of the Scott Act period. But if
1890 is omitted, and 1891 taken separately, the figures for that
* A prohibitionist in the State of Missouri, who had recently paid a
visit to Toronto, spoke to me with enthusiasm of the condition of that
place, where he had been obliged to go on foot to church (irrespective of
weather and distance), and had found great difficulty in obtaining medicine
for his wife on Sunday.
CANADA.
389
COUNTY OR DISTRICT.
Statement showing the number of Prisoners committed for Drunkenness
to the County Gaols in ONTARIO during each year from 1879 to
1891. The figures in italics indicate commitments in years when
the Scott Act was in force.

Algoma...
Brant (including Brantford)
Bruce
Carleton (including Ottawa)
Dufferin
Elgin (including St. Thomas)
Essex
Frontenac (including Kingston)..
Grey
Haldimand
Halton
.. ……..
Hastings (including Belleville)
Huron
Kent
Lambton
Lanark
Leeds and Grenville
Lennox and Addington
Lincoln (includ. St. Catherine's)..
Middlesex (including London)
Muskoka and Parry Sound
Nipissing
Norfolk.
……….
.....
....
Waterloo
Welland
C
.....
...
Northumberland and Durham
Ontario.....
Oxford
Peel
Perth (including Stratford).
Peterborough
......
Prescott and Russell
Prince Edward
Renfrew
Simcoe..
Stormont, Dundas, & Glengarry.
Thunder Bay
Victoria and Haliburton
**
Total....
...
......
...
Wellington (including Guelph)
Wentworth (including Hamilton)
York (including Toronto)
...
1879. 1880. 1881. 1882. 1883. 1884. 1883. 1886. 1887. 1888. 1889. 1890. 1891
24 19 17
81
64
63
8
272
54
59
126
35
10
I
34
15
33
115
8
COU
71
9
51
193
6
I
15
H2H 5 2
VIHA in
24
II
55
27
506
5
222
17
81
2 14
71
102
40
15
53 45
16
22
24
SA
120
7
72
II
44
235
8
16
2
26
2
56
Sm
25
6
14
74
27
39
35
I
46
5
82 107
75
เก
IO
4552
3
83
51
53
I
23
31
5
35
aww -S
20
2
54 47
4497H
N เง
4
29 265
265 261
O
92
121
103 47 31
46 75 74 58
28
36
19
20
18 15
13
18
5x
13
77
IO
56
5 H
countr
1 2
210
030
3
7016
9
241
80
2 00
27
28
77
4
9
67 19
14 II 18
61
6 ANN
IO
62
4
126
O+
91
+50 00
25
23
HAA
+4
4
4
242
IO
14 18 18
در - د )
13
22 ∞
IO
26 20
55 41 65 39
269
8
32
52 4
725
14
1
60 76
38
2 0
21
75
46 78 +0
24
O UT
10
56
8 14
77
57
5
23
75
7
1 2
10/
37
15
In co
28
58
4
7.4 H
༢
314
I
82
7
OO 46
6
50
26
10
7
135
20
21 26
445
16
17
11 2
76
17
I
51
04
10
37 14
71 30
2
O
12
22
91*
I 85 128 64 69
112 147 218
6 22
8
286 297 296|| 336|
182
6
2
280
3
57 30*
3
1
4
2
20
25
3:
129
14 II
O
205
I
9
45
34
3 4
18 14
130
6
80
3
6
29
21*
277 338
84 39
6
4
26
6
15
0
28
IO
17 15
27
4
~ 2
21
24
72
4
36
Co
3
45
108
21
17
5
51
54
2
7
38
9
24
35
I
119
I
8
13
5
6
21
404 408
8
6
29 23
46 47
107 139
29 27 17
24
23
15
19 13
67
4
64
4
31
2
16
7
28
4
148
2∞
32
3
12
در
0
64
24
20 45
50
28
99
2
2 4
39 49
2
5
61
င်
12
9
13 II 26 20
O
O
45
I H
∞ 1 2
5
52 58
4
33
540
81
17
28
70 46
41
17 27 II
87 991 31
8 9
3
88 296 705 153
IO
7
7 20 13
8 12
28
I I
II
10
7
4
188 186 145 5C 34 23 33 40
40
23
49 32 12
7
32
22
20
21
10
12
21
10
4
51 93
36
382 447) 339 39 376 295 368
368 385 373 429 401 418 251
1,359 1,463 1,342 1,445 1,485 1,661 1,707 1,705 2,166 2,098 2,096 2,085 1,783
5
55
28
16
Н
52 1
55000
53-
28 46
38
46
91
71
108
9
34
5
47
95
5
44
22 23
24 12
213
28 19
96
332
97
38
N
51
3 IO
22
30
14
45
45 U
3 2
33
Cok
34
25
7 29
148 135 125
I
77
112
7
204
I
32
57
125
766
13
22
17
16
O
34
17
4
24
5
19
34
14
120
I
13
3,581 3,795 3,328 3,497 3,897 4,650 3,626 3,555 4,130 4,451 4,797 4,573 3,614
Scott Act period.
* The returns include the city as well as the county; the Scott Act was adopted in the county only,
exclusive of the city. The city of Brantford was first incorporated in 1886, a fact which may account for
the increase of convictions concurrently with the adoption of the Act.
390
AMERICAN Liquor Laws.
year in the same counties are 1,072, showing an absolute
improvement (even without allowance for increase of popula-
tion) as against the prohibitory period. On the other hand, it
should be noted that in the above figures are included the
returns for the cities of Ottawa, Kingston, and London, which
did not adopt prohibition, and in which a considerable though
unascertained improvement may probably have taken place.
This fact would, no doubt, render untrustworthy any positive.
inference unfavourable to the Act based on the foregoing
comparison. On the whole, however, no decisive conclusion
in favour of the superiority of local prohibition to other
methods in checking drunkenness during any continuous
period seems to be warranted by the table, especially if the
increased number of commitments in the last two years of the
Scott Act period are taken into account, together with the
progressive improvement which has more recently taken place
under licence.
Manitoba.
In Manitoba the liquor trade is under a provincial licence
law passed in 1889 (see p. 407). Every municipality is
empowered to pass a prohibitory bye-law, but in November,
1889, only one municipality had done so.* An Act of 1892
provided for the taking of a vote throughout the province on
the question of prohibition; in pursuance of this Act a vote
was taken and a majority in favour of prohibition was declared.
It remains to be seen what action will be taken by the
Provincial Legislature in furtherance of the decision thus ex-
pressed by the electors. In the event of a general prohibitory
law being enacted for the province a question may arise in the
Law Courts as to the constitutionality of such a law.†
Two counties in Manitoba have adopted prohibition under
the Scott Act.
* Parliamentary Paper C. 6,670, 1892.
† In March, 1893, the Legislature resolved to petition the Government
at Ottawa for leave to pass a prohibitory law.
CANADA.
391
North-West Territories.
Until quite recently, the North-West Territories have been
subject to a general prohibitory law passed by the Dominion
Government, with power, however, to the Lieutenant-Governor
to make exceptions at his discretion. In 1892 a licence law
with local option clauses was enacted, of the effect of which it
is as yet too soon to judge. Prohibitionists complain that the
prohibitory law, which (they say) had worked most efficiently
and had practically kept the evils of liquor out of the territories,
was latterly, by a too free exercise of the dispensing power on the
part of the Governor, suffered to lose much of its effectiveness.
They allege that this power was intended to be exercised only
to facilitate the supply of alcohol and wine for medical,
scientific, and sacramental purposes, but that, as this limitation
was not expressed in the Act, there was no way by which the
Lieutenant-Governor's action could be checked, and thus
liquor was at last sold openly and unrestrictedly for drink.*
The general condition of the several provinces in the
Dominion of Canada, in regard to the consumption of
alcoholic liquors, may be seen in the following table, which
shows the consumption per head of the population during a
series of years. The figures do not appear to supply any
evidence that much benefit was produced by the operation of
the Scott Act. The year 1886 does, indeed, show a diminution
in the liquor consumed in Ontario, but the two following years,
during which the Act was in force, show a successive rise;
while in 1890, two years after the abandonment of the Act, the
consumption appears to have been less than it had been for
nine years previously. Taking the whole series of years, there
*
"At the present day the Prohibition Act orders that even the white
man of the North-West Territories must be temperate, thereby causing
whisky to be dear and bad, but plentiful withal." (Warburton Pike, "The
Barren Ground of Northern Canada," p. 3.)
392
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
has been a decrease of whisky-drinking in Canada, and a steady
but not very large increase in the consumption of beer.
Compared with other countries, the whole consumption is
decidedly low.
This table, and others following, were in part supplied to me
by Mr. George Johnson, the official statistician to the Canadian
Government at Ottawa, and in part are either based on figures
supplied by him, or extracted from the Statistical Year Book
which is published by the Department of Agriculture.
Annual Consumption per head of the undermentioned Articles,
paying Excise or Customs Duties, in the respective Pro-
vinces and in the Dominion from 1879 to 1891.

YEARS.
Scott Act period
in Ontario.
1887
1888
1889
1890
Spirits.
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
Ontario,
Beer.
+
Wine.
Total.
M
Spirits.
I
I
Galls. Galls. Gall. Gall. Galls. Galls. Gall. Galls.
1879 1 404 3 281 0304 71 1'072,1'660, 230 2 962
1880 708 3 478 020 4 20 869 1'598 183 265
1881 936 3 548 025 4 50 1150 1 723 2363'10
1882 10114 250 029 5°29 1°248 2˚004 276 3°52
1883 1075 4 508 037 5 62 1 380 1967 304 365
987 4 519 030 5 53 1 271 2067 265 360
Į
1884
1885 1 334 3 990 0285 35 12111'952 243 3 40
1886
654 4 220 020 4 89
689 4 555 020 5 24
580 4856, 022 5'45
732 4 852025 5 60
•
920 2 207 230 335
1027 2 578 225 383
927 2 609 235 3 77
1080 2 544 236 3 86
3.61
14.78
Quebec.
Beer.
P. E. Island.
1879 609 516 0361*16
1885 425 551 014 100
1881 530 381 019 93
1882 *425 269 013 70
1883
410 174 030 61
1884 337 204 009 55
1885 412 296 009 71
551 33001489
1886
241 406021 66
238 328 cog 57
197 523 003 72 609 3 080
'94
Wine.
Manitoba and
N. W. Territories.
| |
New Brunswick.
||
753
883
932
815
Galls. Galls. Gall, Galls.||Galls. Galls. Gall. Galls.
756 646059 146 516 767 058134
430 519 031 98
527 603 049 118
539 690 062 1 30
579 629 0631 27
573 782 061 1'41
536 772 054|1°36
463 807 060133
*441 634 0321'10
363 897038 129
*456|1°127 047|1°63
590 486 025 1'10
456 044 125
649049 1 58
790058 178
805056 167
859 044
165
973 044 157
912032 1'52
927 036 1'47
948 040 1'59
I'70
I'50
*753
560
*578
515
605
British Columbia.
Dominion.
8141 851 072 273 1819 3*349 519 568 1131 2 209 1043 444
813 2 479 0533 34 1010 3*187, 410, 4'60|| '715 2'248 077 3˚040
385 1156 010 1 55 1038 2'699 417 4 15 922 2 293 099 3 314
767 2 150 0722°991330 3′211 667 5°20||1′009 2° 747*120 3876
840 2 818 094 3 751526 4 080 803, 6'40 1'090 2 882 135 4 107
677 2 208 043 2 92 1*459 4 863 860 718 9982924 117 4 039
592 1 605 043 2 24
592 1605 043 2 24 1750 5 192 980 792
490 1'722 0402°25
490 1722 0402 251633 5 471 890 799!
456 1826 0332°31 1563 5 858 878 8.30
1563 5 858 878 8 30
275 1679 034 198
275 1679 0341981 600 6744 395 873
1956,8 122 526 10 60
1
062 3 75
2*48
656
Nova Scotia,
•
•
Total.
1
126 2 639 109 874
7112839 110 3 660
746 3 084 095 3 925
645 3 247 094|3°986
776 3 263 097 4 136
8833 360 1044 347
'743 3*790 1114'644
CANADA.
393
The following analysis has been made by Mr. Johnson for
the purpose of testing the effect of the Scott Act upon crime.
The Act was in force from 1881 to 1889 in 36 places; from
1885 to 1889 it was in force in 54 places; the chief period of
its enforcement being the years 1886–88.
During the four years 1885-88 the convictions for crime
throughout Canada were 139,845, those for drunkenness being
46,903. During the four years 1881-84 the total convictions
were 123,454, for drunkenness 30,863. During the three
years 1889-91 the figures were, respectively, 114,386 and
40,893.
The averages per annum for the three periods are:-
1885-8.
34,961
11,726
2,561
Total convictions...
Drunkenness
Convictions for drunkenness per
million inhabitants
Number of places in which Scott
Act was in operation
Mean of population ...
}
...
···
...
Offences against the person
(Increase)..
Offences against property..
(Increase) ...
Other offences (including
breaches of municipal
laws and other minor
offences)
(Decrease)...
Drunkenness
(Decrease)...
...
...
••
...
In the following table, a comparison, by provinces, is made.
between the years 1881 and 1891, as regards convictions for
several classes of crime.
...
...
..
••
...
...
...
...
1881-4.
30,805
10,436
2,371
36
54
33
4,400,900 4,578,745 4,756,5 co
ONTARIO.
I in 184,400 of the population in 1881
I in 119,400
1891
1881
1891
I in 31,250
I in 29,270
I in
5,388
I in 10,372
I in
367
I in
425
";
""
""
>>
""
""
""
""
""
>>
رو
1889-91.
38,128
13,628
2,844
""
""
35
1881
1891
1881
1891
394
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
Offences against the person
(Increase)...
Offences against property.. I in
(Decrease)...
I in
I in
I in
I in
I in
Other offences
(Increase)...
Drunkenness
(Increase)...
A
...
………
...
………
...
...
···
···
...
...
:
...
...
QUEBEC.
I in 103,000 of the population in 1881
I in 23,387
1891
1881
...
33,360
61,874
1881.
13,457
11,054
Prince Edward Island...
I in
417
125
Manitoba
British Columbia ...
North-West Territories. I in 6,272
I in
I in
219
937
354
""
""
""
I in
I in
""
""
""
""
1891.
351
294
""
I in 150
1 in 1,207
""
In Nova Scotia offences against the person have increased,
offences against property have increased; "other offences"
have decreased, convictions for drunkenness have decreased,
the figures being 1 in 598 for 1881, and I for 709 in 1891.
In New Brunswick offences against the person have in-
creased; the more serious offences against property have
decreased, while the others have increased; "other offences
have increased; the convictions for drunkenness have increased
from 1 in 284 in 1881, to 1 in 197 in 1891.
In the other provinces the convictions for drunkenness stand
as follows:-
39
15
""
""
""
1891
1881
1891
1881
1891
""
Increase or Decrease.
Increase.
Decrease.
Increase.
Increase.
Thus, offences against the person have increased in Ontario
and Nova Scotia, and have decreased in Quebec and New
Brunswick. Convictions for drunkenness have decreased in
Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba, and have increased in all
the other provinces.
Convictions for crimes have increased faster than population
in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and British Columbia,
and not so fast as population in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward
Island, Manitoba, and the North-West Territories.
The following table shows the general result, by classes of
CANADA.
395
crime, for the whole Dominion, of a comparison between 1881
and 1891 :—
...
CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS.
Offences.
Murder, Attempts at, and Manslaughter
Rape and other Offences against Females
Other Offences against the Person
Robbery with Violence, Burglary, House
and Shop Breaking
Horse, Cattle, and Sheep Stealing
Other Offences against Property
Other Felonies and Misdemeanours
Breaches of Municipal Bye-laws and other
Minor Offences
Drunkenness
•
...
...
···
...
...
...
...
...
...
..
...
...
Number per Million
Inhabitants.

1881.
5'08
10'60
990'79
33'32
14 15
585.46
66.60
3,000'00
2,214.00
1891.
3'93
22'14
964 47
58.56
9'73
684'10
48.17
3,261'00
2,690'00
The following table takes the whole number of persons
convicted in Canada of indictable offences during the years
1885-91, and divides them into three classes :- Moderate
drinkers, immoderate drinkers, and teetotallers. It also classifies
the offences under different heads. The table shows, in the
first place, the total number of offenders of each class con-
victed during each of the above-mentioned years; secondly, it
makes a comparison between the first four and the last three years,
and shows, as regard each period and each class, the yearly
average number of offenders, and their percentage out of the
whole number of cases under each head.
The figures are derived from information officially obtained
respecting prisoners on their conviction. In the absence of
information on the subject in the census returns, it is impossible
to show, with any approach to precision, how the teetotallers
compare with the rest of the population as regards relative
tendency to crime in general. The table is, however, of some
396
AMERICAN Liquor Laws.
Offences against the Person
Moderate Drinkers
Immoderate Drinkers
Teetotallers..
Offences against Property with Violence
Moderate Drinkers
Immoderate Drinkers
1 eetotallers..
Immoderate Drinkers
Teetotallers..
INDICTABLE OFFENCES IN CANADA.
Malicious Offences against Property.
Moderate Drinkers
Immoderate Drinkers
Teetotallers.
Other Offences
Offences against Property without Violence.. 2,239
Moderate Drinkers
Forgery and Offences against the Currency..
Moderate Drinkers
Immoderate Drinkers
Teetotallers.....
……………
………….
Moderate Drinkers
Immoderate Drinkers.
Teetotallers.
1885.
841
363
411
67
222
1.12 ¡
74
36
Immo ∞ moo
44
23
13
1,243
577
419 337
8
48
33
1886. 1887. 1888. 1889. 1890. 1891.
7
737
337
324
76
255 :
121
94
40
7368
47
23
16
2,070 1,984 2,297
1,089 ! 969 1,067
644 689 833
326
397
43
23
13
7:
403 357
232
167
145 !
104
21
91
822
742
362
330
50
1
208
106
69
33
53
35
12
6
43
27
II
5
321 392
410
478
91
127
225
105
R 3
84
36
73
40
16
17
45
+3
31
~ N
12
997 881
312
450
119
2
283
124
118
41
285
223
116 164
89
76
31
321
2,640 2,432
1,182 1,030
1,027 989
431 413
41
21
15
5 5
5
41
20
ထ
13
8
276
104
206
93
72
41
124
48
DAAR ON
59
17
17
25
46
22
21
3
240
IIO
80
50
907
354
506
47
283
162
IIO
I I
50
28
12
☹
IO
36
27
9
4 Yrs., 1885-88. 3 Yrs., 1889-91.
Iyo
103
79
8
Total.
2,498 8,590 2,148
1,414
4,368 1,092
990
686
2,743
1,479
94
369
3,142 786
1,383
346
1,475 369
284
71
910
444
321
145
217
121
57
39
Yearly
Avrge.
179
114
44
21
227
III
80
36
FOTO 1000
54
30
14
10
45
28
II
5
Total.
1,268
317
679
170
414 103
175 44
2,785
1,058
1,434
293
842
390
352
100
7,570
3,626
3,006
938
150
06
44
40
123
69
43
II
636
306
231
99
Yearly
Avrge.
928
353
44°00
47'00
478
98
ION H
NO
281
130
50'00
117
35°00
33 15°40
50
22
Per Cent.
2,523
1,208 50'84
1,002
313
14
1885-88. | 1889-91.
41
23
14
4
38'04
51'50
00 10*46
212
102
77
33
9°00
31°56
17'60
14 18'52
56.00
25'48
62*22
26.67
II'II
46°37
41'63
12'00
47'90
39'70
12'40
44'00
28.00
28.00
56°10
34'10
9'80
53.63 48'11
32'47 36°32
13'90
15°57
Canada.
397
interest in connection with the question of the amount of
crime which is attributable to drink.
In the perusal of the return it should be borne in mind that
the proportion of total abstainers to the whole population is
probably considerably greater in Canada than in most countries;
also that the return deals only with indictable offences, not
including those minor offences of disorderly conduct, etc.,
which are to a great extent directly the result of intoxication.
