The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1901-10-09

lSlratlOn In every pOpulOuS centre
The fact that in the last fiscal ycal
for which statistics are available nc
fewer than 312 600 arrests for intoxi
cation were recorded in the 129 lar.
gest cities Of the United States indi.
Gates the economic and social magni-
tudc of the question. The attitude
Of Legislatures and police depart
ments toward incbrity isa study in d.
versity.
The policy Of the police toward
drunken individuals varies SO widely
in different cities that no common
ratio exists between tie number of ar
rests for intoxication and the volume
of drinking. In the prohibition city
Of Portland, Me, the years arrests
for drunkenness aggregate 1913, or 8
to every 1000 population. In Tole-
do, Ohio, where there we're G47 H.
censed saloons and where, under May
or Jones, the practice of official len
iency toward drunkards obtains, there
were only 367 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 in Mayor Jones municipality.
In Hartford, Conn, with 214 saloons
and with somewhat rigorous police
police policy. the arrests Of the vic
Tins Of inebricty numbered 1855, or
80 to each 1000 population, while in
Bridgeport, in the same State, with
312 saloons, the arrests footed up
only 784. OF II to every 1000 resi-
dents.
In wide open New York the arrests
for intoxication were 13 to each 1000
people; in deco7ous Philadelphia, 22
to each 1000; in intellectual Boston,
81 to each 1000, and in beer drinking
Milwaukee, with 1,747 licensed sa-
looms, to each 600. These figures,
selective in character and. capable of
abundant expansion, display down
right discrepancy, and their cxpla-
nation lies largely in the vary
ing local policies Of the police author
tiles in dealing with the votarics of
Jgrog.
American laws prescribing penalties
for drunkenness range through wide
extremes. The statement that fines
for intoxication run from SO cents in
one State to 500 in several other
States, and that Imprisonment for the
offense varies from FIVE days to five
years, shows with striking badness
the different angles Of vision from
which the law-making assemblies
view the subject. In the general
statutes OF eighteen states, al il the
West and Southwest, no specific leg
islation bearing on drunkenness may be
found, but punishment is provided for
in local ordinances.
In the prohibition States Of Maine
and New Hampshire the misdemeanor
ia punished exclusively by imprlson-
ment. In Maine common drunkards
may. be confined in the house Of cor
, rection until discharged by the over
secrs Of the poor, or by two justices
Of the peace. In New Hampshire the
maximum period for which drunk
ards may be incarcorated is six
months.
In Ohio, South Dakota and Virgin
ia the statute books prescribe fines for
intoxication, but make no reference to
Imprisonment. Thu penalty is ineias
tic and in Ohio it is fixed at So; iu
South Dakota at $40 and in Virginia,
except where a different punish
ment is established by local ordinance
t$1.
In sixteen commonwealth the al
tentative penalties Of fine or impris.
onment are authorized. The lightest
monetary punishment for intoxication
is found in Delaware, where uniform
fine Of SO cents IL exacted. On the
other hand, the fines in Illinois range
from 500 to 800. 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
socth, it be on the theory of the
late w. B. Traverse, who said
that he stammere6 more in New
York than he did in Baltimore, be.
cause New York was much bigger
place.
Alabama likewise authorizes max.
imum fine Of 800 for q person who
@manifests drunken condition by
boisterous or indecent conduct, O,