Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1883-10-30
DRAM-SHoPS IN MAINE.

|
The books of the United States Internal
Revenue Once for Maine show that prohi-
bition is a dead letter In that State. There
are about HOO licensed saloons In Maine,
In addition to the unlicensed. In Port
land there are 2l2 licensed saloons; In
Bangor l54; 10 Lewiston, 62; in Augusta
20; In Belfast, Biddeford,, Bath, Houlton,
Arunswick, Bar Hsrbor, Ellsworth, Gsrdi-
ner, Hallowell, Oldtown, Old Orchard,
Rockland, Richmond, Saco, Skowhegsn
and wateryille l59 This makes IA Ii
ceused saloons In these 20 pisces, with
population OF l55, e97, or one licensed ss-
loon to every 200 Inhabitants. With these
figures one Is tempted to ask IL there is
not more liquor sold in Maine than In IL
cense States. CiereldRd Exchange.
The impression given BY the above
paragraph which is going the rounds OF
the out of-S;ate press. is that in Maine
there is one open licensed liquor saloon
TO every 200 inhabiiapts, while in license
States the average is only one dram-shop
to every 225 inhabitants. How complete
and intended Misrepresentation OF the
facts this impression gives, will be seen
on examination.
In the first place. there is no licensed
saloon or dram-shop in Maine. What
ever there are. exist in violation of law.
The Uuited States licenses no saloons. 1t
simply imposes tax of s25 on every re-
tail dealer in liquors, and the tax is 50
light and the penalty for non-payment
so large, that every person in Maine who
intends to sell any intoxicating hqaors,
however secretly and surep,uously, pays
it. Every druggist in Maine paid the
tax last year, increasing the number
largely, under the misapprehension on
the par. Of many Of them that the sale
of any medical compound of which liquor
was a constituent, made him liable to
pay the tax.
Again the compiler Of the above state
ment has selected the twenty cities and
larger villages in the State, with Popu-
lstion Of 1857, where the liquor traf-
fc has been concentrated to the extent Of
IA taxed deslers-one TO every 200 IN
habitants.-aad has purposely omitted
to state that in the balance Of the State,
With a population Of nearly 100000,
there were only $40 taxed dealers, or one
to every 1900 inhabitants Take the
State az a whole, there was in Maine one
person to about every six hundred
inhabitants who last year paid the United
State tax on retail liquor dealers. This
included nearly every druggist. Pre-
vious to last year the proportion was one
to $50 inhabitants.
Assuming for the time that oil these
persons were such dram-sellers as are
found in license States, how do the Maine
figures compare with those ofother States.
The average number OF dram sellers in Ii
cense cities is one to every $50 ,inhabi,
tsnts in Maine cities according to the
above figures one to 900. But it must
be remembered that when dram shops
are under the ban OF the law. they can
hide easier in cities and large villages
than in other places. The result is that
in prohibi,ory S,ateslike MaIne nearly the
whole traffic is driven into the larger
places while in license States the traffic
is more evenly distributed. This is seen
| in the fact that in more than three
fourths of Maine there were three hun
dred and forty taxed dealers, or one to SOC
Inhabitants, while in less than one fourth
there were ia. OF course if large places
alone are selected the comparison both as
to number Of dram-shops and arrests for
drunkenness will not give fair idea Of
the results Of prohibition. States in
which license is universal, must be com
pared with Maine as whole. Nov
there is not State in the Union wher
license is the universal rule, which show
90 small number Of retail liquor deal
: ers propoftionslly as Maine, and tie az.
srage number in such States is two AM
three times as many as Maine
In the State Of New York the mum
Der of retail liquor dealers paying To
United States tax is one to every lS5 in
hsbitants in Ohio is one to every $50
against one to 600 in Maine. oy
But a comparison of the number g
persons vbopay the U. tax s ret.ihauo