Since the appointment of the Royal Commission on the
Liquor Traffic, an attempt has been made to test the results of
local prohibition under the Scott Act by statistical comparison
between two considerable areas of land, throughout one of
which the Act was in force, while the other was under a licence
law. The province of New Brunswick was chosen for this
purpose, from the fact that the Act was nowhere else in opera-
tion over a continuous area large enough to enable such a
comparison to be made. The particulars which follow were
kindly furnished to me by Mr. George Johnson. If no great
importance ought to be attached to them in a positive sense,
they at least lend no support to the contention sometimes
urged, that a remarkable increase of material prosperity is to be
expected as the direct result of prohibition. The criminal
record, however, is markedly favourable to the prohibitive area.
In the province of New Brunswick there is a group of nine
counties (Albert, Carleton, Charlotte, King's, Northumberland,
Queen's, Sunbury, Westmoreland, York) which have been
under the Scott Act for more than ten years. They are all
connected geographically, and contain 61 per cent. of the
whole population of the province. They contain several cities.
and towns of importance, as Fredericton, Marysville, Wood-
stock, St. Stephen, Milltown, Chatham, Moncton. They are
believed to be in every respect a group fairly representative of
the whole country, in industries, religion, race, and general
conditions.
398
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
In the ten years 1882-91 there were 22,841 convictions
in New Brunswick, viz. :—
Murders
Rape and other offences against females
Other offences against the person
Robbery, with violence, burglary, etc.
Horse, cattle, and sheep stealing...
Other offences against property
Other felonies and misdemeanours
Breaches of municipal law and minor offences... 4,993
Drunkenness
13,598
22,841
858
45
...
...
...
Total population
Scott Act counties
Other counties
...
...
...
...
...
..
...
...
...
AG
•••
•
...
...
...
..L
...
...
In the whole Dominion there were 348,460 convictions.
Taking the mean of population at 4,578,810, we have the
average of 7,800 convictions per annum for every million
inhabitants of Canada. In New Brunswick the average is
7,112 per million, about 9 per cent. less than the general
average of the Dominion.
1881.
321,233
201,291
119,942
...
Dividing the province according to Scott Act counties and
non-Scott Act counties,* there were 8,738 convictions in the
former (38.4 per cent.), and 14,102 in the latter (616 per cent.);
i.e., 61 per cent. of the population had 38 per cent. of the
criminal convictions, and 39 per cent. of the population had
61 per cent. of the convictions.
As respects population, the nine counties show a decrease
of 4,869; the others show an increase of 4,899.
...
•••
...
II
26
3,241
67
2
1891.
321,263
196,422
124,841
During the ten years the Scott Act counties retro-
graded in respect of their population between 10 and 25 years
of age by 1.8 per cent., and increased with respect to popu-
lation between 25 and 45 years by 43 per cent.; while the
* The non-Scott Act counties are Gloucester, Kent, Restigouche,
St. John city, St. John county, Victoria.
CANADA.
399
The following Table is intended to Show, by Provinces, the Industrial Development of Canada
between 1881 and 1891. The table is founded on the published Returns of the Census
It relates only to Industrial" " Establish-
of 1891 (Bulletin No. 10, issued June, 1892).
ments, and does not include Mining :-
Number of Establishments
Capital Invested
Number of Employées.
Wages Paid
Cost of Raw Material
Value of Products
Value of Products after deduc-
tion of cost of Raw Material
Workman's Average Earnings..
Total Numbers.
1881.
1891.
Ontario.
CC
Percentage by Provinces.
Quebec.
$129,757,475 $219,462,486 || 515
Nova
Scotia.
1881. 1891. 1881. 1891. 1881. 1891. 1881. 1891. 1881. 1891.
318 305
109 137
616 537
358 330
49,923
75,768 460 42.3
$165,302,623 $353,836,817 || 489 499
254,935 367,865 464 450 336 31'7
$59,429,000 $99,762,440 515 49°3 308 307 6.9 6.9
$179,918,593 $255,983,219 || 506 500 || 34°7
8.0 9'3
33°5
5'5
6.1
$309,676,068 $475,445,705 510 505
6.0
6.3
337 | 32°2
509 324 306 6·6 6.6
$258 297 213 262
201 203
New
Other
Brunswick. || Provinces.
6'2 7'1
5°16'4
51 47 41 7'1
7.8 7.2
4.2 6.8
6.5 5'9
6.I 4.8
5'9 4'9
5'7 | 5'1
194 223
3.86.8
|
400
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
non-Scott Act counties increased between 10 and 25 years by
o'5 per cent., and between 25 and 45 years by 5'4 per cent.
There was, therefore, a larger movement outward from the
Scott Act counties, than from the others, of persons at the
working-age period of life. Taking the Dominion through,
the increase of population between the ages of 10 and 45 is 70
per cent. of the whole increase of the population between 1881
and 1891.
In the non-Scott Act counties.
Birth rate 1881
1891
Death rate 1881
1891
Tested by manufacturing development, the counties show
an increase as follows*:
Birth rate 1881
In the Scott Act counties.
1891
Death rate 1881
1891
""
""
In wages
In products
...
...
...
...
•••
...
...
...
•
...
29'4
26.1
14'I
13'0
...
( Nine Scott Act counties, increase per head
Other counties
Scott Ac
In capital
Nine Scott Act counties, increase per 1,000
In employées Other counties
Nine Scott Act counties, increase per head of
population
Other counties
(Nine Scott Act counties, increase per head
Other counties
...
...
...
""
...
""
...
•••
··
...
...
...
...
...
*••
...
...
...
...
**
1
...
...
...
...
...
..
32.1
29.8
16.4
14'0
$24.15
27.56
18.0
24'4
5:28
8.27
11.84
22.80
SUMMARY OF PROVINCIAL LIQUOR LAWS.
Nova Scotia.—Statutes of 1886, c. 3. The Liquor Licence
Act, 1886 (as amended by subsequent Acts).
The Council of each incorporated city, town, or municipality
is required to nominate a chief inspector, and if necessary one or
more additional inspectors, each of whom is to be a member in
good standing of some recognised temperance organisation within
the municipality or province. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council
may confirm or veto the nomination, and the inspector holds office
during good behaviour (he can only be removed by a majority vote
at a special meeting of the Council, subject to the approval of the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council). (s. 4.) In the city of Halifax
* With respect to industrial development in all the provinces, see
table on p. 399.
CANADA.
Licence duties (s. 6) :—
體
​the appointment is annual. Three kinds of licences are given :
hotel, shop, and wholesale.
A hotel licence authorises sale only to bona fide guests in the
hotel for consumption at meals, or (on week days) in their rooms.
A shop licence authorises sale in quantities not less than one pint
nor more than two gallons, for off-consumption (s. 5). A room in
which liquor may be sold under a wholesale or shop licence must
not have a door which does not open on the public street (1890,
c. 18, s. 12).
Hotel licence, $150.
Shop licence, $100.
Wholesale licence, $300.
401
An application for a licence must be accompanied by a
certificate signed by two-thirds of the ratepayers of the polling
district (in Halifax city three-fifths for a hotel or shop, and a bare
majority for a wholesale licence) (s. 10). Any resident in the
polling district may object to the licence being granted, on the
ground of the character of the applicant, or of the premises, or of
the requirements or quiet of the neighbourhood, or the proximity
of a church, hospital, or school.* The inspector is also required to
make a detailed report on each application. The Council may
take notice of any matter which, in its opinion, would be an
objection to the granting of a licence, although no notice of
objection has been given; but in that case the applicant is entitled
to have the matter adjourned for a few days. Licences are issued
by the chief inspector, in pursuance of a resolution of the Council.
The licensee has to find security for compliance with the law,
himself in $500, and two sureties, $150 each.
The licence is not annually renewed, but is forfeited on a
second (or in some cases a third) conviction for the several
offences mentioned in the Act (s. 81).
In any municipality in which no licences are issued, the
Council is allowed to appoint an agent to sell “such liquors as may
be required for medicinal, manufacturing, and other purposes, not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act" (s. 59). Such agents,
* Since 1890 no new licence can be given for premises within one
hundred yards of a school or church.
A A
402
AMERICAN LIiquor Laws.
and druggists, can only sell on a certificate from a doctor or
magistrate (1888, c. 4, s. 11).*
When a person "by excessive drinking of liquor misspends,
wastes, or lessens his or her estate, or greatly injures his or her
health, or endangers or interrupts the peace and happiness of his
or her family," the sale to such person of any liquors may be
prohibited (ss. 70, 71).
If any person, when drunk, com nits suicide, or comes to his
death by any accident caused by intoxication, or commits an
assault, or injures any property, any person who supplied him
illegally with liquor is liable to an action for damages (ss. 72—74).
All sums received on account of licence duties and fines in
each district go to form a licence fund for the district, out of which
are paid the salaries of the inspector and the expenses of executing
the Act; the residue being applied to the general purposes of the
municipality. One of the amending Acts contains a stringent
provision requiring the inspector to prosecute whenever a case is
notified to him by a ratepayer, and subjecting him to a heavy
penalty (and on a second conviction to dismissal) in the event of
his refusal, if the ratepayer himself should successfully prosecute
the offender on the evidence submitted to the inspector (1890,
c. 18, s. 15). Any ratepayer who so notifies a case is to receive
one-half of the fine (1891, c. 27, s. 5).
Statutes of New Brunswick, 1887, c. 4. The Liquor
Licence Act, 1887.
In New Brunswick only two kinds of licence are issued:
tavern licences, and wholesale licences. The provisions in the
Nova Scotia law for putting a stop to the sale of liquor at bars are
not adopted; but a tavern must have, in a city or town, six bed-
rooms, and elsewhere three bedrooms, for travellers, and must
provide food. The licence duties are fixed by each municipality,
but the duty for a tavern licence must be, in a city or incorporated
town, not less than $50 nor more than $200, and elsewhere not
less than $25 nor more than $200.
The petition for a licence must be accompanied by a certificate
signed by one-third of the ratepayers in the polling district; and a
* By a subsequent Act a penalty is enacted against any medical man
who improvidently or without good and sufficient reason gives a certificate
(1889, c. 17, s. 10).
CANADA.
403
licence cannot be given if the majority of the ratepayers in a city,
incorporated town or parish, petition against it.
The provisions respecting the hearing of objections to, and
the granting of, licences, and the appointment of inspectors, etc.,
are generally similar to the corresponding provisions in the law of
Nova Scotia. There is, however, an express limitation on the
number of tavern licences to be issued, viz., as regards cities and
incorporated towns: one for each 250 of the first 1,000 of the
population in each ward, and for each 500 of the remainder; and,
as regards parishes not within a city or incorporated town, one
for each 400 up to 1,200 of the population, and for each 1,000 of
the remainder. Moreover, the Council of any municipality, by
bye-law, may prohibit the issue of all tavern licences, or may
further limit the number, and may lay down additional conditions
and regulations respecting them.
Licensed premises have to be closed from 7 p.m. on Saturday
to 6 a.m. on Monday.
Quebec Licence Law. Revised Statutes, Title IV., c. 5, s. 12, 13
(as amended by subsequent Statutes).
An applicant for an inn or restaurant licence must produce a
certificate signed by twenty-five electors resident in the parish,
township or village, or in the polling district of the town or city, in
which the premises are situated. A licence cannot be granted if a
majority of the electors in the polling district oppose it.
The licence is granted by the Council of the municipality,
except in the cities of Quebec and Montreal, where this power is
exercised by the judicial authorities; but a licence may be refused
at the discretion of the licensing body.
The provision relating to retail shop licences (for sale in
quantities of not less than a pint) are generally similar, but the
number of signatures required is only three.
An "inn must in the country districts contain at least three
bedrooms for travellers, and stabling for four horses; and, in a
city or town, must contain two bedrooms, and means to supply
meals for ten persons; a restaurant must also be furnished to
provide meals for ten persons.
The penalties for sales to drunkards, and civil liabilities for
the acts of drunken persons, are generally similar to those in force
in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
The court dealing with a licensee who has transgressed the
در
AA 2
404
AMERICAN Liquor Laws.
law has power in its discretion to revoke his licence, and, in certain
cases, the revocation is compulsory.
The Council of every county, city, town, township, parish, or
incorporated village, has power by bye-law to prohibit the sale of
liquor. The bye-law may, at the discretion of the Council-or, if
the bye-law applies to a county, by demand of thirty electors for
each municipality in the county-be submitted to the whole body
of municipal electors for approval. And thirty electors of any
municipality other than a county may take the initiative in sub-
mitting the question to a popular vote.
A bye-law may be repealed in the same way as it was adopted.
There is no general early-closing law on Saturdays, but early-
closing may be adopted by municipal bye-law. The Sunday-
closing law does not extend to guests in hotels; but the hotel bar
must be closed on Sundays.
The licence duties vary according to the value of the premises
and their situation in a town or country district, ranging for inns
and restaurants from $800 down to $90, and for retail liquor shops
from $400 down to $70.
It is the duty of the collector of provincial revenue to
prosecute offenders against the licence law when requested to
do so by a municipal corporation. In the case of infractions of
a prohibitory bye-law, however, it is the duty of the municipal
Council itself to take proceedings. Fines imposed at the suit of the
collector are divided between him, the informer, and the provincial
revenue. In the case of prosecutions by the collector for breach of
a bye-law the municipality also takes a share.
Ontario.
The Liquor Licence Act of Ontario (revised Statutes, 1887,
c. 194), as amended by Acts of 1888, 1889, 1890 and 1892, provides
for the annual appointment by the Lieutenant-Governor of three
Licence Commissioners for cach licence district, whose duty it
is to regulate the number of licences for taverns and shops and
the conditions under which they may be given, and to define
the duties of the inspector of the district (an officer also appointed
by the Lieutenant-Governor). A licence cannot ordinarily be
granted until the inspector has reported as to the fitness and
good character of the applicant. Provision is made for the
hearing of objections, after which the commissioners in their
discretion grant or refuse the licence; but an application for a
:
CANADA.
405
new licence cannot be granted, unless it is supported by a majority
of the electors in the polling district, one-third of whom must be
resident therein.
The application and objections thereto are required to be
made at a public hearing; the Board are entitled to consider any
matter which they may think would be an objection to the granting
of the licence, although no objection has been raised; but in that
case they must give notice to the applicant. They are competent
to take sworn evidence.
The maximum number of tavern licences in cach district is
limited as follows:-In cities, towns and incorporated villages, one
for each 250 of the first 1,000 of the population, and then one for
each 400; "but in no case shall this limit authorise any increase in
any municipality in excess of the number of licences therein issued
for the year ending the first day of March, 1876, unless from the
future increase of the population the Licence Commissioners think a
larger number has become necessary, but not in any case exceeding
the limit imposed by this Act." In incorporated villages which are
county towns, five taverns may be licensed, although the population
would not warrant this number under the general rule. The
Council of every city, town, village, and township may, however, by
bye-law, still further limit the number within its own area. Tavern
licences may be for the sale of intoxicating liquors generally, or
may be for beer and light wines only, if the licence board by
resolution declare that a portion of the allotted number of licences
shall be so restricted.
Premises licensed as taverns must supply meals, and must
also (subject to a limited power of allowing exceptions in cities
and towns) contain sleeping accommodation for four (in cities, six)
travellers, and in the country stabling for six horses. The Council
of any city or town may also make additional requirements as to
accommodation.
The number of shop licences (i.e., " off-licences" for the sale
of liquor in quantities not less than three half-pints) may be
limited by municipal bye-law, and the holder of such a licence
may, in like manner, be required to confine the business of his
shop solely to the selling of liquor, or be made subject to
other restrictions. In any case, no new shop licences can be
granted for the sale of liquor in any premises where any other
business is carried on, except the sale of mineral water, bottles,
etc.; and if any such business is carried on after the licence has
406
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
been granted, it becomes ipso facto void, and the licensee can be
proceeded against for selling liquor without a licence.
Each licensee is required to give security for his compliance
with the law by a bond in the sum of $200, with two sureties, $100
each. Wholesale licences are issued as of course on payment of
the duty.
The following are the licence duties :--
Nature of Licence.
Tavern or Shop Licence-
In cities over 20,000 in-
habitants...
...
In other cities
In towns
...
In incorporated villages
In townships
...
...
•
···
Beer and Wine Licence-
In cities
In towns
In incorporated villages
In townships
Wholesale Licence--
+
...
...
1
Duty.
$
250
200
150
120
90
75
57.50
45
37'50
250
$
150 to provincial revenue.
100
70
60
30
Application of Duty.
25
17.50
15
7.50
100
""
>>
**
""
AAA
>>
>>
""
19
**
****
""
""
39
The remainder of the duty
goes in all cases to the licence
fund of the licence district,
and is applied first in defraying
the expenses of the licence
board and inspector; the resi-
due is then apportioned, one-
third to the province, two-
thirds to the municipality.
Municipalities may by bye-law increase the duties on tavern
and shop licences.
Druggists are permitted to sell liquor for strictly medicinal
purposes, but only on a medical certificate if the amount exceeds
six ounces at any one time.
Provisions are made against unlicensed clubs, and the Act
provides elaborately for regulating the traffic, and checking and
CANADA.
407
punishing infringements of the law.* No liquor may be sold
between 7 o'clock on Saturday evening and 6 o'clock on Monday
morning, and bar rooms must be kept closed during that time.
The buyer, as well as the seller, of liquor during prohibited hours,
and the buyer of liquor from an unlicensed seller, is liable to
punishment; so also is any person who sells to an unlicensed
dealer, the latter buying for the purpose of re-selling, unless such
person resides or carries on business in another place, or proves
that he acted innocently.
A licence is in general revocable after a third conviction ;
but separate proceedings must be taken for the purpose by the
inspector, or the Licence Commissioners, or the county attorney,
before the Judge of the County Court.
Where a person, while intoxicated, comes to his death by
misadventure or suicide, his personal representatives are entitled
to recover damages up to $1,000 from anyone who supplied the
liquor; and a similar action lies where a person commits an
assault or injures property while intoxicated. The magistrate may
also forbid liquor to be sold to any person who, “by excessive
drinking of liquor, misspends, wastes or lessens his estate, or
greatly injures his health, or endangers or interrupts the peace and
happiness of his family." And the relations of a drunkard may
serve notice on liquor-sellers not to supply him with drink.
In addition to the inspectors already mentioned, the Lieutenant-
Governor may appoint provincial officers, and boards of licence
commissioners may appoint officers for their districts, to enforce
the law. Any such officer, or any constable or inspector,
may enter taverns and liquor shops at all times; and warrants
may be obtained for searching unlicensed premises.
Mi anitoba.—Liquor Licence Act, 1889 (as amended by
subsequent Acts).
The Manitoba law provides for the appointment of Licence.
Commissioners and an inspector for each licence district. An
applicant for a restaurant licence (which is granted only in cities)
must produce a certificate signed by sixteen substantial house-
holders that the restaurant is a necessity for the purpose of
providing meals for the public; and the inspector is required to
* The Act comprises 153 sections, and 13 schedules.
408
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
see that meals are provided for the public during the existence of
the licence. Moreover, an application for any new licence, outside
a town with 2,000 inhabitants, has to be backed by a recom-
mendation signed by at least sixteen out of the twenty house-
holders residing nearest to the premises; and the licence can
subsequently be cancelled on a petition by eight out of the twenty
nearest householders.
The licence duties range from $250 to $100 payable to the
province, and the municipality may impose similar duties. Hotels
are required to have in cities fifteen, in towns ten, and elsewhere
six, bedrooms; also a public sitting-room separate from the bar,
and (in the country districts) stabling for twelve horses.
The number of hotel and restaurant licences is limited by the
Act; and a prohibitory bye-law may be passed for any munici-
pality on a popular vote by a three-fifths majority. The Act
contains stringent regulations, including a power to interdict sale
to drunkards, and a "civil liability clause" for suicide or death by
accident.
British Columbia.-The Licences Act.-Consolidated Acts, 1888,
c. 73 (and amending Acts).
New retail licences are not to be granted in any town,* village
or settlement, except on a petition signed by two-thirds of the
residents; and municipalities have power to pass bye-laws
regulating the issue of saloon and tavern licences. Subject
to these restrictions, licences may be granted by justices of
the peace sitting in open court at a special session.
Renewals cannot be refused except on reasonable cause; but a
licence may be cancelled by a judge if he considers it unnecessary.
The sale of liquor to drunkards may be prohibited.
* This does not apply to the cities of Victoria, New Westminster,
and Nanaimo.
409
APPENDIX I.
Address delivered by Prof. Francis Wayland (Dean of the Law
Department of Yale University) at the Sixth National Conven-
tion of Law and Order Leagues in the United States, held at
Philadelphia, February 22, 1888.
