Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1901-08-22
LEGAL TREATMENT OF DRUNKARDS
is A PERPLEXING PROBL EN-

The legal treatment of the drunkard
is perplexing problem in administra-
ton in every populous centre. The
fact that in the last fiscal year for
which statistics are available, no fewer
than $4,000 arrests for intoxicaItion
were recorded in the 129 largest cities
Of the United States indicates the econ
omic and social magnitude of the
queNion. The attitude of Legislatures
and police departments toward intoxi-
cation is 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, Me, the years arrests for
drunkenness aggregated 423, or 8 to
every 1000 population. In Toledo, o.,
where there were 1877 licensed saloons
and where, under Mayor Jones, the
practice of official leniency toward
drunkards obtains, there were only
367 arrests for drunkenness, or 3 to
every 1000 inhabitants.
Although Cleveland has less than
three times the population OF Toledo,
the census of its arrested dr1lnkards
was nearly twenty-one times as great
as that in Mayor Jones's municipality.
In Hartford Conn, with PA saloons
and with somewhat rigorous police
policy, the arrests of victims OF in
ebriety numbered 1855, or 80 to each
1000 population, while in Bridgeport,
in the same State, with 312 saloons,
the arrests footed up only 7S4, or IL ito
every 1000 residents.
In wide open New ork the arrests for
intoxication were 10 to each 1000 peo-
pie; in decorous Philadelphia, % TO
each 1000; in intellectual Boston, "a
to each 1000 and In beer-drinking
Milwaukee, with 1,747 licensed saloons,
6 to each 1000 These figures. select
i've in character and capable of abund-
ant expansion, display downright dis
crepancy, and their explanation lies
largely in the varying local policies of
police authorities in dealing with the
votaries of grog, says the Now York
Sun.
American laws prescribing penalties
for drunkenness range through wide
extremes. The statement that fines for
intoxication run from 90 cents in one
State to 800 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 sub
ject. In the general statutes of eight
cen States, all in the West and South
west, no specific legislation bearing on
drunkenness may be found, but punish
ment is provided for in local ordi-
nances
In the prohibition States of Maine
and New Hampshire the misdemeanol
is punished exclusively by imprison-
ment In Maine common drunkardl
may be confined in the House OF Cor
rectiOn until discharged by the over
seers of the poor or by two justices o.
the peace. In New Hampshire tn,
maximum for which drunkards may b,
incarcerated is six months.
In Ohio, South Dakota and Virginia
the statute books prescribe fines fol
intoxication, but make no reference Il
Imprisonment. The penalty is inelas
tic. and in Ohio it is fixed at So; il
South Dakota at $40. and in Virginia
except where a different punishment il
established by local ordinance, at 81.
Insixteen Commonwealth the alter
native penalties of either fine or i'm
prisonment are authorized. The light
est monetary punishment for intoxica
ton is found in Delaware, where {
uniform fine of so cents is exacted. Oh
the other hand the fines in Illinoi
range from 500 to 800. The reason
for making the possible financial retri
button for inebriety 200 times as larg
In the Sucker State as in the Blue Hell
State is not easy to explain. unles, il
sOoth, is be on the theory of the lat
w. r. Traverse, who said that he STAN
mered more in New York than he di
in Baltimore, because New York wa
much bigger place.
Alabama likewise authorizes a max
imum fine of 800 for a person VIII