Evening star., 1901-09-21
TREATING THE DRUNKARD
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LAWS OF
THE VARIOUS STATES.
Wide Difference Also I'm the Number
of Arrests for IntOxicatiOn-
Varied Punishments.
From the New York Sun.

from the New York sun.
The legal treatment of the drunkard is
perplexing problem in administration in
every populous center. The fact that In
the last fiscal year for which statistics are
availaO ole no fewer than 312,OOO arrests for
intoxication were recorded in the 129 larg-
est cities of the United States indicates the
economic and social magnitude of the ques-
ton. The attitude of legislatures and
police departments toward inebriety Is q
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
LOCO population. In Toledo, Ohio, where
there We're GIT licensed saloons and where.
under Mayor Jones' the practice of official
leniency toward drunkards obtains, there
were only 3G7 arrests for drunkenness. or 3
to every 1.000 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 a somewhat rig
orous police policy, the arrests Of victims
of inebriety numbered 2.5S5, or 32 to each
1000 population, while In Bridgeport, in
the same state, with 312 saloons. the ar
rests footed up only 7S4, or IL to every
LOCO residents.
Boston Leads.
In wide-open New York the arrests for
intoxication were 13 to-, each 1000 people;
in decorous Philadelphia. s22 to each LOO;
in intellectual Boston, "a 70 each ], $50. and
in beer-drinking Milwaukee. with LAT
oh, thaG
figures. selective in character and capable
discrepancy, and their explanation lies
largely in the varying focal policies OF
police authorities in dealing with the vo-
tarieS of grOg - u
drunkenness range through wide extremes
The statement that Anes for intoxication
run from so cents In one state to 800 In
several other statestn and that imprison-
ment for the offense varies from f1ve days
to five years. shows with striking badness
the different angles of vision from which
law-making assemblies view the subject
In the general statutes of, eighteen states.
al! In the west and southwest. no specific
legislation 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 Is pun
ished exclusively by Imprisonment. In
Maine common drunkards may be confined
in the house OF correction until discharged
by the averseers 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 intoxica-
ton, but make no reference to imprison-
ment. The penalty is ineiastic. and In Ohio
it is fixed at s.; in South Dakota at $40.
and In Virginia, except where different
punishment Is established by local ordi-
nance. at 81.
Lightest PunishDaent.
In sixteen commonwealths the alferna-
tive penalties of fine or Imprisonment
are authorized. The lightest monetary
punishment for intoxicaton is found
In Delaware, where a uniform fine of 90