I will, with your permission, address myself, in the brief time at
my command, to these topics: the principles which should control
temperance legislation and the policy by which alone such legislation
can be made effective.
I am very far from claiming any novelty for the views which I
shall present. In fact, my fear is that I shall fatigue you with their
triteness. I can only endeavour to emphasise and enforce some
truths, which I think are too often overlooked, but which are vital
to the wisest settlement of a most difficult problem. It surely ought
to be possible, especially in this city of Brotherly Love, to discuss.
the aspects of the general question which I have indicated without
intemperance of language and without provoking intemperate
opposition.
At all events the experiment seems to me worth trying.
It should be observed on the very threshold of the discussion,
that the whole subject of temperance legislation, so far at least as
its penal side is concerned, presents certain marked anomalies. The
first and most obvious of these is that an offence is created and
defined unknown to the common law. And while this anomaly is
by no means confined to temperance and penal legislation, it has
this peculiarity or distinctive feature, that other statutory offences,
almost if not quite without exception, have been adopted by general
if not uniform consent, from obvious if not admitted considerations
of public policy-such as burglary in the daytime, having in posses-
sion burglar's implements, carrying concealed weapons, selling
lottery tickets, etc. etc.
Again, in every proposed form of temperance legislation whether
by regulation or prohibition, we are dealing with an article of
commerce—an article, the manufacture and sale of which must, for
certain purposes, be permitted, i.e., legalised.
Once more so far as such legislation is penal we are making it
an offence to sell where it is no offence to buy ; in other words, two
intelligent, responsible moral agents voluntarily combine to do an
410
AMERICAN LIquor Laws.
act which is in violation of law, and only one of the parties to the
transaction is liable to punishment.
Again, in every community in our land those who invoke the
aid of legislation to regulate or suppress the traffic in intoxicating
liquors as a beverage are widely, and I fear almost hopelessly,
divided as to the best methods to be pursued to diminish intemper-
ance, the advocates of various expedients embracing some of the
best citizens to be found in any community. While, antagonising
all efforts at regulation or prohibition, we find a body of resolute
men with almost unlimited resources, compact, united, aggressive,
untiring, and bound together by the powerful motive of self-interest.
Now, in view of these anomalies and others which might be
mentioned, it follows inevitably, does it not? that if the friends of
the various measures which have been proposed persist in adhering
to their respective methods-maintaining their positions with active,
not to say intolerant zeal, no one measure can ever command such
a preponderance of public sentiment as is absolutely indispensable
to the efficient execution or enforcement of any law. If one wing
of the general army succeeds in securing legislative sanction for its
favourite method by a small, or under severe pressure in a time of
feverish excitement by a considerable, majority, the divergent
opinions to which I have alluded will sooner or later make them-
selves felt in the press, in the police force, on the bench, in the jury
box; and the enactment, lacking the hearty moral support of the
great body of the people, will fail to accomplish the purposes which
its promoters aimed to secure.
That a given measure can be enacted under the immediate
impulse of vehement excitement is no test of its wisdom, utility, or
practical working power. It must stand the further test of the
calm, deliberate, matter-of-fact judgment of the community in its
normal condition, and that judgment, according to the degree of its
concurrence or condemnation, will decide the question. Whatever
measure has at its back a powerful preponderance of public opinion
will have the surest prospect of success, and the converse of this
proposition is equally true. If, for example, in any State or county
or town, prohibition can command wellnigh uniform moral support,
then and there prohibition may hope for success, so long as this
attitude of the public mind and heart remains unchanged. But
where this is not the case, there would seem to be a demand for
mutual concession on the part of the promoters of temperance
reform
APPENDIX I.
411
The starving man, if sane, does not say, "I will eat no bread if I
cannot have a whole loaf." The wise reformer does not say "I will
not lift my finger in favour of any policy which falls short of my
full demands." He rather says, does he not? "I will join a present,
practicable, onward movement in the assured hope that it is only
preparing the way for a further advance. If nothing is done or
attempted while I am waiting for the coming of the ideal measure,
I cannot hold myself blameless for the pernicious results which are
sure to follow. Pending the coming in of the better and brighter
day which is the final goal of all my efforts, I am still my brother's
keeper, and cannot hope to escape my share of the grave responsi-
bility." Suppose the Northern opponents of slavery-and by this I
do not mean the abolition party-had said for a generation or two,
before the war, slavery is a great moral wrong, the crime of the
century, we will never vote to restrict it within existing limits, for
that would involve us in complicity with the crime. We will not
give aid by voice or vote to any policy which does not look ex-
clusively to its instant abolition. Would this have been wise?
Would it have been statesmanlike in view of the divergence of public
opinion at the North? But by-and-by came a crisis which cemented
the free States almost to a man in a common bond of union, and
from that moment slavery was doomed. It could live and thrive
with a divided North; it died before a united North.
Take another illustration bearing directly upon the topic under
discussion. If, in any community, the decided preponderance of
public sentiment, indicated partly by the prevailing opinion of the
press, partly by the drift of the popular utterance and action, and
partly by the emphatic repudiation at the polls of more stringent
measures, is substantially in favour of prohibiting sales of intoxica-
ting liquors to minors, to drunkards, on the Sabbath, on election
days, after certain hours in secular days, and is also in favour of
materially diminishing the number of saloons, then clearly temper-
ance legislation in that community should be content, for the time,
with seeking these ends by suitable and adequate enactments,
enforced with wholesome, deterrent penalties.
And it is equally true, is it not, that if in another community,
overwhelming public sentiment unmistakably ascertained, should
unequivocally favour absolute prohibition, then temperance legisla-
tion obeying and reflecting the popular will of that community
should hopefully enact such provisions as might best secure the end
aimed at by a prohibition policy. But, in either case-and this
412
AMERICAN LIquor Laws.
brings me to my second point, the policy by which alone temperance
legislation can be made effective-in either case, the work is but
begun when the Governor's signature has been secured.
Just here is, if I mistake not, a serious error in the attitude of
some temperance reformers, conspicuously so—may I be pardoned
for saying—among the advocates of prohibition. Overlooking the
anomalous character of the subject with which they are dealing,
they attach vastly too much importance to the mere enactment of
the law. They worship the legislation which has rewarded their
untiring efforts as a sort of fetish, able to work miracles by the
simple circumstance of its existence on the statute book. They
burn incense before its silent pages, and fancy that a temperance
millenium has arrived because their idolised enactment has passed
the Legislature and received the executive endorsement. If, by-and-
by, they discover that the effects for good are not commensurate
with their highly-wrought expectations, they seek to make the law
more coercive and repressive, arguing, with, as it seems to me,
singularly lame logic, that the stricter the law, the more implicit the
obedience.
Meanwhile, with a blindness born, I must believe, of a too
narrow devotion to an abstract principle, they wholly neglect that
vigilant, ceaseless personal effort and co-operation, without which
such a law, or, indeed, any law on this subject, whether of regu-
lation or prohibition, can never be made effective. The moment
they have secured the desired legislation, they relax the energy
which they employed to obtain the aid of the law makers and the
chief magistrate. They leave everything to the machinery of the
courts and the action of the officers of the law, whose services in
such cases are too often perfunctory. They are willing to in-
fluence votes at home, to haunt legislative halls and button-hole
bucolic legislators, but they shrink from following up their action
by applying to the detection of offences against the law the same
pervasive and well-intended activity which has crowned their
earlier efforts with success.
When the reaction comes, and it does come sometimes, does
it not? and the law proves to be practically a dead letter, they
content themselves with denouncing the disagreeing or acquitting
juries, the lukewarm judges, the inefficient sheriffs and consta-
bles, the timid or perjured witnesses, and the generally indifferent
citizens.
The only
But all this complaint does not mend the matter.
APPENDIX 1.
413
policy which will secure the adequate enforcement of any form
of temperance legislation is the policy which invites and obtains
the active, cordial co-operation of law-abiding citizens. The or-
dinary machinery of the courts will not, unaided, accomplish the
desired result. The rules and practices which prevail in the case
of crime against person and property are not applicable here. A
personal vigilance which never sleeps, a personal activity which
never tires, a treasury which is never empty, and all these outside
the paid officers of the law--such a policy as this is needed to
make temperance legislation effective. Such voluntary organisa-
tion and effort must be well disciplined and kept in countenance
by the presence and public sympathy of the best citizens. Official
action must be supplemented always, and often stimulated by
unofficial energy. Wholesome public sentiment must be crystal-
ised, vitalised, utilised. The horde of wrongdoers combined to
override the law and avoid punishment must be met and overborne
by a larger body of resolute defenders of the law, commanding and
deserving the sympathy, the respect and the approval of all lovers
of law and order. Witnesses must be obtained, fairly paid and
properly protected from abuse and persecution. Indifferent or
hostile prosecuting officers must not be allowed to dodge their
duty. Bail must be made to mean actual pecuniary responsibility,
and bail bonds forfeited must not be suffered to slumber in the
official desk.
Moreover, constant vigilance will be needed to see to it that
the law is not weakened or impaired by mischievous amendments
ingeniously urged by pretended friends of the Bill. Competent
legal skill must be employed to guard the provisions of the law
from being tampered with; in a word, the fact must be ever
recognised that a sleepless enemy is in the field, and that he is
to be prevented from doing serious injury to the cause only by
opposing to him an ability and a watchfulness superior to his own.
He must feel that he is to encounter not alone the agents of
the law performing in a more or less perfunctory manner their
official duty, but all this, plus an active, energetic, co-operating
public sentiment, in visible form and with persistent purpose.
In the preparation of cases against the liquor-seller for violation
of the statute, whether prohibiting or regulating sales, the prose-
cuting officer should find his hands strengthened by the efficient
sympathy of reputable citizens. During the trial of the case, he
should see among the spectators not alone, as is too often true,
414
American Liquor Laws.
a whisky-loving, nay, whisky-laden crowd, but a fair representa-
tion of order-loving and law-abiding men and women, watching
the progress of the trial and encouraging the officials, both on the
bench and at the bar, in the fearless discharge of their duty. And
the same vigilant oversight should continue until the verdict and
the announcement and execution of sentence.
Do you say that this active alliance between the private citizen
and the public official ought not to be necessary? Granted. Nor
ought it to be necessary to keep up the expensive machinery of
courts of justice for the trial of offenders against law.
Do you remind me that like interference of the citizen is not
called for in the case of other offences? Granted. But consider
that in the case of every other criminal offence known to the
common or the statute law there is, as has been already indicated,
a general, if not unanimous, conviction in the minds of the vast
majority of voters that such criminal offence is rightly punished
in the interests of good order and good morals. The convicted
offender finds no sympathy in the community; no one seeks to
screen him from the consequence of his wrong-doing. In the
arrest, the trial, the verdict of guilty, the punishment after sentence,
the machinery of the law moves without friction. Enlightened
public sentiment, in defiance of which no law can be long, if ever,
enforced, sustains the appointed authorities of the State from the
beginning to the end of their action, and praises them in propor-
tion to their zeal, diligence, and success. Nay, more. Witnesses
do not hesitate to come forward to testify to what they know.
Juries unhesitatingly find verdicts in accordance with the proved
facts. Courts give sentences based on the decision of the jury.
Is all this true in the case of attempts to enforce stringent
liquor laws? Is it not notoriously difficult to produce evidence
of their violation? nay, often impossible? Can juries be relied
on to convict even on clear evidence? Are magistrates or judges
always independent? If in default of such testimony as reputable
citizens cognisant of material facts decline to furnish, you seek
to prove your case by means of paid informers, whose reputation
for truth and veracity is not and cannot be impeached; is their
evidence fairly weighed and impartially considered by court or
jury? You all know what the truthful answers to these questions
must be. If, then, the disease is exceptional in its character and
symptoms, the treatment must also be exceptional.
Let organised effort among good citizens be directed to the
APPENDIX I.
415
enforcement of existing laws, and for two reasons: 1. Because a
law on the statute book, violated with absolute or comparative
impunity, is a serious menace to good order, encouraging
offenders and enlarging the area of their wrong-doing. It breeds
a spirit which, by-and-by, ripening into the creed of the an-
archists, yields allegiance and obedience to no law, and demands
unrestrained immunity from all law. 2. Because we can only
judge of the value of any law by its strict enforcement A law
not enforced has no attributes, no features, no value, is of no
more weight or worth on the statute book than is the letter p in
pneumonia.
Enforce it, by the aid, if necessary, of the whole moral
power of the community, and you will speedily ascertain its
value. It may prove to be all you need for the present, at least.
At all events, it is reasonable to presume that it means something,
and that, if enforced, it may accomplish some good result. You
have no right to tamper with it, or ignore it, or denounce it until
it has been put to the test of a fair experiment. It must be a very
poor enactment which does not possess enough power to be of
considerable use, if it can be carried out. And, however that
may be, the time to amend or to repeal an existing law is when,
after adequate experiment, before competent courts, it has been
proved to be too weak to be effective, or too stringent to secure
the sympathy or co-operation of the community. To tamper with
a law simply because there is a theory that it can be improved
is mischievous nonsense.
Enforce existing laws when you can, amend or repeal them
when you must. Never trifle with them or ignore them, or expect
them to enforce themselves. If one-half you say about the evils
of intemperance be true, the good citizen has a duty to perform,
which is by no means confined to reading temperance tracts, or
listening to temperance addresses, or even aiding to secure tem-
perance legislation of his favourite variety. And it seems to me
that no lover of good order and good morals has a right to with-
hold his active co-operation from the methods and measures of
this organisation.
416
APPENDIX II.
The following is the full text of the liquor ordinance of
Atlanta:
LIQUOR TRAFFIC.
1. Wholesale Houses, 886-893.
SECTION.
886. Written applications.
887. Deposit required.
888. Penalty for retailing by eva-
sion.
889. Not sell without licence.
SECTION.
890. Licence revocable.
891. Keeping on hand for unlawful
sale.
SECTION.
894. Retail liquor limits.
895. No separate beer licences in
these limits.
896. Price of licences.
897. Character of licensees.
898. No screens or blinds.
899. Place level with streets.
900. No gaming allowed.
901. Loitering prohibited.
902. Open and close, when.
903. Close on days named.
904. Oath of applicant.
905. Not sell without licence.
906. Sign to be posted.
907. Must admit officers.
908. Penalty.
909. Conviction revokes licence.
892. Close when saloons close.
893. Hours of opening and closing.
2. Retail Houses, 894-922.
SECTION.
910. Application, how made.
911. Mayor and Council may re-
voke.
912. Regulations as to transfers.
913. To whom licence shall not
issue.
914. Not keep on hand for un-
lawful sale.
915. Empty kegs on sidewalks.
916. Retail at Piedmont Park.
917. Forfeitures of beer licences.
918. Forfeitures if place a nuisance.
919. Must keep minors out.
920. Punishment of minors.
921. Sign as to minors.
922. Alcohol - Druggists pro-
tected.
SECTION 886. All persons, firms, corporations or companies
desiring to engage in the sale of spirituous or malt liquors at
wholesale, in said city, shall make written application to the Mayor
and General Council for such privilege, and the said Mayor and
General Council may, in its discretion, grant or refuse such
privilege, upon each application made: Provided, that no such
privilege shall be granted to carry on such business at any place in
said city, outside of the limits prescribed for the retail of ardent
spirits.
—
APPENDIX II.
417
SEC. 887. Before any licence shall issue as above set forth,
the applicant shall pay to the City Clerk the sum of twenty-five
dollars, and the Clerk's fee of fifty cents, and shall make and
subscribe before said Clerk, on oath, that he will not, by himself,
or others, sell any spirituous or malt liquors in any quantity less
than one gallon, nor permit any so sold to be divided or drank on
the premises where sold; nor sell, nor permit the same to be sold,
in any quantity to a minor, or a person already intoxicated; and
shall also give bond with security, to be approved of by the Clerk,
in the sum of two thousand dollars, conditioned faithfully to
observe all State laws and city ordinances pertaining to the said
business.
SEC. 888. Any person licensed as aforesaid who shall sell any
spirituous or malt liquors other than at wholesale, or who shall by
any devise by himself, or his agents, subdivide the same or permit
the same or any part thereof, to be drank on the premises, on
conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five
hundred dollars, or imprisoned not exceeding thirty days, or both,
in the discretion of the court, and such conviction shall work an
immediate revocation of his licence.
SEC. 889. Any person, firm, corporation, or company, who shall
sell or offer for sale at wholesale, any spirituous or malt liquors,
without having first complied with all the provisions of this
ordinance, shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not
exceeding five hundred dollars, or imprisoned not exceeding thirty
days, or both, in the discretion of the court.
SEC. 890. All licences under this ordinance shall issue for one
year, but may be revoked by the Mayor and General Council at
any time upon refunding the applicant the pro-rata amount for the
unused time, and no licence is transferable except by consent of
Mayor and General Council. Such licence shall protect but one
place, and that the place specified in the licence.
SEC. 891. Any person, firm, or corporation who shall keep for
unlawful sale in any store, house, room, office, cellar, stand, booth,
stall, or other place, or shall have contained for unlawful sale in
any barrel, keg, can, demijohn, or other package, any spirituous,
fermented, or malt liquors for such sale, shall, on conviction, be
punished by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprison-
ment not exceeding thirty days, either or both, in the discretion of
the court.
SEC. 892. Wholesale liquor houses shall be required to close
B B
418
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
their doors on Christmas Day of every year; and at all other
times when retail liquor dealers are required to close their places,
except that on holidays, other than Sundays and Christmas Days,
wholesale dealers may ship goods to the trade outside of the city.
SEC. 893. The hours for opening and closing wholesale liquor
houses shall be the same as for saloons, to wit: Open not earlier
than 5 o'clock a.m. and close not later than 10 o'clock p.m.
SEC. 894. The Mayor and General Council may, in their
discretion, grant or refuse licence to sell, at retail, spirituous or
malt liquors, on the business portion of the following streets,
between the points named on each application made, to wit:
[The limits within which licences may be granted are here set
out.]
SEC. 895. Within the limits above provided, on the streets
above named, no separate licence for the sale of lager beer or malt
liquors shall be issued. Outside of the above limits on business
portions of business streets within practicable and efficient police
supervision, and in localities where there is no reasonable objec-
tion thereto, licences may be issued for the retail of lager beer and
malt liquors only. Should any dealer licensed to sell lager beer
and malt liquors only, by himself or agent, have, or keep on
hand, or sell, furnish, or offer to sell, or furnish to any persons
any spirituous liquors, his licence shall thereupon and thereby be
forfeited, and such person so offending shall, on conviction thereof,
be fined not exceeding five hundred dollars and imprisoned thirty
days. The sentence, on conviction, shall include imprisonment,
and shall not be less than thirty days, and in any such case neither
the Mayor, or the Mayor and General Council shall have any
power or authority to reduce or relieve the sentence by revision,
pardon, or otherwise; and such person shall not thereafter be
entrusted with any licence to sell either spirits or malt liquors.
Any agent of any such licensed dealer in malt liquors who shall
violate the foregoing provisions shall be subject to the penalties
and disqualifications herein above provided. All licences for
the retail of lager beer and malt liquors shall issue subject
to the right and purpose of the city by its police officers
and policemen, and special agents and inspectors at any and all
times to inspect the conduct of the business of any such licensed
dealer and agents, as also the character of the stock kept by any
such dealer.
SEC. 896. The price of each licence to retail spirituous or
APPENDIX II.
419
spirituous and malt liquors shall be at the rate of one thousand
dollars per annum, and the Clerk's fee of fifty cents, which in each
case may be paid quarterly in advance. The price of each licence
to retail lager beer and malt liquors only shall be at the rate of one
hundred dollars per annum, and Clerk's fee of fifty cents, payable
quarterly in advance.*
SEC. 897. No licence to retail, as aforesaid, shall issue to any
person other than of good character, sobriety, and discretion, and
regard to this shall be had on, and as to, each application
made.
SEC. 898. No place, for which a licence to retail as aforesaid
shall issue, shall have any screen, blinds, or painted glass, or other
obstruction of the view through the doors and windows thereof.
Licence shall not issue for any place which does not front on, or
have the main entrance thereto directly from, a public street, but
this requirement shall not apply to hotels where the bar is so
situated as to be open to the view generally of persons stopping at
said hotels.
