Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1893-03-23
81, 100000, 900 PAID FOR DRINKS.
This Enormous Sum L. Annually Expended
For Rum In the United States.

This Enormous sum L8 Annually Expended
For Rum In the United States.
Some rather wild statements have
found their way into print. The facts
are sufficiently alarming without over
estimating them. The estimate given
below of the drink bill has been admit
ted by several liquor papers to be fair
and conservative. In fact, the liquor
press is accustomed to felicitate itself
and to congratulate the country on the
growth of so great an industry"
The drink bill for the year 1891 may
be fairly stated, in round numbers, as
81 200, ,00O, 900. That is to say, the peo-
pie of this country pay out each year,
directly, that amount for intoxicants.
The method of computing the amount
is this: The United States bureau Of sta
tistics each year publishes an estimate Of
the amount of spirituous liquors, wines
and malt liquors consumed in the United
States for the fiscal year, which ends
June 80. This official estimate is based
on the amount withdrawn for consump-
tion," as reported by the internal reve-
nue. department, plus the amount i'm
ported, minus the amount exported. Ac-
cording to this official estimate there was
consumed in 1901, 81, ,157 $3.50 gallons Of
spirituous liquors and 977, ,479, ,761 barrels
of malt liquors. The amount of wine
for 1891 is not obtainable, but the amount
for 1890 was 28,956,9s1 gallons. There
is no reason to believe that the amount
decreased in 1891.
The estimate of 81 200, 100000 as the
annual drink, it should be distinctly un
derstood, is only the direct cost-tht
amount approximately that passes ovel
the bars of the 100000 or more liquol
selling establishments in exchange for in
toxicants. That the estimate is not tot
high is shown by the fact that it is al
lowing only about $4,000 annually as tn
average business of the saloons and liz
uor stores of the country. Any persol
reasonably familiar with the liquor busi
ness knows that the amount namet
would not go far in paying license fees
rent, help, police protection" politica
blackmail and the rest.
How much of this 81 Zoo, ,000,0 900 i
total loss is very complex question il
which many difficulties are involved.
full discussion of the subject would b
impossible in short article. Som
writers regard the revenue paid bac
into the public treasury as saved fror
the total loss; others include also tn
wages paid TO labor engaged in the mar
ufacture and sale of liquor, and none
! paid for materials, as saved from th
total loss; still others befuddle the avel
age reader with the statement that tn
money ''goes into circulation" an
hence is not a loss. The whole bubbl
of sophistry explodes when perforate
by this one pointed question, "Loss
i whom" If to the consumer, the who
. 81, 0O,OOO,0 600 is lost, unless the COZ
sumer can be shown to derive some &c,
nomic benefit.
But the indirect loss not included
these 81 200, 900, 900, the cost of mail
2 tanning police departments, courts, pen
institutions, insane asylums, the Chi
8 business of all of which is to take care
: the victims of drink, the loss of propert
through drunken carelessness, materia
spoiled by drunken workmen, time 10
in manufacturing establishments and
many trades where enc mans drunke
y ness may enforce idleness upon 20 sob
men, the doctors bills for sickness caus'
d by drunken exposure and brutalit
It these and many other items easily II
:; up the cost of the liquor traffic to su
d that is frightful to contemplate.-W.
V | Co,>o1opi