The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-09-01
PENALTIES FOR JAGS
WIDE DIFFERENCE or LAWS IN
 DIFFERENT STATES.
Perplexing Problem-Imprison- ment of from Five Days to Five Years-Fines H'om
 soc to $i0O.

The legal treatment of the drunkard Is a perpiexing problem in administra- ton in every populous center. The fact that in the last fiscal year for which statistics are available. no fewer than s12,Ooo arrests for intoxication were recorded in the 129 largest cities of the United States, indicates the economic and social magnitude of the question. The attitude of Legislatures and police departments toward inebriety Is study in diversity. says The New York Sun. .
 The policy of the police towaro drunken individuals varies so widely fin 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. Me, the years arrests Tor drunkenness aggregated 423. or 10 every I.ooe population. In Toledo. O.. where there are 647 licensed saloons, and where. under Mayor Jones. the practice of official ieniency towar1s .ss drunkards obtains. there were only So1 arrests for drunkenness. or to every 1000 inhabitants.
 Although Cleveland has less than three times the population of Toledo, the census of its arrested drunkards was nearly twenty-one times as great as that of Mayor Jones municipality. Tn Hartford. Conn.,. with 214 saloons and with a somewhat rigorous police policy. the arrests of victims of inc briety numbered 25s5, or 32 to each 1000 population. while in Bridgeport. in the same State, with 312 saloons, the arfests footed up only 7S4, or Il to every 1'ooo residents.
 m wide-open New York the arrests for intoxication were 13 to each 1.0e0 people; in decorous Philadelphia, 22 to each 1000; in intellectual Boston, 34 to each 1000. and in beer-drinking Mill waukee. with 1.747 licensed saloons. to each 1000. These figures, seiective in character, and capable of abundant ex- pansion. display downright discrepancy and their explanation lies largely in the varying local policies of police authori- ties in dealing with the votaries of grog.
 American laws prescribing penalties for drunkenness range through wide extremes. The statement that fines for intoxication run from 50 cents In one State to $10e in several other States, and that imprisonment for the offense varies from five days to five years, shows with striking badness the diff ferent angles of vision from which law making assemblies view the subject. In the general statutes of eighteen States, all in the West and Southwest, ho specific legislation bearing on drunk enYiess may be found, but puniahfnent fs provided for in local ordinances.
 Tn. the prohibition States of Maine ana New Hampshire the misdemeanor NY punished exclusively by imHrison= 1nent. In Maine, common druhkarde may be confined in the House of Cor rection until discharged by the over seers of the poor, or by two justices of the peace. In New Hampshire the maximum period for which drunkardS may be incarcerated is six months.
 In Ohio. South Dakota and Virginia the statute books prescribe fines for intoAication. but make no reference to imprisonment IT. penalty is in elastic. and in Ohio is $, fixed at S5; in South Dakota at $1o, and in Virginia, except where a different punishment is established by local ordinance at $1.
 In sixteen commonwealths the al- formative penalties of either fine or im- prisonment are authorized. The light est monetary punishment for intoxica- tion is found in Delaware. where a uniform fine of 50 cents is exacted. On the other hand the fines in Illinois range from $20 to $100. The reason for making the possible financial retribu- tion for inebriety 200 times as large in the Sucker State as in the Blue Hen State is not easy to explain. unless in sooth. it be on the theory of the late w R. Traverse. who said that he stammered more in New York than he did in Baltimore, because New York was a much bigger place.
 C Alabama likewise authorizes a maxi mum fine of $1o0 for a person who ''manifests a drunken condition by .boisterous or indecent conduct or loud and profane discourse" but the mini mum exaction is $5. Similar variations exist in Imprisonment penalties for in toxication. For instance, the maxi mum term for which a drunkard may be imprisoned in Wisconsin is five days while in Rhode Island an habitual drunkard may be committed for three years. and In New York habitual fe- male drunkard may be kept in the House of Refuge at Hudson for five years.
 In several commonwealths the penal ties are graded and cumulative. For ex- ample in Connecticut for the first of- fense a common drunkard may be sen tenced to hard labor for the maximum term of sixty days; for the second off, fense to a maximum term of 240 days, and for the third offense to a maxi mum term of 36O days. In Minnesota, which is also typical of the States in WnIcn the ScHefne or STdQSQ SSHVCuccS prevails, for the first offense a drunk ard may be fined from SIC to $40, or inn prisoned from 10 to 40 days: for the second offense he may be fined from $20 Co $40. or be imprisoned from 30 to 60 days. and for the third offense he may be imprisoned from 50 to 90 days.
 In Arkansas. West Virginia and In- dian Territory security for the good behavior of convicted drunkard may be exacted in lieu of a fine or impris- onment. In Arkansas the presiding magistrate may require of the intoxi- cated person surety flor good behavior and for keeping the peace not exceed ing one year." but in case the bond cannot be procured Imprisonment for a maximum term of 30 days is au- thorized. In West Virginia the life of the security is limited to six months.
 In eight States and Territories statu- tory provision is made for the insti- tutional treatment of inebriates. North Dakota authorizes the commitment at county expense, of habitual drunkards. to "any reputable institution for the treatment of drunkenness designated by a committee appointed by thA gov ernor. The victim must express a de- sire to undergo treatment and must be impecunious. and he cannot be com mitted second time at the public ex- pense. In the Territory of Oklahoma 1yhora ffno To uu f0 auhaf a nf al aiYni1ar