SEC. 899. No licence shall issue for any place not substantially
on a level with a public street, except that the Mayor and General
Council may, in their discretion, grant or refuse licence to retail
in basements sufficiently open to view.
SEC. 900. No gaming table, gaming device or apparatus, shall
be kept or used at any place for which licence is granted, nor shall
any game by cards, ten-pins, or music, or otherwise, be played at
any such place for amusement, exercise, or for anything of value,
nor shall any pools be sold, provided the keeping of billiard and
pool tables and playing thereon for exercise or amusement only,
shall not be prohibited in hotels when the same are in a different
room from the bar.
SEC. 901. No person to whom a licence is issued shall permit
drunken or disorderly persons to assemble or loiter therein.
SEC. 902. No place for which a licence is granted shall be
kept open later than 10 o'clock p.m., or opened earlier than
5 o'clock a.m.
SEC. 903. No person licensed to sell spirituous or malt liquors
in said city, shall keep open his place or sell or furnish liquors on
the Sabbath, Fourth of July, or Christmas Day, or on occasions
when, in the judgment of the Mayor and Police Commissioners,
* $250 per annum by Tax Ordinance of 1891.
BB 2
420
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
the conserving of the peace and order of the city requires closing,
and they first notify such dealer to close.
SEC. 904. All persons to whom licences shall issue shall take
the oaths required by law, and any person hereafter applying for
the granting of retail liquor or beer licence, or the removal or
transfer of such licence, shall be required, in connection with such
application, to take, subscribe, and file an affidavit stating that the
applicant has not been convicted of violating the State laws
regulating the liquor traffic, or the city ordinances which provides
for granting of retail liquor and beer licences and prescribes for
the conduct of licensed saloons, and further stating that no indict-
ment or accusation is pending against him in the State Court, or
any Recorder's Court, charging such violation.
That any person falsely swearing to the affidavit required by
the preceding section, shall be prosecuted by the Chief of Police in
the Superior Court of Fulton county.
SEC. 905. No person shall, in said city, retail or sell in
quantities less than one quart, any spirituous or malt liquors
without having obtained licence therefor, paid the required price,
given the bond and taken the oath provided by law and
ordinance.
SEC. 906. Licensed retailers (hotels excepted) shall, within five
days after obtaining licence, affix a sign board near to, or over his
door, on which shall be printed in plain words, "Licensed retailer
of spirituous liquors."
SEC. 907. It shall be the duty of each and every licensed
retailer of spirituous liquors to admit the Mayor or any member of
the General Council, Police Commissioner, or any police officer
or policeman, into his or her premises at any time when such
permission may be demanded.
SEC. 908. Any person violating any of the foregoing provisions
of this ordinance shall, for each offence on conviction thereof, be
fined not exceeding five hundred dollars, or imprisonment thirty
days, either or both, in the discretion of the court.
SEC. 909. The conviction in a State court of any person licensed
to retail spirituous or malt liquors for the violation of the State
Statutes in relation to the sales of ardent spirits to a minor or person
already intoxicated; or the conviction of a retailer before the
Recorder's Court for the violation of any of the provisions of this
ordinance, shall work an immediate revocation of the licence of
such person, and for any further exercise of the privilege granted by
APPENDIX II.
421
such licence, he shall be punished as
licence.*
one retailing without
SEC. 910. Each person applying for licence to retail as aforesaid
shall, at the time of application, deposit with the Clerk a written
description of the place where he desires to carry on the business, and
a certificate of two, one of whom must be an adjoining neighbour,
or more of his sober, respectable, near neighbours, not interested in
the application, recommending the applicant as fit to be trusted
with such licence; and shall also present the written consent of the
owner or agent of the premises in which he desires to carry on the
business. The applicant shall also tender a bond, with good security
in the sum of one thousand dollars for the keeping of a decent and
orderly house, and for compliance with all laws of the State of
Georgia and said city relating to the liquor traffic and the regulation
thereof. In case of any and each breach of the condition of said
bond the amount thereof shall be liquidated damages and recover-
able in action in favour of said city for the same. In case the
Mayor and General Council shall direct suit, and by resolution, or
vote, declare a breach of any bond to have occurred, said body may
also declare the licence of the party forfeited and revoked. Each
bond tendered shall have at least two names as securities thereon,
and no person shall be security on more than one bond at the same
time. The securities shall also justify as to their solvency to the
amount of bond over and above debts and liabilities, and homestead
and exemption laws. When the application is made and bond
tendered, as above provided, the same shall be referred to the
committee and police, who shall personally examine the location
and surroundings of the place for which licence is applied, notify,
or have notified, adjacent tenants or owners, or agents of owners
and also the owner, tenant, or agent of the owner of the place, or
building, for which licence is applied, as may be practicable, of the
pending of such application and report thereon, at the next regular
meeting of Mayor and General Council or as early thereafter as
practicable.
SEC. 911. The price of licences to retail, the time they may last,
and the amount of bond, may be fixed or changed at any time,
provided no vested rights are impaired by such change; otherwise
all such licences shall expire on June 30th, following the date of
same, but may be revoked at any time by the Mayor and General
* This Section upheld in case Sprayberry v. Atlanta by Supreme Court.
422
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
Council for the violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance,
any other ordinances of the city, or laws of the State, relating to
the retail liquor traffic and regulation of the same.
SEC. 912. No licence is transferable, except by consent of the
Mayor and General Council, as regard shall be had to the person
to be entrusted with such licence. No licence shall protect more
than one place, and that the place described therein, and no liquors
shall be retailable in the streets of said city.
SEC. 913. No licence to retail shall issue to any person who
shall hereafter sell liquors by the gallon in said city under whole-
sale licence, where the purpose of such person shall be to supply
other than licensed dealers with liquors, and where the amount
and extent of the stock kept by such persons are less than requisite
for the carrying on, in good faith, the wholesale trade. Nor shall
retail licence issue to any person who shall hereafter, in said city,
sell liquors by the gallon with the knowledge that persons acting
together in purchasing the same will immediately divide, or have
the dealer selling the same divide it for immediate consumption or
carrying away.
SEC. 914. Any person who shall keep on hand for unlawful sale
by the quart (not having licence from the Commissioner of Roads
and Revenues of Fulton county) any liquors kept ostensibly for sale
at wholesale by the gallon, or shall permit the division of the same
by purchasers, or others in his presence, or shall retail the same,
shall be debarred of a wholesale or retail licence hereafter, and in
addition, shall, on conviction of either offence named in this and
the preceding section, be fined not exceeding five hundred dollars,
or imprisoned thirty days, either or both, in the discretion of the court.
SEC. 915. It shall be unlawful for empty beer kegs to remain on
the sidewalks or streets of Atlanta longer than twenty-four hours
after being placed there; that all Breweries or their agents, doing
business in said city, be required to make daily collections of
empty kegs, and any Brewery or agent violating the provisions of
this ordinance shall, upon conviction before the Recorder, be fined
not less than five dollars and costs for each offence.
SEC. 916. On compliance with all laws and ordinances of the
city with reference to obtaining licence to retail liquor, and the
deposit of ten dollars per day, and Clerk's fee for the time applied
for, accompanied by the written consent of the authorities of the
Gentlemen's Driving Club, or the Piedmont Exposition Company,
the Clerk of Council is authorised to issue licence to retail malt
APPENDIX II.
423
and spirituous liquors on the grounds of the Piedmont Exposition
Company, or Gentlemen's Driving Club; provided, that the hours
of closing shall be ten o'clock p.m., and of opening seven
o'clock a.m., and the person or persons receiving such licence shall
be subject to all laws and ordinances regulating the retail liquor
traffic. Such licence shall be subject to forfeiture at any time on
the request of either the Piedmont Exposition Company, or
Gentlemen's Driving Club, or authorities thereof, and licences are
also taken subject to this provision for forfeiture.
SEC. 917. All the provisions of the ordinance aforesaid, of the
retail liquor ordinance, relating to application, bond, licence,
regulation, selling without licence, penalties, forfeiture of licence,
etc. etc., in case of retail of spirituous, or malt and spirituous
liquors, shall apply to the retail of lager beer and malt liquors,
except as otherwise herein provided.
SEC. 918. The Mayor and General Council shall forfeit the
licence of any retailer of either spirituous or lager beer, or malt
liquors, whose place becomes a nuisance or of ill-repute, by
disorder thereat, or otherwise.
SEC. 919. It shall be unlawful for any minor to go into any
place where spirituous or malt liquors are kept for retail, unless by
written consent of parent or guardian, and any minor violating the
provisions of this ordinance shall, on conviction before the
Recorder, pay a fine of not less than five dollars, or work on the
public works not less than five days.
SEC. 920. Any person under twenty-one years of age who shall,
under false representation as to age, buy or allow to be bought for
him, other than by parent or guardian, any liquors, malt or
spirituous, in any retail saloon of this city, shall, upon conviction
before the Recorder, pay a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars,
or serve not less than twenty-five days on the public works.
SEC. 921. All places licensed to retail spirituous or malt liquors
shall have posted in conspicuous places about their place of busi-
ness, "No minors allowed in here," and the same shall be con-
sidered sufficient notice.
SEC. 922. When any person applies to any druggist or other
lawful dealer for the purchase of alcohol, and shall state that it is
bought for mechanical, medicinal, or chemical purposes, the state-
ment or assurance of said purchaser as to the use intended, shall
be a complete protection for such druggist or other lawful dealer
in alcohol, from any prosecution under any city ordinance.
424
AMERICAN LIQUOR LAWS.
Petition and Bond to Sell at Wholesale Spirituous
and Malt Liquors.
PETITION.
TO THE MAYOR AND General CouNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA.
GENTLEMEN,-Desiring to engage in the business of Selling at Wholesale Spirituous
and Malt Liquors at No.
Street, in said City, I present this,
my application, with Bond, in accordance with the ordinances of the City governing the
Respectfully,
same.
BOND-NOT LESS THAN TWO SECURITIES.
Atlanta, Ga.
Know all Men by these Presents, That
Principal, and
Securities, all of said County, are each held and firmly bound unto
the City of Atlanta in the penal sum of Two Thousand Dollars, for the payment of which
we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, and administrators, jointly and severally, by
these presents, signed, sealed, and dated, this
And each
of us hereby waive and renounce for ourselves and families, respectively, the benefit of
all homestead and exemption laws of the said State, or of the United States, as against
the amount of this bond and the payment of the same, or liability thereon.
18
Georgia, Fulton County,
City of Atlanta.
terminate on the
18
The Condition of this Obligation is such, That whereas the said
Principal, has filed his application for Licence to sell at Wholesale
Spirituous and Malt Liquors, at No.
Street, said City, to
day of
Now if the
shall comply with all laws of the said State of Georgia, and
said City, relating to the liquor traffic and the regulation thereof, during the period
named in this Bond, then this obligation to be void; else of force. In case of breach, the
amount of the Bond to be liquidated damages in favour of said City.
said
Attest
State of Georgia, >
Fulton County S
JUSTIFYING OATH OF SURETIES,
State of Georgia,
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
18
Personally appeared before the undersigned
Sureties on the above Bond, who being duly sworn,
depose and say that they are worth the amount of said Bond over and above all debts
and liabilities, and over and above the amount of homestead or exemption allowed by the
laws of said State.
ety }
18
Fulton County
[L.S.]
[L.S.]
Personally appeared before the undersigned
applicant above, who being duly sworn, deposes and
says that he will not, by himself or others, Sell any Spirituous or Malt Liquors in any
quantity less than one gallon, nor permit any so sold to be divided or drank on the
premises where sold, nor will I sell, or permit the same to be sold in any quantity, to a
minor or a person already intoxicated.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
18
[The form of petition, when granted, is endorsed with the words " Approved, with
the right reserved by the City to revoke and withdraw the Licence, upon failure to
comply with, or a violation of any of the Ordinances of the City or laws of the State,
enacted for the government of the same," to which the necessary signatures are
appended.]
APPENDIX II.
425
Petition and Bond to Sell at Retail Spirituous and Malt Liquors.
PETITION.
TO THE MAYOR AND GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA.
GENTLEMEN,-Desiring to engage in the business of selling at retail Spirituous and
Malt Liquors at No.
Street, in said city, I present this, my application
with accompanying consent of owner or agent of said place, and of two of my near
neighbours, one of whom is adjoining neighbour, and Bond, in accordance with the
Ordinance of the city governing same.
Respectfully,
CONSENT OF LANDLORD OR AGent.
The undersigned, being the owner or agent of the place described in the above
petition, hereby consents to the use of the same by the above petitioner, for the purpose
in said petition stated.
Respectfully,.
CERTIFICATE OF ADJACENT NEIGHBOURS-NOT LESS THAN TWO.
The undersigned, near neighbours to petitioner's place above described, and one of
them an adjoining neighbour, recommend the above petitioner as fit to be entrusted
with the licence prayed for.
BOND-NOT LESS THAN TWO SECURITIES.
Atlanta, Ga.
Georgia, Fulton County, \
City of Atlanta.
189
J
>
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that
Principal,
and
Securities, all of said county, are each held and firmly bound unto
the City of Atlanta in the penal sum of ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, for the payment of
which we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, jointly and severally,
by these presents. Signed, sealed, and dated this.
189
And each of
us hereby waive and renounce for ourselves and families respectively, the benefit of all
homestead and exemption laws of said State, or of the United States, as against the
amount of this Bond and the payment of the same, or liability thereon.
•
1
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that whereas the said
Principal, has filed his application for Licence to sell at retail Spirituous and Malt
Liquors at No.
Street, said city, to terminate on the
day of
, 189
with the privilege of payments quarterly, or otherwise as prescribed by Ordinance. Now,
if the said
shall keep an orderly and decent house, and comply with
all laws of the State of Georgia, and said city, relating to the liquor traffic and the
regulation thereof, during the period named in this Bond, then this obligation to be
void else of force. In case of breach, the amount of the Bond to be liquidated
damages in favour of said city.
Attest
(L.S.)
(L.S.)
(L.S.)
JUSTIFYING OATH OF SURETIES.
State of Georgia,
Fulton County.
Personally appeared before the undersigned
Sureties on the above Bond, who being duly sworn, depose and say that they are worth
the amount of the said Bond over and above all debts and liabilities, and over and above
the amount of homestead or exemption allowed by the laws of said State.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
189
AFFIDAVIT.
I.
do solemnly swear that I have never been convicted of violation
of any of the laws of the State regulating the liquor traffic, nor of any City Ordinances
providing for granting Retail Liquor and Beer Licences, or for the conduct of licensed
saloons. That there are no indictments pending nor any accusation on file against me
in any State or City Courts for violation of any such law or ordinance.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
day of
↑
189.
[The petition, when granted, is endorsed with the words-" Approved, with the
right reserved by the City to revoke and withdraw the licence upon failure to comply
with, or a violation of any of the Ordinances of the City enacted for the government of
the same "-and the necessary official signatures.]
Adulteration, 46, 109, 253
Agencies-
for sale of liquor in prohibited places,
43, 45, 107
Alcohol-
use of raw, for drinking, 17, 249, 298
Apothecaries (see Druggists)
Arkansas-
local option in, 366–8
Arrests-
INDEX.
statistics of, liable to be misleading, 39,
109
Beer-
increased consumption of, 10, 198, 276,
283, 299, 362, 392
U.S. tax on dealers in, 17, 43-4
sale of, more affected than spirits by
prohibition, 45, 108, 198
reduced licence fee for, 78-80
spirits sold under cover of, 149, 265,
266, 344, 361, 370
Blackmail, 88, 160
Bonds--
of licensees, 86
sureties on, 86
brewers as sureties, 300
Bootleggers (see Pocket Peddlers)
Boston (see Massachusetts)
special features of liquor trade in, 60
British Columbia, 408
California, 308-315
local self-government as to liquor, 308
wine-growing in, 308
San Francisco-
ordinances of, 309-10
large number of saloons in, 310
movement for high licence, 311-2
corner groceries in, 311—2
police statistics of, 312-3
high suicide rate in, 313
nationality of saloonkeepers in, 313
local prohibition in, 313-4
Pasadena, 314
Riverside, 315
Pomona, 315
Canada, 371-408 (see New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec)
local option in, 53
Scott Act, 53, 371-2, 374, 375, 376,
377, 378-400
agitation for prohibition in, 371, 373-4
Royal Commission on liquor traffic in,
374, 375, 378, 379, 306
Canada, criminal statistics in, 393—7
industrial development of, 1881-91,
399
Cider, 116
Civil Damage Law, 91-4
comprehensive, in Nebraska, 92, 253—4
operation of, 93—4, 258-9, 302
for selling to minors, 89
to drunkards, after notice, 90—1,
302
Clergy-
total abstinence among, 6
Climate-
relation of, to drinking, 11
Clubs-
growth of, 9
in Maine, 114
in Kansas, 134
in Rhode Island, 174, 175, 176
Colorado, 304-307
law of, 305-7
Colorado springs
operation of prohibition in, 304-5
Greeley, 304, 305
Denver, 307
licences refused in a few counties, 307
Committee of Fifty to investigate liquor
question in U.Š., 2 note
Compensation, 12, 78
Connecticut-
licensing system of, 363-6
licensing authorities elected by legis
lature, 364
Constitutional amendments-
votes on proposed, 30
Crime-
increase of, 20 note
how far drinking a cause of, 47-50
Criminals-
M
proportion of, to population, by States,.
19, 20
Dakota (North and South), 33
Direct veto, 52—6, 255
Divorce-
intemperance a cause for, 95
Druggists-
illicit sale of liquor by, 43-4, 60, 106—
7, 112, 161, 162-3, 201, 206
sale of liquor by, for special purposes
96
Drug-store saloons, 41, 96, 106, 168
Drunkards-
habitual, treatment of, 94-5, 218—9
sale of liquor to, forbidden, 89
notice not to sell to, go
428
INDEX.
Drunkenness-
ratio of arrests for, to population, 73
punishment for, 94, 246, 284, 338-9
in Massachusetts, 211–3
a cause for divorce, 95
Dunkin Act (see Ontario, Quebec)
Enforcement of law-
dependent on popular support, 13, 14,
180, 234, 300—1, 344
difficulty of maintaining private efforts
for, 161, 172, 177, 301
affected by politics, 234, 386
by municipal corruption, 301
special officers for, 82 note, 184, 365,
384, 407
Enforcement of State prohibition, strict,
not always favoured by prohibitionists,
14, 33-4 nɔte, 117, 178
effect on, of existing limited application
of law, 26
general remarks on, 35—7, 171—2, 182
in rural districts, 37, 115, 133, 153
report of committee in Massachusetts
as to, 187-91
State police for, 102, 113, 137, 139, 156,
177
Enforcement of local prohibition, 59, 255,
319-20, 370.
Female suffrage, 29 note, 132
Fines-
application of, 95, 254
Forfeiture (sce Licences)
Georgia, 316-335
special features in, 316
local option law of, 316-7
local liquor Acts in, 317
corporation Acts, 318
area and population of, 318
local prohibition in, extent of, 318
operation of, 319-20
Atlanta-
prohibition in, 321
local option campaign in, 321-6
question as to benefit of prohibition
to working classes in, 322-3
"pig" trade in, 323-5
alleged increase of drinking in,
under prohibition, 323-5
rejection of prohibition in, 325
licensing law of, 326-8
efficient enforcement of law, 328-9
statistics of, 331
liquor ordinance of, 416-25
Athens--
municipal control of liquor trade in,
332-3
general liquor laws of, 334-5
Grand Juries-
unwilling to indict in liquor cases, 291
Groceries-
liquor-selling in, 85-6, 289, 311-2,
360
High licence, 61-80
opposition of prohibitionists to, 61-3,
249
attitude of liquor trade towards, 63—4,
249
alleged advantages of, 64-5, 199, 200,
247, 249, 256, 289–90
reduced numbers, 65–7
better police control, 68
stricter compliance with the law, 68
diminished political influence of the
saloon, 69
increased revenue under, 69, 70, 194,
273, 290
application of revenue under, 70-1
question as to effect of, on drinking,
71-5, 248-50
general opinion favourable to, 75-7,
240, 249-50, 257-8
prohibitory, 71, 255, 274, 318, 334, 356
Illinois, 285-295
law of, 285-9
high licence in, 289-90, 295
local option in, 286, 294
prohibition in certain places, 295
Chicago-
liquor ordinances of, 288-9
licences in, 66, 290-1
operations of Citizens' League in,
291-2
police statistics of, 293
Lake, 293-4
Iowa, 149-172 (see also Prohibition
States)
law of, 149-53
enforcement of law in, 153
in 1885, 153 note
area, population, etc., of, 154
Davenport, 155-6
Sioux City, 156-7
Council Bluffs, 157-9
Cedar Rapids, 159-61
Des Moines, 161–3
other towns, 156
State police in, 156, 162
liquor prosecutions in, 163-4
politics and prohibition in, 164-7
proposals to alter the law, 164—5
disposition of liquor-sellers to acquiesce
in prohibition, 167
general results of prohibition in, 168–
71
opium in, 169-70
Juries-
reluctant to convict in liquor cases, 14:
136, 162, 233, 234, 282, 283, 300
contra, 112, 257 note, 259
Kansas, 125-148 (see also Prohibition
States)
law of, 125-30
position of prohibition in, 131-2
area and population of, 132-3
INDEX.
