Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1884-03-07
HIGH LICENSE.


The question of regulating and rcericing
the liquor traffic by means of high license
system, which in some paris OF The West has
been pretty couclusively settled IN favor Of
the 81 stem, now looms up in the East ON &C.
count Of tho effort now making to enact such
4 law IN New York, and the monster macs.
meetinssin the metropolis and In Brooklyn
to promote the success Of the effort. The
law now in force in Ohio (known as
the Scott law imposes, it may be
well TO remind our readers, an annual
tax Of 5000 for the sale OF whskcy, and
800 for the sale Of beer. Under the opera
lions of this law there was paid into the va
rcus county, city and village treasures of
the State last year nearly Sl,900,000, while
more than $500 OF the viler sort Of rum shops
were driven out OF eXistepcs. AS Governor
Foster well put ii, 10 his retiring message,
| with perfect case, without cost, with.
out friction. without law SUITE, it 81.
lently aud swiftly put out Of sight more than
4500 saloon signs anI poured into the trcas-
ury of the State a revenue OF nearly Sc 000,-
coo with which to mitigate the suifcrings and
evils due TO the business" In Illinois the
license is still larger sum THAI In Ohio
The minimum fee for lager beer saloon
is fixed al $50, and for a "hard liquor, {"
license at $500, while any county, city,
town or village board may raise the figures
to any amount desirol Or 10y local opuou
clause, may prohibit the traffic altogether
within its corporate limits. No formal ~
port of the operation of this law has yet been
made, we believe, but all the auhortie,
agree that 1t has largely reduced the number
Of saloons In many cities and towus which
were cursed with q supcrabundanca Of them
under the low license system.
| The measure now pending in the New
York Legislature (kn1vn as the Roosevelt,
bill) provides that licenses to sell alcoholic
liquors shall cost $500 and beer licenses $3.50
in the larse cities, and one.half those amounts
IL villages ard rural districts and by the
large cities only New York, Brooklyn and
Buffalo are meant. At the great public
mee,inss held in advocacy OF this bill ad
dresses strongly favoring il we're made by
Henry Ward Beecher, Judge Noah Davis
Stewart l.. Woodford, Rev Howard Crosby,
and other genLlem:n almost equally well
known. Some OF these gentlemen are pro.
hi5ltiollsts and come are not bat all ap-
prove OF the Roosevelt bill. judge Davi.
in the course Of his speech said that twenty
| u ~ n had
prohibit )njst, and he thought the era wheu
10 man could legally give another drop OF
liquor was speedily approaching. Meanwhile
be was glad to hail Mr.. Roosevelt. bill as
a step in the right direction. lie hearth
ly Endorsed it and hoped the public
would press It's passage with Irresistible
weight. Slr. Beecher, on the Other
hand, argued that prohibition was entirely
impractcable 1t did not WORK in Maine,
Kansas or Iowa, he said, and il not in thes,
comparatively simple and sparsrly s.tted
regions what could be hoped In the GROVE
Of New York? de therefore advocated Mr..
ROosevelts bill as a moderate practical auc
useful measure. 1t seems to ua that pro
hibtlon is at present at hast wholly
lcpraclicable in New York city anS
tEat the Roosevelt bill /, perhaps
= as good measure Nj could be de
= vised to restrict and control the liquor traffic
there. Its passage by the Legislature seem
somewhat doubtful, for the tremendou
rover of the liquor interest and The mos
strenuous efforts Of the prohbiticnsts ar
: united against it, Its trial would certainl
be al interesting experiment, and it is 70 b
hoped that the bill will pass