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

The fact that in the last fiscal ycal
for which statistics are available ne
fewer than 1000 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 is study in di
versity.
The psIioy of tic police ioward
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 423, or 8
to every 1000 population. In Tole-
do, Ohio, where there were CAT H.
censed saloons and wh ere, under May
or Jones, the practice Of official len
;ency toward drunkards obtains, there
were only 367 arrests for drunkenness,
or 3 to every 1,600 inhabitants.
Although Cleveland has less than
three times the population of Toledo,
the census Of its arrested drunkards
was nearly twentyone 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, or IL to every 1000 resi-
dents.
In wide open New York the arrests
for intoxication were 13 to each 600
people; in deoorous Philadelphia, 22
to each 900; in intellectual Boston,
34 to each 1000, and in beer drinking
Milwaukee, with 1,747 licensed sa-
looms, 6 to each l 900. 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 tho police author
tiles in dealing with the votaries of
grog.
American laws prescribing pena tiles
for Drunkenness range through wide
extremes. The statement that fines
for intoxication run from so 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 different angles Of vision from
which the law-makiSg assemblies
view the subject. In the general
statutes Of eighteen states, all in the
Yves. end Southwest, NO 5pooiiio ieg-
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
is punished exclusively by imprlson-
ment. In Maine common drunkards
maybe 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 drunk
ards may be incarcerated is ak
months.
In Ohio, South Dakota and Virgin
la the statute books prescribe fines for
intoxication, but make no reference to
imprisonment. The penalty IS inelas-
tic and IL Chic it is fixed at $5; in
South Dakota at $40 and in Virginia,
excspt where q different punish
msnt is established by local ordinance
at 81.
In sixteen commonwealth the al
ternative penalties of fine or impris-
onment are authorized. The lightest
monetary punishment for intoxication
is found in Delaware, where uniform
fine Of So cents is exacted. On the
other hand, the fines in Illinois range
from $50 to 500. 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. B. Traverse, who said
that he stammered more in New
York than he did in Baltimore, be-
cause New York was a much bigger
place.
Alabama likewise authorizes max
imum fine of $10O for person who
s'manifests a drunken condition by
boisterous or indecent conduct, or
4 o