429
Kansas, enforcement of law in, generally,
133-5
clubs, 134
destruction of liquor in, 136
violation of law in most of the larger
towns, 136-8
strict enforcement in Topeka, 139-40
Lawrence, 140
State police in, 137, 139
educational influence of law in, 141–3
prohibition and crime in, 144-6
comparison of, with Nebraska, 147
Topeka and Omaha, 147--8
liquor dealers paying U.S. tax in, 148
Kentucky, 346-350
special legislation in, 346
forbidden by new Constitution, 346
licence law of, 346-8
local option in, 348—9
operation of, 349-50
Law and Order Leagues, 14, 93, 177, 194,
231, 262, 266, 291, 293, 300
Legal procedure-
dilatory, 14, III, 180
Legislation-
more readily passed in America than
in England, 15
liquor, in Congress, 25-6
Licence fees--
application of, 86
Licensing authorities, 81-3
powers of, 82-5
objections to popular election of, 81,
82, 83, 84
Licences-
statutory limitation on number of, 77,
193, 292, 403, 405, 408
limitation of, by licensing authority,
77, 83, 226, 228-9, 277
forbidden outside business quarter of
city, 78, 207, 242 −5, 326, 329
near church or school, 85, 307, 317,
335, 356, 360, 366, 401
question as to effect of reducing
number of, 78
objections to selection in grant of, 83,
235
excessive reduction in number of, dis-
approved, 236, 237
different classes of, 85
forfeiture of, 87—8
disqualification for obtaining, 88
English system of attaching, to premises
approved of, 362
proposal to abolish retail, 329-30
Liquor-
little use of, at table in America, 5, 6
use of, by clerks and employees, 7
by constables, 8
consumption of, in U.S. and in
England, 16
in Canada, 392
amount of, produced, 17, 18
effect of prohibition on consumption of,
38, 40, 168
as a cause of crime, 47, 395-7
punishment for illegal sale of, 95
Liquor dealers—
political influence of, 27, 234, 334
paying U.S. tax, 17, 18
in prohibition States, 42-3, 106—7,
148
periodically fined in prohibition towns,
113, 137, 138, 156—8, 163
tendency of, in some cases to acquiesce
in prohibition, 167
Liquor question-
different aspects of, in America and
England, 2-15
agitation on, 13
Local authorities-
withdrawal from, of control over police
and licensing, 82
danger of entrusting, with licensing
powers, 83, 384
Local option, 51-60
general acceptance of, in principle, 12
opposition of prohibitionists to, 51-2
question as to area of adoption of, 53-4.
302
different modes of applying principle
of, 56-8
enforcement of, 58-60 (see also En-
forcement)
votes taken on side issues, 203-4
increase of licence fee by, 295, 296
Maine, 100-124 (see also Prohibition
States)
payers of U.S. liquor tax in, 43–4
law of, 100-2
by whom enforced, 102
Portland, 103-10
Bangor, 112-3
State police in, 113
other towns, 114-5
seaside resorts, 115
country districts, 115
total abstinence in, 103-4
temperance instruction in, 104
dilatory legal procedure in, III
cider in, 116
politics and prohibition in, 116–8
election of sheriff, 118-9
strength of prohibition party in, 119
crime, insanity, and pauperism in,
120
Sp
-2
raid in Lewiston, 122-4
population, etc., of, 115 note
Manitoba, 390
summary of liquor laws of, 407-8
Maryland, 336-339
no general liquor law in, 336
special legislation in, 336
local option in, 336
Baltimore--
'licence law of, 336-8
reduced number of licences in, 338
statistics of, 338-9
Massachusetts, 187–224
prohibition in, 187–91
vote on constitutional, 187, 224
committee of Legislature on, 187-
91
430
INDEX.
Massachusetts, State police in, 187, 190
local option in, 52, 54, 191, 200-9
annual vote compulsory, 191
statistics of voting, 201-2
tendency to reverse majority, 202,
204-5
election often held on false issue,
203
enforcement of, 200—1, 203, 205-9
licence law of, 101-7
limitation on number of licences, 193
Law and Order League, 194
arguments respecting high licence, 199,
200
Boston-
licence fees in, 192—3
non-residents arrested for drunken-
ness in, 195, 221, 222
statistics of arrests, etc., in, 190,
196, 198, 209, 221
"metropolitan" police force in,
198-9
enforcement of law in, 194, 198
local option voting in, 203-4
number of licences in, 210
Worcester, 193, 204, 205, 208
Cambridge, 205--7
"no licence"
in, 205-6
statistics of, 206—7
other cities, 202 note, 203, 204, 205,
207-9
druggists in, 201
punishment of drunkenness in, 211—4,
217
abolition of fine for, 212
objects of new law, 213-4
its working, 219-21
probation officers in, 214-7
operation of probation system, 216, 217
reformatories in, 218
treatment of habitual drunkards in,
218-9
hospital for inebriates, 219
statistics of crime and drunkenness in,
220-1, 222
strength of prohibition vote in, 223—4
Michigan, 260–267
prohibition repealed in, 260
vote on constitutional, 260
local option in, 260-2
little success of, 261-2
regulating law of, 262--4
statistics of licences in, 264
strong prohibition vote in, 267
Detroit, 265-6
lax enforcement of law in, 265
Minnesota, 238-252
local option in, 238-9
licence law of, 239-40
favourable opinion of high licence in,
240, 249-50
prison statistics of, 246
foreign immigrants in, 246-7, 248—9,
251
effect of high licence in, on drinking,
248-9
low rate of crime and pauperism in,
250-I
Į
Minnesota, insanity in, 251-2
St. Paul, 241-2
statistics of, 245-6
Minneapolis, 242
"patrol limit" law of, 242-5
reduction in number of saloons in, 243
beneficial operation of law in, 243-5
statistics of, 245-6
Minors-
feeling against use of liquor by, 6, 7
sale of liquor to, forbidden, 89
punishment for, 89
Missouri, 267-277
proposal for prohibitory amendment to
Constitution, 267—8
restricted number of licences in, 267, 274
local option in,
the law, 268
operation of, generally ineffective,
270-1, 272
violation of law by druggists, 271-2
dissatisfaction of prohibitionists with,
271-2
licensing law, 268—9
no licences issued in some counties, 272
high licence in, 273-4
St. Louis, 274-6
Germans and brewing in, 275, 276
dissatisfaction with municipal ad-
ministration of, 275—6
statistics of drunkenness and crime
in, 276
Kansas City, 276—7
new licensing system in, 276—7
statistics of, 277
Nebraska, 252-259
first State to adopt high licence, 252
vote on Constitutional amendment in,
252
law of, 252-4
high licence in,
prohibitive operation of, in rural
districts, 254-5
general approval of, 257
expressions of opinion on, 257-8
refusal of licences in, 255
Omaha, 147-8, 255, 256, 257, 259
Lincoln, 255, 256
forfeiture of licences in, 257
civil damage law in, 258-9
Negroes-
liquor question as affecting, 54-5, 320,
349
New Brunswick, 377-380
prohibition in, 372
Scott Act in, 374, 377-8, 396, 398, 400
summary of liquor law of, 402-3
New Hampshire, 33-35
New York, 358-363
licence law of, 358—9
local veto in, 359
New York City,
rules of licensing board of, 359-60
licences in, 360
reduced number of on-licences, 361
statistics of, 361–2
INDEX.
431
New York Brooklyn, 363
North-West Territories, 391
Norwegian system-
proposal to introduce, in Massa-
chusetts, 193 note
Nova Scotia, 375-377
Scott Act in, 375, 376
summary of liquor law of, 400—2
Nuisance-
illicit liquor shop declared to be a, 95
Ohio, 278-285
licences unconstitutional, 278
no restriction on number of liquor.
sellers, 278
tax payable by liquor-sellers, 279
law of, 279-80
Columbus, 280-1
lax administration in, 280—1
Cincinnati, 281-3
non-partisan police commissioners of,
281
difficulty of enforcing law in, 282-3
statistics of, 283
crime and pauperism, 284-5
Ontario, 384-390
Enforcement of law by provincial
officers, 384-5
Scott Act in, 384, 385-7, 388-90
Dunkin Act in, 387
statistics of drunkenness in, 389
licensing law of, 404—7
Toronto, 388
Opium, 169–70, 302, 334
Original Package Decision," 23, 131
<:
Pauperism-
statistics of, untrustworthy, 35 note,
285 note
Paupers-
proportion of, to population, by States,
19, 20
Pennsylvania, 225-237
movement for local option in, 225
vote on prohibitory amendment in, 225
law of, 226-8
reduced number of licences under,
229-30
advantages claimed for licensing sys-
tem of, 228-9
insanity in, 237
pauperism in, 237
Philadelphia--
former licence law of, 226
diminution of drunkenness under
new law, 230-1
Law and Order Society of, 231
enforcement of Sunday closing in,
231-2
defective enforcement of liquor law
in, 233-5
licensing in, 229, 235
Pittsburg, 210 note, 235-6
Alleghany, 237
Permit-holders, 43
Pocket-peddlers, 46, 106
Police-
Population-
per square mile, by States, 19, 20
percentage of urban, 19, 20
Prince Edward Island, 380-382
Probation officers, 214-7
Prohibition, 21-47 (see also Enforcement)
grounds of opposition to, 11, 12
what it is, in America, 21-5, 134-5
movement for, in Congress, 25-6
desire for a more extended application
of, 25—6
supported by non-abstainers, 27, 117,
"metropolitan" system of, 82, 198, 274
P
131
votes on Constitutional, 30
question as to educational influence of,
38, 141-3
effect of, on total consumption, 38—41,
104, 168-9, 185-6, 190
on circumstances of working classes,
40, 322-3
on general prosperity, 143-4, 170—1,
322
alleged increase of home drinking
under, 40, 168
report of Massachusetts Committee on,
188-91
Prohibitionists (see Third Party Prohibi-
tionists)
activity of, 13, 116, 130--1, 173
differences among, 27-9, 31-2, 223,
302
Prohibition States, 32
statistics of, as to population, crime,
and pauperism, 34—5
taxpaying liquor dealers in, 43—4
liquor sellers periodically fined in, 113,
137, 156-8, 163
Pseudo-temperance drinks, 46, 140, 329
Public dinners-
exclusion of wine at, 6
Quebec, 383
Dunkin Act in, 383
Scott Act in, 383
summary of liquor law of, 403-4
Reformatories, 218
Rhode Island, 173–186
prohibition in, 173-82
Providence, 173, 174-5, 185-6
Newport, 174, 176
other towns, 174, 175-7
"
spotters," 176
ineffective prosecutions in, 176, 180–1
licence law of, 182–5
Royal Commission on liquor traffic in
Canada (see Canada)
Saloons (see Liquor dealers)-
performances, etc., forbidden in, 96
Scott Act (see Canada, New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec)
Screens-
forbidden, 95
432
INDEX.
South Carolina, 350-357
"Dispensary Law" of, 350-5
circumstances under which passed,
350-I
prospects of, 354-5
local option in, 355-7
special legislation in, 355-6
local prohibition in, imperfectly en-
forced, 356-7
Charleston, 354-5
Southern States-
local option in, 52, 54-5
Statistics-
of drunkenness and crime, not too
much reliance to be placed on, 39,
109, 245, 248-9
Sunday closing-
generally the rule in America, 88
disregard of, 88, 276, 282, 362
contra, 82, 232, 329, 388
Teetotallers, 5, 103-4
"Temperance instruction," 96-9, 104
controversy respecting text-books, 97,
303
object of promoters of, 97
substance of their teaching, 98
prominence desired for, 99
Texas, 369-370
local option, required by Constitution,
369
operation of, not generally successful,
370
licensing law of, 369-70
Third Party Prohibitionists, 27-30, 116,
119, 166, 223
strength of, at Presidential elections, 30
Treating, 9, 244-5.
forbidden in Nebraska, 96
Vermont, 33-35
Virginia, 339–346
Virginia, local option in, 339-40, 343
restricted operation of, 344-5
licence law of, 340—3
special legislation in, 343
Richmond, 345
Wealth-
statistics of, 39
Whisky-
the national drink in America, 10
Wine-
production of, in United States, 10
in California, 308
Wisconsin, 295–303
local option in, 295
power to raise licence fees by, 295
operation of, 298
law of, 296-8
foreign immigration, 298-9
beer-drinking, 299
Milwaukee, 300
Madison, 300-I
attempt to enforce liquor law in,
300-1
civil damage law inoperative, 302
opium, 302
"C
temperance instruction," 303
position of prohibition in, 301-2
Witnesses-
reluctant to give evidence, 14, 162, 205,
300, 379, 385
Women-
total abstinence among, 6, 7
employment of, in bar-rooms sometimes
forbidden, 7, 90, 307
sale or liquor to, sometimes forbidden,
7, 89, 183, 307
activity of, for prohibition, 13
sale of liquor to, in groceries, 85, 311
Women's Christian Temperance Union, 97.
99, 135, 139, 177, 302
PRINTED BY CASSELL & COMPANY, LIMITED, LA BELLE SAUVAGE, LONDON, E.C.
Selections from Cassell & Company's Publications.
Illustrated, Fine-Art, and other Volumes.
Abbeys and Churches of England and Wales, The: Descriptive,
Historical, Pictorial. Series II. 2IS.
Adventure, The World of. Fully Illustrated. In Three Vols. gs. each.
Africa and its Explorers, The Story of. By DR. ROBERT BROWN,
F.L.S. Illustrated. Complete in 4 Vols., 7s. 6d. each.
Animals, Popular History of. By HENRY SCHERREN, F.Z.S. With
12 Coloured Plates and other Illustrations. 7s. 6d.
Arabian Nights Entertainments, Cassell's Pictorial. 10s. 6d.
Architectural Drawing. By R. PHENE SPIERS. Illustrated. 10s. 6d.
Art, The Magazine of. Yearly Vol. With 14 Photogravures or Etchings,
a Series of Full-page Plates, and about 400 Illustrations. 21s.
Artistic Anatomy. By Prof. M. DUVAL. Cheap Edition. 3s. 6d.
Astronomy, The Dawn of. A Study of the Temple Worship and
Mythology of the Ancient Egyptians. By Prof. J. NORMAN LOCKYER,
C.B., F.R.S., &c. Illustrated. 21s.
Atlas, The Universal. A New and Complete General Atlas of the
World, with 117 Pages of Maps, in Colours, and a Complete Index to
about 125,000 Names. List of Maps, Prices and all Particulars on
Application.
Bashkirtseff, Marie, The Journal of. Cheap Edition. 7s. 6d.
Bashkirtseff, Marie, The Letters of.
7s. 6d.
Battles of the Nineteenth Century. An Entirely New and Original
Beetles, Butterflies, Moths, and Other Insects. By A. W.
KAPPEL,
With 12 Coloured Plates. 3s. 6d.
Cloth, 2s. each.
Cloth, 2s. each. A list of the
Work. Illustrated. Vol. I., gs.
F.E.S., and W. EGMONT KIRBY.
"Belle Sauvage" Library, The.
Volumes post free on application.
Biographical Dictionary, Cassell's New. Cheap Edition, 3s. 6d.
Birds' Nests, Eggs, and Egg-Collecting. By R. KEARTON. Illus-
trated with 16 Coloured Plates. 5s.
Birds' Nests, British: How, Where, and When to Find and
Identify Them. By R. Kearton. With an Introduction by Dr.
BOWDLER SHARPE and upwards of 120 Illustrations of Nests, Eggs,
Young, etc., from Photographs by C. KEarton.
Breech-Loader, The, and How to Use It. By W. W. Greener.
2IS.
Illustrated. New and enlarged edition. 2s. 6d.
Britain's Roll of Glory; or, the Victoria Cross, its Heroes, and
their Valour. By D. H. PARRY. Illustrated. 7s. 6d.
British Ballads. With Several Hundred Original Illustrations. Complete
in Two Vols., cloth, 15s. Half morocco, price on application.
British Battles on Land and Sea. By JAMES GRANT. With about
600 Illustrations. Four Vols., 4to, £1 16s.; Library Edition, £2.
Butterflies and Moths, European. With 61 Coloured Plates. 35s.
Canaries and Cage-Birds, The Illustrated Book of. With 56 Fac-
simile Coloured Plates, 35s. Half-morocco, £2 58.
Captain Horn, The Adventures of. By FRANK STOCKTON.
Capture of the "Estrella, "The. A Tale of the Slave Trade. By
COMMANDER CLAUDE HARDING, R.N. 5s.
6s.
13
Cassell's Family Magazine. Yearly Vol. Illustrated. 7s. 6d.
Cathedrals, Abbeys, and Churches of England and Wales.
Descriptive, Historical, Pictorial. Popular Edition. Two Vols. 25s.
Cats and Kittens. By HENRIETTE RONNER. With Portrait and
Full-page Photogravure Plates and numerous Illustrations. £2 25.
Chums. The Illustrated Paper for Boys. Yearly Volume, 8s.
Cities of the World. Four Vols. Illustrated. 7s. 6d. each.
Civil Service, Guide to Employment in the. Entirely New Edition
Paper, Is. Cloth, Is. 6d.
Clinical Manuals for Practitioners and Students of Medicine. A
List of Volumes forwarded post free on application to the Publishers.
5 G. 8.95
Selections from Cassell & Company's Publications.
Colour. By Prof. A. H. CHURCH. With Coloured Plates. 3s. 6d.
Commons and Forests, English. By the Rt. Hon. G. SHAW-LEFEvre,
M.P. With Maps. Ios. 6d.
Cook, The Thorough Good. By GEORGE AUGUSTUS SALA. 21S.
Cookery, A Year's. By PHYLLIS BROWNE. 3s. 6d.
Cookery Book, Cassell's New Universal. By LIZZIE HERITAGE.
With 12 Coloured Plates and other Illustrations. Strongly bound in
Half-leather. 1,344 pages. 6s.
Cookery, Cassell's Shilling. 110th Thousand. Is.
Cookery, Vegetarian. By A. G. PAYNE.
IS. 6d.
Cooking by Gas, The Art of. By MARIE J. SUGG. Illustrated. 2s.
Cottage Gardening, Poultry, Bees, Allotments, Etc. Edited by
W. RUBINSON. Illustrated. Half-yearly Volumes, 2s. 6d. each.
Count Cavour and Madame de Circourt. Some Unpublished Corres-
pondence. Translated by A. J. BUTLER. Cloth gilt, 10s. 6d.
Countries of the World, The. By Robert Brown, M.A., Ph.D., &c.
Cheap Edition. Profusely Illustrated. Vol. I., 6s.
Cyclopædia, Cassell's Concise. Brought down to the latest date. With
about 600 Illustrations. Cheap Edition. 7s. 6d.
Cyclopædia, Cassell's Miniature. Containing 30,000 subjects. Cloth,
Illus-
2s. 6d. ; half-roxburgh, 4s.
David Balfour, The Adventures of. By R. I. STEvenson.
trated. Two Vols. 6s. each.
Part 2,-Catriona.
Part 1.-Kidnapped.
Defoe, Daniel, The Life of. By THOMAS WRIGHT. Illustrated, 21s.
Diet and Cookery for Common Ailments. By a Fellow of the Royal
College of Physicians, and PHYLLIS BROWNE. 5S.
Dog, Illustrated Book of the. By VERO SHAW, B.A. With 28 Coloured
Plates. Cloth bevelled, 35s.; half-morocco, 45s.
