The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-01-02
TIE TWO sYSTEMS

The various expressions of opinions
regarding different methods of handling
the liquor problem, which have been
brought out by the interview with Gov
ernor Morrill, which was published re-
Gently in the STATE JOURNAL, indicate
that the general public has no very clear
conception of the meaning of the Goth
enberg system or the state dispensary
plan. The i'm pression seems to prevail
that both systems are practically the
same, but they are in fact just as differ
ent as prohibition, as it is administered
in Kansas, and licensed saloons.
The Gothenberg system, which
Governor Morrill, advocates, is one of
licensed saloons and nothing else. In
stead of charging fixed and unvarying
license fee, however, the municipality
exacts from the saloon keeper all above
! a fixed percentage of the profits derived
! from the business; that is man pays
what is practically a license in proper
ton to the business he does.
Competition, which is perhaps the
worst element of the business, aside
from the one of profit is eliminated by
granting a monopoly of the traffic in in
toxicants to a company or syndicate.
This company has the exclusive right to
handle liquor, and is protected in it by
the municipality and all others are ex-
cluded. 1t is much the same as if all
the drug stores in Topeka were under
one management, except that under the
Gothenberg system liquor is sold by the
drink and there is no inducement to put
up the price because the added profits
would all go into the public treasury.
The most marked difference between
the Contender system and the dispen-
sary system is that the latter does away
with the saloon; in addition to this the
element of profit is eliminated. The
state holds the monopoly but does not
exercise it for the purpose of raising rev.
enue. In South Carolina where this sys-
tenn is in force every body is prohibited
under severe penalties from selling in
toxicants, and the state undertakes to
supply the demand at cost with the ad-
| dition of a sufficient margin to cover
the cost of maintaining the system.
The state buys its liquor i'll large
| quantities, getting advantage of the low
est prices. A dispensary is established
wherever it is desired by the people and
| salarled agent of the state Is placed IN
| charge. The liquor, which NAY be sold
to every body except minors and inebri-
ates, is put up in sealed packages and
may not be consumed on the premises.
| 1t will be seen therefore that the
| Gothenburg system is one of licensed
saloons while the dispensary system rem
ders the existence of saloons impossible,
which is all that is claimed for prohibit
ton by many of its most ardent support
ers. The law is said to be a success so
| far. The people instead of sending into
another state for their supplies as many
do here in Kansas, buy them at home,
because it is cheaper to do SO, and there
are no communities in open defiance of
the law as there are here.
The liquor interests made the same
hard fight against the dispensary law
in South Carolina that they have made
against the prohi bitory law in Kan sas,
and the matter was taken back and forth
through all the courts even to those of
the United States, but the law was sus-
tanned. So intense did the contest grow
that at one time it became necessary to
call out the state troops.