Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-10-26

which statistics are aNallable' no rover
than $4,000 arrests for intoxication
were recorded in the l29 largest cities
of the United states indicates the
economic and social magnitude OF the
question. The attitude OF legislatures
and police departments toward inebrie-
~ is a study IN diversity.
The policy OF the police toward
drunken individuals varies so widely
in different cities that no common ratio
exists between the number Of arrests
for intoxication and the volume OF
drinking. In the prohibition city of
Portland Ne, the years arrests Tor
drunkenness aggregated iZJ, on eight 10
every 1000 population In Toledo, ~,
where there were 641 llcenesd saloons
and where. under Mayor Jones, the
practice of official leniency towal q
drunkards obtains, there were only abt
arrests for drunkenness, or three TO
every LOCO inhabitants.
Although Cleveland has less than
three times the population OF Toledo,
the census of It's arrested drunkaids
WAS nearly twenty-one times as great
as that In Mayor Jones municipality,
In Hartford City with ia saloons ana
with somewhat rigorous police pol
lev. the arrests Of victims OF inebrlety
numbered 1850, OF tnlrty'VWO W eaei'
loo population Winie ln h,lusepo ,, y
in the same state WIN Si@ stlo1ns' 'ns
arrests footed up only 'o4' OF eie'eh u"
every l,VV0 residents
In wide open New YORK lhe arrests
for intoNlcatl0n were thirteen 70 eaeu
1000 people; In decorous fhllhuelIillH'
twenty-five TO each l,OVoi IN lnleilte-
tual Boston, thirty-iour 10 eaoh wv
and in beer-drinkng milwaukee, Nllh
l,7E licensed saloons, SIX 10 each l'VVV'
These figures, selectiye IN character
and capable OF abundant expansion,
display downright discrepancy, anu
their explanation lies largely IN the
varying local policies OF police authorls
ties In dealing with the Nolarles ol
grog.
American laws prescribing the penai-
ties for drunkenness range through
wide extremes The statement that mes
for intoxlcatIon run from 80 cents IN
one state to 500 In several other states
and that Imprisonment for the offense
varies from Ave days TO FIVE years
shows with striking badness the an
ferent angles OF vision from which law
making assemblies view the subject In
the general statues of eighteen states,
all In the west and southwest, no spe-
ciflc legislation bearing on drunkenness
may be found, but punishment Is pro-
vIded for In local ordinances.
In the prohibition states of Maine and
New Hampshire the misdemeanor Is
punished exclusively by imprisonment.
In Maine common drunkards may be
confined In the house of correction UNI
III discharged by the overseers OF the
poor or by two justices OF the peace.
In New Hampshire the maximum per-
Tod for which drunkards may be ncar-
cerated IL six months.
In Ohio. South Dakota and Virginia
the statute books prescribe fines for
but make no reference TO
The penalty Is inelastlc,
and In Ohio II Is fixed at 50, In South
Dakota al $40. and In Virginia, except
where q different punishment is estab-
llshed by local ordinance, at 81.
In sixteen commonwealth the alter
native penalties OF either fine or i'm
are authorized. The light
est monetary punishment for intoxica-
tlon Is found In Delaware, where q uni
form fine OF 90 cents Is exacted. on the
other hand the fines In Illinois range
from $50 TO 500. The reason for maxi
ing the possible financial retribution for
inebriety 200 times as large In the
Sucker State as in the Blue Hen state
is not easy to explain, unless, IN s0oth,
II be on the theory OF the late w, X.
traverse. VINO said that ne stalnmered
more IN New YORK than ne ala IN bal-
timore, because New YORK was much
bigger place
Alabama nkeWlse authorizes maxi
mum me OF slVV TOT person VINO
manliests a drunken condition py DOls-
ferrous OF indecent eohduct or loud ana
proiane DISCOURSE, Dut me minimum
exactlon Is w. Similar variations ex-
ISL III imprisonment pehhi'ies TOT IN
loNlcauon, TOT instance lne llaH XII ,.ll
Term ioI whlcn uruhkara may DC I'M
pIlsoheu ia Wisconsin - i've uaSs'
Wniie 10 hnoue lslanu hauituai uIuuh-
aIu may I've coihInl'teu LOT thlee yea,s
anu ~ New 10TH a naoituai leIliaie
uruilhaIu may pe hepS IN 1ne h"use VI
refuge az iiuusoh LOT nVe yea,s.
III several eoihihonWeaIlhs the peHal-
ues are graded and cumulative. ror
eAauipie, IN Cohhecticul lur lne htst
onense common urunkard may De
sentenced 10 nara lapor TOT minimum
Term OF Sixty udys' LOT the second OF
lehse' 10 maximum term OF ZiV Gays
anu 10. we snlru oiieiise W maximum
Term OF Sou usys IN minnesota when
uisV Np'eaI Oh 'he states IN Wllch
the scheine OF graded sentences pre-,
Na'is' lor Nhe nlst ollehse urunkafd
may De hhed from SlO 10 NV or m
prisoned IRON ten to forty days; FOR
the second oHehse ne may ne nheu from
ssV 70 w., or De imprisoned from 80 10
oo days' ana LOT the thlrd ouense ne
may De imprisoned from bV 10 ~ days
In Arkansas, west virginia and In
ulan territory security Tor the good be-
haVior OF convicted drunkard may
be exaeted IN lieu OF line or impris-
onnent In Arkansas the presiding
magistrate may require OF the intoxl-
Gated person surety FOR good behay-
lop ana Tor Keeping the peace not eX-
ceedlng one year but In case the bond
cannot be procured imprisonment for
a maximum term OF thirty days Is au-
thorized. In West Virginia the life Of
the security Is limited 20 six months.
In eight states and territories stat
utofy provision ~ made for the institu-
uonai treatment or inehriates. North
dakota authorizes the commitment, Al
county expense Of habiual drunkard'
70 any reputable institution for the
treatment Of drunkenness" Designated