Domestic Dictionary, The. Illustrated. Cloth, 7s. 6d.
Doré Bible, The. With 200 Full-page Illustrations by DORÉ. 15S.
Doré Don Quixote, The. With about 400 Illustrations by Gustave
DORE. Cheap Edition. Bevelled boards, gilt edges, ros. 6d.
Doré Gallery, The. With 250 Illustrations by DORÉ. 4to, 42s.
Doré's Dante's Inferno. Illustrated by GUSTAVE DORÉ. With Preface
by A. J. BUTLER. Cloth gilt or buckram, 7s. 6d.
Doré's Dante's Purgatory and Paradise. Illustrated by GUSTAVE
DORE. Cheap Edition. 7s. 6d.
Doré's Milton's Paradise Lost. Illustrated by DORÉ. 4to, 21S. Popular
Edition. Cloth gilt or buckram gilt, 7s. 6d.
Dorset, Old. Chapters in the History of the County. By H. J. MOULE,
M.A. IOS. 6d.
Dressmaking, Modern, The Elements of. By J. E. DAVIS. Illd. 2s.
Earth, Our, and its Story. By Dr. ROBERT BROWN, F.L.S. With
Coloured Plates and numerous Wood Engravings. Three Vols. gs. each.
Edinburgh, Old and New. With 600 Illustrations. Three Vols. gs. each.
Egypt: Descriptive, Historical, and Picturesque. By Prof. G. EBERS.
With 800 Original Engravings. Popular Edition. In Two Vols. 42s.
Electric Current, The. How Produced and How Used.
By R.
MULLINEUX WALMSLEY, D.Sc., etc. Illustrated. IOS. 6d.
Electricity in the Service of Man. Illustrated. New and Revised
Edition. IOS. 6d.
Electricity, Practical. By Prof. W. E. AYRTON. 7s. 6d.
Encyclopædic Dictionary, The. In Fourteen Divisional Vols., 1os. 6d.
each; or Seven Vols., half-morocco, 21s. each; half-russia, 25s.
England, Cassell's Illustrated History of. With upwards of 2,000
Illustrations. Revised Edition. Complete in Eight Vols., gs. each;
cloth gilt, and embossed gilt top and headbanded, £4 net the set.
}
Selections from Cassell & Company's Publications.
English Dictionary, Cassell's. Giving definitions of more than 100,000
Words and Phrases. Superior Edition, 5s. Cheap Edition, 3s. 6d.
English Literature, Library of. By Prof. HENRY MORLEY. Complete
in Five Vols., 7s. 6d. each.
English Literature, The Dictionary of. By W. DAVENPORT ADAMS.
Cheap Edition, 75.61.
English Literature, Morley's First Sketch of. Revised Edition. 78.6d.
English Literature, The Story of. By ANNA BUCKLAND. 38. 6d.
English Writers. By Prof. HENRY MORLEY. Vols. I. to XI. 5s. each.
Etiquette of Good Society. New Edition. Edited and Revised by
LADY COLIN CAMPBELL. IS.; cloth, Is. 6d.
Fairway Island. By HORACE HUTCHINSON. Cheap Edition. 3s. 6d.
Fairy Tales Far and Near. Re-told by Q. Illustrated. 3s. 6d.
Fiction, Cassell's Popular Library of. 3s. 6d. each.
THE AVEnger of BLOOD. By J.
MACLAREN COBBAN.
THE SNARE OF THE FOWLer.
Mrs. ALEXANDER.
"LA BELLA AND OTHERS.
EGERTON CASTLE,
""
A MODERN DICK WHITTINGTON. By
JAMES PAYN.
THE MAN IN BLACK. By STANLEY
WEYMAN.
A BLOT OF INK. Translated by Q.
and PAUL M. FRANCKE.
THE MEDICINE LADY. By L. T.
MEADE.
OUT OF THE JAWS OF DEATH. By
FRANK BARRETT,
By
By
LEONA. By Mrs. MOLESWORTH.
FOURTEEN TO ONE, ETC. By ELIZA-
BETH STUART PHELPS.
FATHER STAFFORD. By ANTHONY
HOPE.
DR. DUMÁNY'S Wife. By MAURUS
JÓKAI.
THE DOINGs of RafflES HAW. By
CONAN DOYLE.
Field Naturalist's Handbook, The.
THEODORE WOOD. Cheap Edition.
Figuier's Popular Scientific Works. With Several Hundred Illustra-
tions in each. Newly Revised and Corrected. 3s. 6d. each.
THE HUMAN RACE.
MAMMALIA.
OCEAN WOrld.
THE INSECT World.
REPTILES AND BIRDS.
WORLD BEFORE THE DELUGE. THE Vegetable World.
Flora's Feast. A Masque of Flowers.
CRANE. With 40 Pages in Colours.
Football, The Rugby Union Game.
Penned and Pictured by WALTER
5S.
Edited by REV. F. MARSHALL.
Illustrated. New and Enlarged Edition. 7s. 6d.
For Glory and Renown. By D. H. PARRY. Illustrated. 5s.
France, From the Memoirs of a Minister of. By STAnley Weyman.
6s.
Complete in Two
By the Revs. J. G. WOOD and
2s. 6d.
Franco-German War, Cassell's History of the.
Vols. Containing about 500 Illustrations. gs. each.
Free Lance in a Far Land, A. By HERBERT COMPTON. 6s.
Garden Flowers, Familiar. By SHIRLEY HIEBErd. With Coloured
Plates by F. E. HULME, F.L.S. Complete in Five Series. 12s. 6d. each.
Gardening, Cassell's Popular. Illustrated.
Illustrated. Four Vols. 55. each.
Gazetteer of Great Britain and Ireland, Cassell's. Illustrated.
Vols. I. and II. 7s. 6d. each.
Gladstone, William Ewart, The People's Life of. Illustrated. IS.
Gleanings from Popular Authors. Two Vols. With Original Illus-
trations 4to, gs. each. Two Vols. in One, 15s.
Gulliver's Travels. With 88 Engravings by MORTEN. Cheap Edition.
Cloth, 3s. 6d. ; cloth gilt, 5s.
Gun and its Development, The. By W. W. Greener. With 500
Illustrations. Ios. 6d.
Heavens, The Story of the. By Sir ROBERT STAWELL BALL, LL.D.,
F.R.S., F.R.A.S. With Coloured Plates. Popular Edition.
12s. 6d.
Heroes of Britain in Peace and War. With 300 Original Illus-
trations. Two Vols., 3s. 6d. each; or One Vol., 7s. 6d.
Highway of Sorrow, The. By HESBA STRETTON and ******** 6s.
Selections from Cassell & Company's Publications.
Hispaniola Plate (1683-1893). By JOHN BLOUNDELLE-BURTON. 6s.
Historic Houses of the United Kingdom. Profusely Illustrated. Ios. 6d.
History, A Foot-note to. Eight Years of Trouble in Samoa. By
ROBERT LOUIS STEVEnson. 6s.
Home Life of the Ancient Greeks, The. Translated by ALICE
ZIMMERN. Illustrated. Cheap Edition. 5s.
Horse, The Book of the. By SAMUEL SIDNEY. With 17 Full-page
Collotype Plates of Celebrated Horses of the Day, and numerous
other Illustrations. Cloth, 158.
Horses and Dogs. By O. EERELMAN. With Descriptive Text. Trans-
lated from the Dutch by CLARA BELL With Photogravure Frontis-
piece, 12 Exquisite Collotypes, and several full page and other engrav-
ings in the text. 25s. net.
Houghton, Lord: The Life, Letters, and Friendships of Richard
Monckton Milnes, First Lord Houghton. By Sir WEMYSS
•
REID. In Two Vols., with Two Portraits. 325.
Household, Cassell's Book of the. Complete in Four Vols.
58. each.
Four Vols. in Two, half-morocco, 25s.
Hygiene and Public Health. By B. ARThur WhiteleGGE, M.D. 7s. 61.
Impregnable City, The. By MAX PEMBERTON. 6s.
India, Cassell's History of. By JAMES GRANT.
With about 400
Illustrations. Two Vols., gs. each. One Vol., 15s.
Iron Pirate, The. By MAX PEMBERTON. Illustrated. 5s.
Island Nights' Entertainments. By R. L. STEVENSON. Illustrated. 6s.
Kennel Guide, The Practical. By Dr. GORDON STABLES.
Khiva, A Ride to. By Col. FRED BURNABY. New Edition.
IS.
With
Portrait and Seven Illustrations. 3s. 6d.
IS. 6d.
King George, In the Days of. By COL. PERCY GROVES. Illd.
King's Hussar, A. Edited by HERBERT COMPTON. ÓS.
Ladies' Physician, The. By a London Physician. Cheap Edition,
Revised and Enlarged. 3s. 6d.
Lady Biddy Fane, The Admirable. By FRANK BARRETT. New
Edition. With 12 Full-page Illustrations. 6s.
Lady's Dressing-room, The. Translated from the French of BARONESS
STAFFE by LADY COLIN CAMPBELL. 3s. 6d.
Letters, the Highway of, and its Echoes of Famous Footsteps.
By THOMAS ARCHER. Illustrated. IOS. 6d.
Letts's Diaries and other Time-saving Publications published
exclusively by CASSELL & COMPANY. (A list free on application.)
'Lisbeth. A Novel. By LESLIE KEITH. 6s.
List, ye Landsmen! By W. CLARK RUSSELL. 6s.
Little Minister, The. By J. M. BARRIE. Illustrated Edition. 6s.
Little Squire, The. By Mrs. HENRY DE LA PASTURE. 3s. 6d.
Llollandĺlaff Legends, The. By Louis LlollandllafF. IS.; cloth. 25.
Lobengula, Three Years With, and Experiences in South Africa.
By J. COOPER-CHADWICK. Cheap Edition, 2s. 6d.
Locomotive Engine, The Biography of a. By HENRY FRITH. 3s. 6d.
Loftus, Lord Augustus, The Diplomatic Reminiscences of. First
and Second Series. Two Vols., each with Portrait, 32s. each Series.
London, Greater. By EDWARD WAlford. Two Vols. With about
400 Illustrations. gs. each.
London, Old and New. Six Vols., each containing about 200
Illustrations and Maps. Cloth, gs. each.
Lost on Du Corrig; or, 'Twixt Earth and Ocean. By STANDISH
O'GRADY. With 8 Full-page Illustrations.
5S.
Medicine, Manuals for Students of. (A List forwarded post free.)
Modern Europe, A History of. By C. A. FYFFE, M.A. Cheap
Edition in One Volume, 10s. 6d. Library Edition. Illustrated. 3 Vols.,
7s. 6d. each.
Mount Desolation. An Australian Romance. By W. CARlton Dawe.
Cheap Edition. 3s. 6d.
Selections from Cassell & Company's Publications.
Music, Illustrated History of. By EMIL Naumann. Edited by the
Rev. Sir F. A. Gore OuseELEY, Bart. Illustrated. Two Vols. 31s. 6d.
National Library, Cassell's. In 214 Volumes. Paper covers, 3d.; cloth,
6d. (A Complete List of the Voiumes post free on application.)
Natural History, Cassell's Concise. By E. PERCEVAL WRIGHT,
M.A., M.D., F.L.S. With several Hundred Illustrations. 7s. 6d.
Natural History, Cassell's New. Edited by Prof. P. MARTIN
DUNCAN, M.B., F.R.S., F.G.S. Complete in Six Vols. With about
2,000 Illustrations. Cloth, gs. each.
Nature's Wonder Workers. By KATE R. LOVELL. Illustrated. 3s. 6d.
New England Boyhood, A. By EDWARD E. HALE. 3s. 6d.
New Zealand, Picturesque. With Preface by Sir W. B. Perceval,
K.C.M.G. Illustrated. 6s.
Nursing for the Home and for the Hospital, A Handbook of.
By CATHERINE J. WOOD. Cheap Edition. Is. 6d. ; cloth, 25.
Nursing of Sick Children, A Handbook for the. By CATHERINE
J. WOOD. 2s. 6d.
Ohio, The New. A Story of East and West. By EDWARD E. HALE. 6s.
Oil Painting, A Manual of. By the Hon. JOHN COLLIER. 2s. 6d.
Old Maids and Young. By E. D'ESTERrre Keeling. 6s.
Old Boy's Yarns, An. By HAROLD AVERY. With 8 Plates. 3s. 6d.
Our Own Country. Six Vols. With 1,200 Illustrations. 75. 6d. each.
Painting, The English School of. Cheap Edition. 3s. 6d.
Painting, Practical Guides to. With Coloured Plates :-
WATER-COLOUR PAINTING. 58.
NEUTRAL TINT. 5S.
SEPIA, in Two Vols., 3s. each; or
in One Vol., 5S.
FLOWERS, AND HOW TO PAINT
THEM. 5S.
MARINE PAINTING. 5s.
ANIMAL PAINTING.
5S.
5s.
CHINA PAINTING.
FIGURE PAINTING. 7s. 6d.
ELEMENTARY FLOWER PAINT-
ING. 3S.
Paris, Old and New. A Narrative of its History, its People, and its
Places. By H. SUTHERLAND EDWARDS. Profusely Illustrated.
Complete in Two Vols., 9s. each; or gilt edges, 10s. 6d. each.
Peoples of the World, The. In Six Vols. By Dr. ROBERT BROWN.
Illustrated. 75. 6d. each.
Photography for Amateurs. By T. C. Hepworth.
Enlarged and
Revised Edition. Illustrated. IS.; or cloth, Is. 6d.
Phrase and Fable, Dr. Brewer's Dictionary of. Giving the Derivation,
Source, or Origin of Common Phrases, Allusions, and Words that have
a Tale to Tell. Entirely New and Greatly Enlarged Edition. 10s. 6d.
Picturesque America. Complete in Four Vols., with 48 Exquisite Steel
Plates and about 800 Original Wood Engravings. £2 2s. each.
Popular Edition, Vols. I. & II., 18s. each.
[the Set.
Picturesque Canada. With 600 Original Illustrations. Two Vols. £6 6s.
Picturesque Europe. Complete in Five Vols. Each containing
13 Exquisite Steel Plates, from Original Drawings, and nearly 200
Original Illustrations. Cloth, £21; half-morocco, £31 10s.; morocco
gilt, £52 10S. POPULAR EDITION. In Five Vols., 18s. each.
Picturesque Mediterranean, The. With Magnificent Original Illustrations
by the leading Artists of the Day. Complete in Two Vols. £22s. each.
Pigeon Keeper, The Practical. By Lewis WRIGHT. Illustrated. 3s. 6d.
Pigeons, Fulton's Book of. Edited by Lewis Wright. Revised,
Enlarged and supplemented by the Rev. W. F. LUMLEV. With 50
Full page Illustrations. Popular Edition. In One Vol., 10s. 6d.
Planet, The Story of Our. By T. G. BONNEY, D.Sc., LL.D., F.R.S.,
F.S.A., F.G.S. With Coloured Plates and Maps and about
Illustrations. 31s. 6d.
100
Pocket Library, Cassell's. Cloth, rs. 4d. each.
A King's Diary. By PERCY WHITE.
A White B by. By JAMES WELSH,
The Little Huguenot. By MAX PEMBERTON
A Whirl Asunder. By GERTRUDE ATHERTO
Selections from Cassell & Company's Publications.
Poems, Aubrey de Vere's. A Selection. Edited by J. DENNIS. 38. 6d.
Poets, Cassell's Miniature Library of the. Price Is. each Vol.
Pomona's Travels. By FRANK R. STOCKTON. Illustrated. 5s.
Portrait Gallery, The Cabinet. Complete in Five Series, each containing
36 Cabinet Photographs of Eminent Men and Women. 15s. each.
Portrait Gallery, Cassell's Universal. Containing 240 Portraits of
Celebrated Men and Women of the Day. With brief Memoirs and
facsimile Autographs. Cloth, 6s.
Poultry Keeper, The Practical. By L. WRIGHT. Illustrated. 3s. 6d.
Poultry, The Book of. By LEWIS WRIGHT. Popular Edition. ros. 6d.
Poultry, The Illustrated Book of. By LEWIS WRIGHT. With Fifty
Coloured Plates. New and Revised Edition. Cloth, gilt edges (Price
on application). Half-morocco, £2 25.
Prison Princess, A. By Major ARTHUR GRIFFITHS. 6s.
"Punch," The History of. By M. H. SPIELMANN. With upwards of 160
Illustrations, Portraits, and Facsimiles. Cloth, 16s.; Large Paper
Edition, £2 2s. net.
Q's Works, Uniform Edition of. 5s. each.
Dead Man's Rock.
The Splendid Spur.
The Blue Pavilions.
The Astonishing History of Troy Town.
"I Saw Three Ships," and other Winter's Tales.
Noughts and Crosses.
The Delectable Duchy.
Queen Summer; or, The Tourney of the Lily and the Rose. With Forty
Pages of Designs in Colours by WALTER CRANE. 6s.
Queen, The People's Life of their. By Rev. E. J. HARDY, M.A. 1s.
Queen Victoria, The Life and Times of. By ROBERT WILSON. Com-
plete in Two Vols. With numerous Illustrations. gs. each.
Queen's Scarlet, The. By G. MANVILLE FENN. Illustrated. 5s.
Rabbit-Keeper, The Practical. By CUNICULUS. Illustrated. 3s. 6d.
Railways, Our. Their Origin, Development, Incident, and Romance.
By JOHN PENDLETON. Illustrated. 2 Vols., 245.
Railway Guides, Official Illustrated. With Illustrations, Maps, &c.
Price Is. each; or in cloth, 25. each.
LONDON AND NORTH Western
RAILWAY.
GREAT WESstern Railway,
MIDLAND RAILWAY.
K
GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY.
LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN
RAILWAY.
LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH
COAST RAILWAY.
SOUTH-EAStern RailwAY.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY.
Railway Guides, Official Illustrated. Abridged and Popular Editions.
Paper covers, 3d. each.
Great Eastern RAILWAY.
LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN
RAILWAY.
LONDON ANd South Western
RAILWAY.
Railway Library, Cassell's. Crown 8vo, boards, 2s. each. (A List of
the Vols. post free on application.)
Red Terror, The. A Story of the Paris Commune. By EDWARD KING.
Illustrated. 3s. 6d.
Rivers of Great Britain: Descriptive, Historical, Pictorial.
THE ROYAL RIVER: The Thames, from Source to Sea. 16s.
Rivers of the East Coast. Popular Edition, 16s.
Robinson Crusoe, Cassell's New Fine-Art Edition of. 7s. 6d.
Romance, The World of. Illustrated. Cloth, gs.
Royal Academy Pictures, 1895. With upwards of 200 magnificent
reproductions of Pictures in the Royal Academy of 1895. 7s. 6d.
Russo-Turkish War, Cassell's History of. With about 500 Illus
9s. each.
trations. Two Vols.
Sala, George Augustus, The Life and Adventures of. By Himself.
In Two Vols., demy 8vo, cloth, 32s.
Saturday Journal, Cassell's. Yearly Volume, cloth, 7s. 6d.
Selections from Cassell & Company's Publications.
Science Series, The Century. Consisting of Biographies of Eminent
Scientific Men of the present Century. Edited by Sir HENRy Roscoe,
D.C.L., F.R.S. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. each.
John Dalton and the Rise of Modern Chemistry. By Sir HENRY E.
ROSCOE, F.R.S.
By
Major Rennell, F.R.S., and_the_Rise of English Geography.
CLEMENTS R. MARKHAM, C.B., F. R.S., President of the Royal Geographical
Society.
Justus Von Liebig: His Life and Work. By W. A. SHENSTONE, F.I.C.
The Herschels and Modern Astronomy. By MISS AGNES M. CLERKE.
Charles Lyell: His Life and Work. By Professor T. G. BONNEY, F.R.S.
Science for All. Edited by Dr. ROBERT BROWN. Five Vols. gs. each.
Scotland, Picturesque and Traditional. A Pilgrimage with Staff
and Knapsack. By G. E. EYRE-TODD. 6s.
Sea, The Story of the. An Entirely New and Original Work. Edited
by Q. Illustrated. Vol. I. gs.
5s.
Sea Wolves, The. By MAX PEMBERTON. Illustrated. 6s.
Shadow of a Song, The. A Novel. By CECIL HARLEY.
Shaftesbury, The Seventh Earl of, K.G., The Life and Work of. By
EDWIN HODDER. Cheap Edition. 3s. 6d.
Shakespeare, The Plays of. Edited by Professor HENRY MORLEY.
Complete in Thirteen Vols., cloth, 21s. ; half-morocco, cloth sides, 42s.
Shakespeare, Cassell's Quarto Edition. Containing about 600 Illus-
trations by H. C. SELOUS. Complete in Three Vols., cloth gilt, £33s.
Shakespeare, The England of. New Edition. By E. GOADBY. With
Full-page Illustrations. 2s. 6d.
Shakspere's Works. Édition de Luxe.
"King Henry VIII." Illustrated by SIR JAMES LINTON, P.R.I.
(Price on application.)
"Othello." Illustrated by FRANK DICKSEE, R.A. £3 10s.
<t
King Henry IV." Illustrated by EDUARD GRÜTZNER. £3 10S.
rr
As You Like It." Illustrated by ÉMILE BAYARD. £3 IOS.
Shakspere, The Leopold. With 400 Illustrations. Cheap Edition.
3s. 6d. Cloth gilt, gilt edges, 5s.; Roxburgh, 7s. 6d.
Shakspere, The Royal. With Steel Plates and Wood Engravings.
Three Vols. 15s. each.
Sketches, The Art of Making and Using. From the French of
G. FRAIPONT. BY CLARA BELL. With 50 Illustrations. 2s. 6d.
Smuggling Days and Smuggling Ways. By Commander the Hon.
HENRY N. SHORE, R.N. With numerous Illustrations. 7s. 6d.
Social England. A Record of the Progress of the People. By various
writers. Edited by H. D.TRAILL, D.C.L. Vols. I., II., & III., 15s. each.
Vol. IV., 175.
Social Welfare, Subjects of. By Rt. Hon. LORD PLAYFAIR, K. C. B. 7s.6d.
Sports and Pastimes, Cassell's Complete Book of. Cheap Edition.
With more than 900 Illustrations. Medium 8vo, 992 pages, cloth, 3s. 6d.
Squire, The. By Mrs. PARR. Popular Edition. 6s.
Standishs of High Acre, The. A Novel. By GILBERT SHELDON.
Two Vols. 21S.
Star-Land. By Sir R. S. BALL, LL.D., &c.
Illustrated. 6s.
Statesmen, Past and Future. 6s.
Story of Francis Cludde, The. By STANLEY J. WEYMAN. 6s.
Story Poems. For Young and Old. Edited by E. DAVENPORT. 3s. 6d.
Sun, The. By Sir ROBERT STAWELL BALL, LL.D., F.R.S., F.R.A.S.
With Eight Coloured Plates and other Illustrations. 215.
Sunshine Series, Cassell's. IS. each.
(A List of the Volumes post free on application.)
Thackeray in America, With. By EYRE CROWE, A.R.A. III. 10s. 6d.
The "Treasure Island" Series. Illustrated Edition. 3s. 6d. each.
Treasure Island By ROBERT The Black Arrow. By ROBERT
LOUIS STEVENSON,
By
King Solomon's Mines.
RIDER HAGGARD,
By H.
LOUIS STEVENSON.
The Master of Ballantrae.
ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON.
Selections from Cassell & Company's Publications.
Things I have Seen and People I have Known. By G. A. SALa.
With Portrait and Autograph. 2 Vols. 21S.
Tidal Thames, The. By GRANT Allen. With India Proof Impres-
sions of Twenty magnificent Full-page Photogravure Plates, and with
many other Illustrations in the Text after Original Drawings by
W. L. WYLLIE, A.R.A. Half morocco, £5 15s. 6d.
Tiny Luttrell. By E. W. HORNUNG. Popular Edition. 6s.
To Punish the Czar: a Story of the Crimea. By HORACE
HUTCHINSON. Illustrated. 3s. 6d.
Treatment, The Year-Book of, for 1896. A Critical Review for Prac
titioners of Medicine and Surgery. Twelfth Year of Issue. 7s. 6d.
Trees, Familiar. By G. S. BOULGER, F.L.S. Two Series. With 40
12s. 6d. each.
full-page Coloured Plates by W. H. J. Boot.
Tuxter's Little Maid. By G. B. BURGIN. 6s.
"Unicode": the Universal Telegraphic Phrase Book.
Desk or
Pocket Edition. 2s. 6d.
United States, Cassell's History of the. By EDMUND OLLIER.
With 600 Illustrations. Three Vols. gs. each.
Universal History, Cassell's Illustrated. Four Vols. gs. each.
Vision of Saints, A. By Sir LEWIS MORRIS. With 20 Full-page Illustra
tions. Crown 4to, cloth, 10s. 6d. Non-illustrated Edition, 6s.
Wandering Heath. Short Stories. By Q.
65.
War and Peace, Memories and Studies of. By ARCHIBALD FORBES. 16S.
Westminster Abbey, Annals of. By E. T. BRADLEY (Mrs. A. MURRAY
SMITH). Illustrated. With a Preface by Dean BRADLEY. 63s.
White Shield, The. By BERTRAM MITFORD. 6s.
Wild Birds, Familiar. By W. SWAYSLAND. Four Series. With 40
Coloured Plates in each. (Sold in sets only; price on application.)
Wild Flowers, Familiar. By F. E. HULME, F.L.S., F.S.A. Five Series.
With 40 Coloured Plates in each. (In sets only; price on application.)
Wild Flowers Collecting Book. In Six Parts, 4d. each.
Wild Flowers Drawing and Painting Book. In Six Parts, 4d. each.
Windsor Castle, The Governor's Guide to. By the Most Noble the
Profusely Illustrated. Limp Cloth, Is.
MARQUIS OF LORNE, K.T.
Cloth boards, gilt edges, 2s.
Wit and Humour, Cassell's New World of. With New Pictures and
New Text. 6s.
With Claymore and Bayonet. By Col. PERCY GROVES. Illd. 5s.
Wood, Rev. J. G., Life of the. By the Rev. THEODORe Wood.
Extra crown 8vo, cloth. Cheap Edition. 3s. 6d.
Work. The Illustrated Weekly Journal for Mechanics.
Vol. IX., 4s.
"Work" Handbooks. Practical Manuals prepared under the direction
of PAUL N. HASLUCK, Editor of Work. Illustrated. IS. each.
World Beneath the Waters, A. By Rev. GERARD BANCKS. 3s. 6d.
World of Wonders. Two Vols. With 400 Illustrations. 7s. 6d. each.
Wrecker, The. By R. L. STEVENSON and L. OSBOURNE. Illustrated. 6s.
Yule Tide. Cassell's Christmas Annual, IS.
ILLUSTRATED MAGAZINES.
The Quiver. Monthly, 6d.
Cassell's Family Magazine. Monthly, 6d.
"Little Folks" Magazine. Monthly, 6d.
The Magazine of Art. Monthly, Is. 4d.
"Chums." Illustrated Paper for Boys. Weekly, id.; Monthly, Ed.
Cassell's Saturday Journal. Weekly, 1d.; Monthly, 6d.
Work. Weekly, 1d.; Monthly, 6d.
Cottage Gardening. Weekly, d.; Monthly, 3d.
CASSELL & COMPANY, LIMITED, Ludgate Hill, London.
Selections from Cassell & Company's Publications.
Bibles and Religious Works.
Bible Biographies. Illustrated. 2s. 6d. each.
The Story of Moses and Joshua. By the Rev. J. TELFORD.
The Story of the Judges. By the Rev. J. WYCLIFFE GEDGE.
The Story of Samuel and Saul. By the Rev. D. C. ToVEY.
The Story of David. By the Rev. J. WILD.
The Story of Joseph. Its Lessons for To-Day. By the Rev. GEORGE BAINTON
The Story of Jesus. In Verse. By J. R. MACDUFF, D.D.
Bible, Cassell's Illustrated Family. With goo Illustrations. Leather,
gilt edges, £2 10s.
Bible Educator, The. Edited by the Very Rev. Dean PLUMPTRE, D.D.
With Illustrations, Maps, &c. Four Vols., cloth, 6s. each.
Bible Manual, Cassell's Illustrated. By the Rev. ROBERT HUNTER,
LL.D. Illustrated. 75. 6d.
Bible Student in the British Museum, The. By the Rev. J. G.
KITCHIN, M.A. New and Revised Edition. Is. 4d.
Biblewomen and Nurses. Yearly Volume. Illustrated. 3s.
Bunyan, Cassell's Illustrated. With 200 Original Illustrations. Cheap
Edition. 7s. 6d.
Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. Illustrated throughout. Cloth, 3s. 6d.;
cloth gilt, gilt edges, 55.
Child's Bible, The. With 200 Illustrations.
With 200 Illustrations. 150th Thousand. 7s. 6d.
Child's Life of Christ, The. With 200 Illustrations. 7s. 6d.
"Come, ye Children." Illustrated. By Rev. BENJAMIN WAUGH. 3s. 6d.
Conquests of the Cross. Illustrated. In 3 Vols. gs. each.
Doré Bible. With 238 Illustrations by GUSTAVE DORÉ. Small folio, best
morocco, gilt edges, £15. Popular Edition. With 200 Illustrations. 155.
Early Days of Christianity, The. By the Very Rev. Dean FARRAR,
Ď.D., F.R.S. LIBRARY EDITION. Two Vols., 24s.; morocco, £2 2s.
POPULAR EDITION. Complete in One Volume, cloth, 6s.; cloth, gilt
edges, 7s. 6d.; Persian morocco, 10s. 6d. ; tree-calf, 155.
Family Prayer-Book, The. Edited by Rev. Canon GARBETT, M.A.,
and Rev. S. MARTIN. With Full page Illustrations. New Edition.
Cloth, 7s. 6d.
Gleanings after Harvest. Studies and Sketches by the Rev. JOHN R.
VERNON, M.A. Illustrated. 6s.
"Graven in the Rock." By the Rev. Dr. SAMUEL KINNS, F.R.A.S.,
Author of "Moses and Geology." Illustrated.
Illustrated. 12s. 6d.
"Heart Chords." A Series of Works by Eminent Divines. Bound in
cloth, red edges, One Shilling each.
MY BIBLE. By the Right Rev. W. BOYD
CARPENTER, Bishop of Ripon.
MY FATHER. By the Right Rev. ASH-
TON OXENDEN, late Bishop of Mont-
real.
MY WORK FOR GOD. By the Right
Rev. Bishop COTTERILL.
MY OBJECT IN LIFE. By the Very
Rev. Dean FARRAR, D.D.
MY ASPIRATIONS. By the Rev. G.
MATHESON, D.D.
MY EMOTIONAL LIFE.
By the Rev.
Preb. CHADWICK, D.D.
MY BODY. By the Rev. Prof. W. G.
BLAIKIE, D.D.
MY GROWTH IN DIVINE LIFE. By the
Rev. Preb. REYNOLDS, M.A.
CREATION. By Harvey Goodwin, D.D.,
late Bishop of Carlisle.
THE DIVINITY OF OUR LORD. By
the Lord Bishop of Derry.
MIRACLES. By the Rev. Brownlow
Maitland, M.A.
MY SOUL. By the Rev. P. B. POWER,
M.A.
MY HEREAFTER. By the Very Rev.
Dean BICKERSTETH.
MY WALK WITH GOD.
By the Very
Rev. Dean MONTGOMERY.
MY AIDS TO THE DIVINE LIFE. By
the Very Rev. Dean BOYLE.
MY SOURCES OF STRENGTH.
By the
Rev. E. E. JENKINS, M. A., Secretary
of Wesleyan Missionary Society.
Helps to Belief. A Series of Helpful Manuals on the Religious
Difficulties of the Day. Edited by the Rev. TEIGNMOUTH SHORE, M.A.,
Canon of Worcester. Cloth, Is. each.
PRAYER, By the Rev. Canon Shore,
M.A.
THE ATONEMENT. By William Connor
Magee, D.D., Late Archbishop of
York,
5 B. 8.95
Selections from Cassell & Company's Publications.
Holy Land and the Bible, The. By the Rev. C. GEIKIE, D.D., LL.D.
(Edin.). Two Vols., 24s. Illustrated Edition, One Vol., 21s.
Life of Christ, The. By the Very Rev. Dean FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S
LIBRARY EDITION. Two Vols. Cloth, 24s.; morocco, 42s.
CHEAP
ILLUSTRATED EDITION. Cloth, 7s. 6d.; cloth, full gilt, gilt edges,
10s. 6d. POPULAR EDITION (Revised and Enlarged), 8vo, cloth, gilt
edges, 7s. 6d. ; Persian morocco, gilt edges, 10s. 6d. ; tree-calf, 15s.
Moses and Geology; or, The Harmony of the Bible with Science.
By the Rev. SAMUEL KINNS, Ph.D., F.R.A.S. Illustrated. New
Edition. Ios. 6d.
My Last Will and Testament. By HYACINTHE LOYSON (Père
Hyacinthe). Translated by FABIAN WARE. IS.; cloth, Is. 6d.
New Light on the Bible and the Holy Land. By B. T. A. EVEtts,
M.A. Illustrated. 21S.
New Testament Commentary for English Readers, The. Edited
by Bishop ELLICOTT. In Three Volumes. 21s. each. Vol. I.-The Four
Gospels. Vol. II.-The Acts, Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Vol.
III. The remaining Books of the New Testament.
New Testament Commentary. Edited by Bishop ELLICOTT.
Handy
Volume Edition. St. Matthew, 3s. 6d. St. Mark, 3s. St. Luke,
3s. 6d. St. John, 3s. 6d. The Acts of the Apostles, 3s. 6d. Romans,
2s. 6d. Corinthians I. and II., 3s. Galatians, Ephesians, and Philip-
pians, 3s. Colossians, Thessalonians, and Timothy, 35. Titus,
Philemon, Hebrews, and James, 3s. Peter, Jude, and John, 3s.
The Revelation, 3s. An Introduction to the New Testament, 3s. 6d.
Old Testament Commentary for English Readers, The. Edited
by Bishop ELLICOTT. Complete in Five Vols. 21s. each. Vol. I.-Genesis
to Numbers. Vol. II. Deuteronomy to Samuel II. Vol. III.
Kings I. to Esther. Vol. IV.-Job to Isaiah. Vol. V. -Jeremiah to
Malachi.
Old Testament Commentary. Edited by Bishop ELLICOTT. Handy
Volume Edition. Genesis, 35. 6d. Exodus, 3s. Leviticus, 3s.
Numbers, 2s. 6d. Deuteronomy, 2s. 6d.
Plain Introductions to the Books of the Old Testament. Edited
by Bishop ELLICOTT. 3s. 6d.
Plain Introductions to the Books of the New Testament. Edited
by Bishop ELLICOTT. 3s. 6d.
Protestantism, The History of.
By the Rev. J. A. WYLIE, LL.D.
Containing upwards of 600 Original Illustrations. Three Vols. gs. each.
Quiver Yearly Volume, The. With about 600 Original Illustrations.
7s. 6d.
Religion, The Dictionary of By the Rev. W. BENHAM, B.D.
Cheap Edition. IOS. 6d.
St. George for England; and other Sermons preached to Children. By
the Rev. T. TEIGNMOUTH SHORE, M.A., Canon of Worcester. 5S.
St. Paul, The Life and Work of. By the Very Rev. Dean FARRAR,
D.D., F.R.S. LIBRARY EDITION. Two Vols., cloth, 24S.; calf, 42s.
ILLUSTRATED EDITION, complete in One Volume, with about 300
Illustrations, £I IS.; morocco, £2 2s. POPULAR EDITION. One
Volume, 8vo, cloth, 6s.; cloth, gilt edges, 7s. 6d. ; Persian morocco,
Ios. 6d. ; tree-calf, 158.
Shall We Know One Another in Heaven? By the Rt. Rev. J. C.
RYLE, D.D., Bishop of Liverpool. Cheap Edition. Paper covers, 6d.
Searchings in the Silence. By Rev. GEORGE Matheson, D.D. 3s. 6d.
"Sunday," Its Origin, History, and Present Obligation. By the
Ven. Archdeacon HESSEY, D.C.L. Fifth Edition.
7s. 6d.
Twilight of Life, The. Words of Counsel and Comfort for the
Aged. By the Rev. JOHN Ellerton, M.A. Is. 6d.
Selections from Cassell & Company's Publications.
Natural History Coloured Wall Sheets, Cassell's New.
17 Sub.
jects. Size 39 by 31 in. Mounted on rollers and varnished. 3s. each.
Object Lessons from Nature. By Prof. L. C. MIALL, F.L.S. Fully
Illustrated. New and Enlarged Edition. Two Vols., Is. 6d. each.
Physiology for Schools. By A. T. SCHOFIELD, M.D., M.R.C.S., &c.
Illustrated. Cloth, Is. gd.; Three Parts, paper covers, 5d. each; or
cloth limp, 6d. each.
Poetry Readers, Cassell's New. Illustrated. 12 Books, Id. each; or
complete in one Vol., cloth, Is. 6d.
Popular Educator, Cassell's NEW.
New Coloured Plates, New Type, &c.
Four Vols., half-morocco, 50s. the set.
Readers, Cassell's "Belle Sauvage." An entirely New Series. Fully
Illustrated. Strongly bound in cloth. (List on application.)
Readers, Cassell's Higher Class." (List on application.)
Readers, Cassell's Readable. Illustrated. (List on application.)
Readers for Infant Schools, Coloured. Three Books. 4d. each.
Reader, The Citizen. By H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER, M.P. Illustrated.
6.
Is. 6d. Also a Scottish Edition, cloth, Is. 6d.
Reader, The Temperance. By Rev. J. DENNIS HIRD.
Is. 6d.
Readers, Geographical, Cassell's New. With numerous Illustrations.
(List on application.)
Readers, The "Modern School" Geographical. (List on application.)
Readers, The Modern School." Illustrated.
Illustrated. (List on application.)
Reckoning, Howard's Art of. By C. FRUSHER HOWARD.
covers, IS.; cloth, 2s. New Edition, 5s.
Paper
Is. 6d.
IS.
――
Round the Empire. By G. R. PARKIN. Fully Illustrated.
Science Applied to Work. By J. A. BOWER. IS.
Science of Everyday Life By J. A. BOWER. Illustrated. Is.
Shade from Models, Common Objects, and Casts of Ornament,
How to. By W. E. SPARKES. With 25 Plates by the Author. 35.
Shakspere's Plays for School Use. 9 Books. Illustrated. 6d. each.
Spelling, A Complete Manual of. By J. D. MORELL, LL.D.
Technical Manuals, Cassell's. Illustrated throughout:
Handrailing and Staircasing, 3s. 6d.-Bricklayers, Drawing for, 35.-
Building Construction, 2s. — Cabinet-Makers, Drawing for, 3s.
Carpenters and Joiners. Drawing for, 3s. 6d.-Gothic Stonework, 3s.-
Linear Drawing and Practical Geometry, 25.-Linear Drawing and
Projection. The Two Vols. in One, 3s. 6d.-Machinists and Engineers,
Drawing for, 4s. 6d.-Metal-Plate Workers, Drawing for, 3s.-Model
Drawing, 3s.-Orthographical and Isometrical Projection, 2s.-Practical
Perspective, 3s.-Stonemasons, Drawing for, 35.-Applied Mechanics,
by Sir R. S. Ball, LL.D., 2s.-Systematic Drawing and Shading, 2s.
Technical Educator, Cassell's New. With Coloured Plates and En-
gravings. Complete in Six Volumes, 5s. each.
Technology, Manuals of. Edited by Prof. AYRTON, F.R.S., and
RICHARD WORMELL, D.Sc., M.A. Illustrated throughout :-
The Dyeing of Textile Fabrics, by Prof. Hummel, 5s.-Watch and
Clock Making, by D. Glasgow, Vice-President of the British Horo-
logical Institute, 4s. 6d.-Steel and Iron, by Prof. W. H. Greenwood,
F.C.S., M.I.C.E., &c., 5s.-Spinning Woollen and Worsted, by W. S.
B. McLaren, M. P., 4s. 6d.- Design in Textile Fabrics, by T. R. Ashen-
hurst, 4s. 6d.-Practical Mechanics, by Prof. Perry, M. E., 3s. 6d.—
Cutting Tools Worked by Hand and Machine, by Prof. Smith, 3s. 6d.
Things New and Old; or, Stories from English History.
By
H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER, M. P. Fully Illustrated, and strongly bound
in Cloth. Standards I. & II.. gd. each; Standard III., Is. ;
Standard IV., Is. 3d.; Standards V., VI., & VII., is. 6d. each.
This World of Ours. By H, O. ARNOLD-FORSTER, M.P. Illustrated.
3s. 6d.
66
With Revised Text, New Maps,
In 8 Vols., 5s. each; or in
Selections from Cassell & Company's Publications.
Educational Works and Students' Manuals.
Agricultural Text-Books, Cassell's. (The "Downton" Series.) Edited
by JOHN WRIGHTSON, Professor of Agriculture. Fully Illustrated,
2s. 6d. each.-Farm Crops. By Prof. WRIGHTSON.-Soils and
Manures. By J. M. H. MUNRO, D.Sc. (London), F.I.C., F.C.S.
-Live Stock. By Prof. WRIGHTSON.
Alphabet, Cassell's Pictorial. 3s. 6d.
Arithmetics, Cassell's "Belle Sauvage." By GEORGE RICKS, B.Sc.
Lond. With Test Cards. (List on application.)
Atlas, Cassell's Popular. Containing 24 Coloured Maps. 2s. 6d.
Book-Keeping. By THEODORE JONES. For Schools, 2s.; cloth, 3s.
For the Million, 2s. ; cloth, 3s. Books for Jones's System, 2s.
British Empire Map of the World. By G. R. PARKIN and J. G.
BARTHOLOMEW, F.R.G.S. 255.
2s. 6d.
Chemistry, The Public School. By J. H. ANDERSON, M.A.
Cookery for Schools. By LIZZIE HERITAGE. 6d.
Dulce Domum. Rhymes and Songs for Children.
Edited by JOHN
FARMER, Editor of "Gaudeamus," &c. Old Notation and Words, 5s.
N.B.-The words of the Songs in "Dulce Domum" (with the Airs both
in Tonic Sol-fa and Old Notation) can be had in Two Parts, 6d. each.
Euclid, Cassell's. Edited by Prof. WALLACE, M.A. IS.
Euclid, The First Four Books of. New Edition. In paper, 6d. ; cloth, gd.
Experimental Geometry. By PAUL BERt.
BY PAUL BERT. Illustrated. Is. 6d.
French, Cassell's Lessons in. New and Revised Edition. Parts I.
and II., each 2s. 6d. ; complete, 4s. 6d. Key, Is. 6d.
French-English and English-French Dictionary.
Entirely New
and Enlarged Edition. Cloth, 3s. 6d. ; superior binding, 5s.
French Reader, Cassell's Public School. By G. S. CONRAD. 2s. 6d.
Gaudeamus. Songs for Colleges and Schools. Edited by JOHN FARmer.
5s. Words only, paper covers, 6d. ; cloth, gd.
German Dictionary, Cassell's New (German-English, English-
German). Cheap Edition. Cloth, 3s. 6d. Superior Binding, 5s.
Hand and Eye Training. By G. RICKS, B.Sc. 2 Vols., with 16 Coloured
Plates in each Vol. Cr. 4to, 6s. each. Cards for Class Use, 5 sets, Is. each.
Hand and Eye Training. By GEORGE RICKS, B.Sc., and JOSEPH
VAUGHAN. Illustrated. Vol. I. Designing with Coloured Papers.
Vol. II. Cardboard Work. 2s. each. Vol. III. Colour Work
and Design, 3s.
Historical Cartoons, Cassell's Coloured. Size 45 in. × 35 in., 2s.
each. Mounted on canvas and varnished, with rollers, 5s. each.
Italian Lessons, with Exercises, Cassell's. Cloth, 3s. 6d.
Latin Dictionary, Cassell's New. (Latin-English and English-Latin.)
Revised by J. R. V. MARCHANT, M.A., and J. F. CHARLES, B.A.
Cloth, 3s. 6d. Superior Binding, 5s.
Latin Primer, The First. By Prof. POSTGATE. IS.
Latin Primer, The New. By Prof. J. P. POSTGATE. 2s. 6d.
Latin Prose for Lower Forms. By M. A. BAYFIELD, M.A.
M.A. 2s. 6d.
Laws of Every-Day Life. By H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER, M.P. Is. 6d.
Special Edition on Green Paper for Persons with Weak Eyesight. 2s.
Lessons in Our Laws; or, Talks at Broadacre Farm. By H. F.
Lester, B.A. Parts I. and II., is. 6d. each.
Little Folks' History of England. Illustrated. Is. 6d.
Making of the Home, The. By Mrs. SAMUEL A. BARNETT.
Is. 6d.
Marlborough Books:-Arithmetic Examples, 35. French Exercises,
3s. 6d. French Grammar, 2s. 6d. German Grammar, 3s. 6d.
Mechanics and Machine Design, Numerical Examples in Practical.
By R. G. BLAINE, M.E. New Edition, Revised and Enlarged. With
Illustrations. Cloth, 2s. 6d.
By the Rev.
79
Mechanics for Young Beginners, A First Book of.
J. G. EASTON, M.A. 4s. 6d.
Selections from Cassell & Company's Publications.
1
Books for Young People.
"Little Folks " Half-Yearly Volume. Containing 432 4to pages, with
about 200 Illustrations, and Pictures in Colour. Boards, 3s. 6d.; cloth, 5s.
Bo-Peep. A Book for the Little Ones. With Original Stories and Verses.
Illustrated throughout. Yearly Volumne. Boards, 2s. 6d. ; cloth, 3s. 6d.
Beneath the Banner. Being Narratives of Noble Lives and Brave
Deeds. By F. J. CROSS. Illustrated. Limp cloth, Is. Cloth gilt, 28.
Good Morning! Good Night! By F. J. CROSS. Illustrated. Limp
cloth, Is., or cloth boards, gilt lettered, 2s.
53.
Five Stars in a Little Pool. By EDITH CARRINGTON. Illustrated. 6s.
The Cost of a Mistake. By SARAH PITT. Illustrated. New Edition, 2s 6d.
Beyond the Blue Mountains. By L. T. MEADE.
The Peep of Day. Cassell's Illustrated Edition.
Maggie Steele's Diary. By E. A. DILLWYN.
A Book of Merry Tales. By MAGGIE Browne,
By MAGGIE BROWNE, "SHEILA," ISAbel
WILSON, and C. L. MATÉAUX. Illustrated. 3s. 6d.
A Sunday Story-Book. By MAGGIE BROWNE, SAM BROWNE, and Aunt
ETHEL. Illustrated.
Illustrated. 3s. 6d.
A Bundle of Tales.
By MAGGIE BROWNE (Author of "Wanted-a
King," &c.), SAM BROWNE, and AUNT ETHEL. 35. 6d.
Pleasant Work for Busy Fingers. By MAGGIE BROWNE. Illustrated. 58.
Born a King. By FRANCES and MARY ARNOLD-FORSTER. (The Life of
Alfonso XIII., the Boy King of Spain.) Illustrated. IS.
Cassell's Pictorial Scrap Book. Six Vols. 3s. 6d. each.
Books for Young People.
People.
3s. 6d. each.
Schoolroom and Home Theatricals. By ARTHUR WAUGH. Illus-
trated. New Edition. Paper, Is. Cloth, Is. 6d.
Magic at Home. By Prof. HOFFMAN. Illustrated. Cloth gilt, 3s. 6d.
Little Mother Bunch. By Mrs. MOLESWORTH. Illustrated. New Edition.
Cloth. 2s. 6d.
Heroes of Every-day Life. By LAURA LANE. With about 20 Full-
page Illustrations. Cloth. 2s. 6d.
Bob Lovell's Career. By EDWARD S. ELLIS. 5s.
2s. 6d.
2s. 6d.
The Champion of Odin; or,
Viking Life in the Days of
Old. By J. Fred. Hodgetts.
Under Bayard's Banner.
Books for Young People. Illustrated.
Told Out of School. By A. J.
Daniels.
Cheap Edition. Illustrated.
Red Rose and Tiger Lily. By
L. T. Meade.
The Romance of Invention. By
James Burnley.
*Bashful Fifteen. By L. T. Meade.
The White House at Inch Gow.
By Mrs. Pitt.
*A Sweet Girl Graduate. By L. T.
Meade.
The King's Command: A Story
for Girls. By Maggie Symington.
Cloth gilt,
Bound by a Spell; or, The Hunted
Witch of the Forest. By the
Hon. Mrs. Greene.
By Henry Frith.
38. 6d. each.
*The Palace Beautiful. By L. T.
Meade.
*Polly: A New-Fashioned Girl. By
L. T. Meade.
"Follow My Leader." By Talbot
Baines Reed.
*A World of Girls: The Story of
a School. By L. T. Meade.
Lost among White Africans. By
David Ker.
For Fortune and Glory: AStory of
the Soudan War. By Lewis
Hough.
*Also procurable in superior binding, 58. each.
į
Selections from Cassell & Company's Publications.
"Peeps Abroad' Library. Cheap Editions. Gilt edges, 2s. 6d. each.
Rambles Round London. By C.
L. Matéaux. Illustrated,
Peeps Abroad for Folks at Home.
Illustrated throughout.
Wild Adventures in Wild Places.
By Dr. Gordon Stables, R.N. Illus-
trated.
Around and About Old England.
By C. L. Matéaux. Illustrated.
Paws and Claws. By one of the
Authors of "Poems written for a
Child." Illustrated.
Decisive Events in History.
By Thomas Archer. With Original
Illustrations.
The True Robinson Crusoes.
Cloth gilt.
The "Cross and Crown" Series.
Freedom's Sword: A Story of the
Days of Wallace and Bruce.
By Annie S. Swan.
Strong to Suffer: A Story of
the Jews. By E. Wynne.
Heroes of the Indian Empire;
or, Stories of Valour and
Victory. By Ernest Foster.
In Letters of Flame: A Story
of the Waldenses. By C. L.
Matéaux,
Modern Explorers. By Thomas
Frost. Illustrated. New and Cheaper
Edition.
Little Talks.
Bright Stars.
Nursery Toys.
Pet's Posy.
Tiny Tales.
Early Explorers. By Thomas Frost.
Home Chat with our Young Folks.
Illustrated throughout.
Jungle, Peak, and Plain. Illustrated
throughout.
Illustrated. 2s. 6d. each.
Through Trial to Triumph.
Madeline B. Hunt.
By
By Fire and Sword: A Story of
the Huguenots. By Thomas
Archer.
"Golden Mottoes" Series, The.
Four full-page Original Illustrations.
"Nil Desperandum." By the
Rev. F. Langbridge, M. A.
"Bear and Forbear." By Sarah
Pitt,
"Foremost if I Can." By Helen
Atteridge.
Adam Hepburn's Vow: A Tale of
Kirk and Covenant. By Annie
S. Swan.
No. XIII.; or, The Story of the
Lost Vestal. A Tale of Early
Christian Days. By Emma Marshall.
Bright Tales & Funny Pictures.
Merry Little Tales.
Little Tales for Little People.
Little People and Their Pēts.
Tales Told for Sunday.
Sunday Stories for Small People.
Stories and Pictures for Sunday.
Bible Pictures for Boys and Girls.
Firelight Stories.
Sunlight and Shade.
Rub-a-Dub Tales.
Fine Feathers and Fluffy Fur.
Scrambles and Scrapes.
Tittle Tattle Tales.
Each Book containing 208 pages, with
Crown 8vo, cloth gilt, 2s. each.
Honour is my Guide." By Jeanie
Hering (Mrs. Adams-Acton).
Aim at a Sure End." By Emily
Searchfield.
"He Conquers who Endures." By
the Author of "May Cunningham's
Trial," &c.
"6
Cassell's Picture Story Books. Each containing about Sixty Pages of
Pictures and Stories, &c. 6d. each.
Ex
Daisy's Story Book.
Dot's Story Book.
A Nest of Stories.
Good-Night Stories.
Chats for Small Chatterers.
Illustrated Books for the Little Ones.
All Illustrated. Is. each; cloth gilt,
Auntie's Stories.
Birdie's Story Book.
Little Chimes.
A Sheaf of Tales.
Dewdrop Stories.
Containing interesting Stories.
1s. 6d.
Up and Down the Garden.
All Sorts of Adventures.
Our Sunday Stories.
Our Holiday Hours.
Indoors and Out.
Some Farm Friends.
Wandering Ways.
Dumb Friends.
Those Golden Sands.
Little Mothers & their Children.
Our Pretty Pets.
Our Schoolday Hours.
Creatures Tame.
Creatures Wild.
Selections from Cassell & Company's Publications.
Cassell's Shilling Story Books. All Illustrated, and containing Interest-
ing Stories.
Bunty and the Boys.
The Heir of Elmdale.
The Mystery at Shoncliff School.
Claimed at Last, & Roy's Reward.
Thorns and Tangles.
The Cuckoo in the Robin's Nest.
John's Mistake.
[Pitchers.
The History of Five Little
Diamonds in the Sand.
Surly Bob.
'Wanted-a King" Series. Cheap Edition.
Great Grandmamma. By Georgina M. Synge.
Robin's Ride. By Ellinor Davenport Adams.
Wanted-a King; or, How Merle set the Nursery Rhymes to Rights.
By Maggie Browne. With Original Designs by Harry Furniss.
Fairy Tales in Other Lands. By Julia Goddard.
The World's Workers. A Series of New and Original Volumes.
With Portraits printed on a tint as Frontispiece. Is. each.
John Cassell. By G. Holden Pike.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon. By
G. Holden Pike.
Dr. Arnold of Rugby. By Rose
E. Selfe.
cloth, Is. 6d.
Wonderful Balloon Ascents.
Wonderful Adventures.
Wonderful Escapes.
Cassell's Eighteenpenny Story
Wee Willie Winkie.
Ups and Downs of a Donkey's
Life.
Three Wee Ulster Lassies.
Up the Ladder.
Dick's Hero; and other Stories.
The Chip Boy.
Raggles, Baggles,
and the
Emperor.
Roses from Thorns.
Gift Books for Young People.
Original Illustrations in each.
The Boy Hunters of Kentucky.
By Edward S. Ellis.
Red Feather: a Tale of the
American Frontier.
Edward S. Ellis.
By
The Giant's Cradle.
Shag and Doll.
Aunt Lucia's Locket.
The Magic Mirror.
The Cost of Revenge.
Clever Frank.
Among the Redskins.
The Ferryman of Brill.
Harry Maxwell.
A Banished Monarch.
Seventeen Cats.
Illustrated.
The Earl of Shaftesbury. By
Henry Frith.
Sarah Robinson, Agnes Wes-
ton, and Mrs. Meredith. By
E. M. Tomkinson.
Thomas A. Edison and Samuel
F. B. Morse. By Dr. Denslow
and J. Marsh Parker.
Mrs. Somerville and Mary Car-
penter. By Phyllis Browne.
General Gordon. By the Rev.
S. A. Swaine.
Charles Dickens. By his Eldest
Daughter.
Handel. By Eliza Clarke. [Swaine.
Turner the Artist. By the Rev. S. A.
George and Robert Stephenson.
Sir Titus Salt and George
By C. L. Matéaux.
Moore. By J. Burnley.
David Livingstone. By Robert Smiles,
**The above Works can also be had Three in One Vol., cloth, gill edges, 35.
Library of Wonders. Illustrated
Gift-books for Boys. Paper, Is.;
Seeking a City.
Rhoda's Reward; or,
Wishes were Horses.
Jack Marston's Anchor.
Frank's Life-Battle; or, The
Three Friends.
Fritters. By Sarah Pitt.
The Two Hardcastles. By Made-
line Bonavia Hunt.
"If
2s. 6d. each.
Florence Nightingale, Catherine
Marsh, Frances Ridley Haver-
gal, Mrs. Ranyard ("L. N. R.").
By Lizzie Alldridge.
Dr. Guthrie, Father Mathew,
Elihu Burritt, George Livesey.
By John W. Kirton, LL.D.
Sir Henry Havelock and Colin
Campbell Lord Clyde. By E. C.
Phillips.
Abraham Lincoln. By Ernest Foster.
George Müller and Andrew Reed.
By E. R. Pitman.
Richard Cobden. By R. Gowing.
Benjamin Franklin. By E. M.
Tomkinson.
Wonders of Animal Instinct.
Wonders of Bodily Strength
and Skill.
Books. Illustrated.
Faith's Father.
By Land and Sea.
The Young Berringtons.
Jeff and Leff.
Tom Morris's Error.
Worth more than Gold.
"Through Flood-Through Fire;"
and other Stories.
With Four
The Girl with the Golden Locks.
Stories of the Olden Time.
By Popular Authors.
Cloth gilt, Is. 6d. each.
Major Monk's Motto.
F. Langbridge.
Trixy. By Maggie Symington.
Rags and Rainbows: A Story of
Thanksgiving.
By the Rev.
Uncle William's Charges; or, The
Broken Trust.
Pretty Pink's Purpose; or, The
Little Street Merchants.
Tim Thomson's Trial. By George
Weatherly.
Ursula's Stumbling-Block. By Julia
Goddard,
Ruth's Life-Work. By the Rev.
Joseph Johnson.
Selections from Cassell & Company's Publications.
Cassell's Two-Shilling Story Books. Illustrated.
Margaret's Enemy.
Stories of the Tower.
Mr. Burke's Nieces.
May Cunningham's Trial.
The Top of the Ladder: How to
Reach it.
Little Fiotsam.
Madge and Her Friends.
The Children of the Court.
Maid Marjory.
In Quest of Gold; or, Under
the Whanga Falls.
On Board the Esmeralda; or,
Martin Leigh's Log.
Cheap Editions of Popular Volumes
cloth, gilt edges, 2s. 6d. each.
Books by Edward S. Ellis.
The Great Cattle Trail.
The ath in the Ravine.
The Young Ranchers.
The Hunters of the Ozark.
The Camp in the Mountains.
Ned in the Woods. A Tale of
Early Days in the West.
Down the Mississippi.
The Last War Trail.
Ned on the River. A Tale of
Indian River Warfare.
The "World in Pictures."
Is. 6d. each.
A Ramble Round France.
All the Russias.
Chats about Germany.
The Eastern Wonderland
(Japan).
Peggy, and other Tales.
The Four Cats of the Tippertons.
Marion's Two Homes.
Illustrated. Cloth, 2s. 6d. each.
Footprints in the Forest.
Up the Tapajos.
Ned in the Block House.
Story of Pioneer Life in Kentucky.
The Lost Trail.
Camp-Fire and Wigwam.
Lost in the Wilds.
Lost in Samoa. A Tale of Adven-
ture in the Navigator Islands.
Tad; or, "Getting Even" with
Him.
Half-Crown Story Books.
Pictures of School Life and Boy-
hood.
Little Folks' Sunday Book.
Two Fourpenny Bits.
Poor Nelly.
Tom Heriot.
-
Through Peril to Fortune.
Aunt Tabitha's Waifs.
In Mischief Again.
for Young People. Bound in
Books for the Little Ones.
Rhymes for the Young Folk.
By William Allingham. Beautifully
Illustrated. 38. 6d.
The History Scrap Book. With
nearly 1,000 Engravings. Cloth,
7s. 6d.
Illustrated throughout. Cheap Edition.
Glimpses of South America.
Round Africa.
|
The Land of Pyramids (Egypt).
For Queen and King.
Esther West.
Three Homes.
Working to Win.
Perils Afloat and Brigands
Ashore.
The Land of Temples (India).
The Isles of the Pacific.
Peeps into China
Albums for Children. 3s. 6d. each.
The Album for Home, School,
and Play. Containing Stories by
Popular Authors. Illustrated.
My Own Album of Animals.
With Full-page Illustrations.
Pen's Perplexities.
At the South Pole.
A
With
The Sunday Scrap Book.
Several Hundred Illustrations. Paper
boards, 3s. 6d.; cloth, gilt edges, 58.
The Old Fairy Tales. With Original
Illustrations. Boards, 1s.; cloth,
18. 6d.
Picture Album of All Sorts.
Full-page Illustrations.
The Chit-Chat Album.
throughout.
With
Illustrated
Cassell & Company's Complete Catalogue will be sent post
free on application to
CASSELL & COMPANY, LIMITED, Ludgate Hill, London.
霉
​霉
​

DL
1
MITT
DO NOT REMOVE
OR
MUTILATE CARD
!
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 02806 1078

どいい
​+
広
​