Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1902-02-22
tlA92@1sJglggs!'B'I5;,
{ANus Xix
TREATING THE DRUNKARD.
Differences Between the Laws of tn
Various States-VRrIed
Punishments


The fact that in the last fiscal year
for which statistics are available no
Fewer than 312, 900 arrests for intoxica-
tion were recorded in the 129 largest
cities of the United States indicates
the economic and social magnitude of
the question. The attitude of legisla-
lures and police departments toward
anebriety is study in diversity.
The policy Of the police toward
drURken individuals varies so widely
1n different cities that no common ra-
ito exists between the number Of ar
rests for intodcation and the volume
Of drinking. In the prohibition city
'-of Portland, Me-, the years arrests for
drunkenness aggregated aga, or eight
20 every 1000 population. In Toledo,
o., where there were e47 licensed ss-
looms and where, under Mayor Jones,
the practice OF official leniency toward
&runkards obtains, there were only
s67 arrests for drunkenness, or three
20 every 1000 inhabitants.
Although Cleveland has less than
three times the population of Toledo,
the census OF its arrested drunkards
was nearly 81 times as great as that in
Mayor Jones' municipality. In Hart
ford, Conn, with 214 saloons and with
= somewhat rigorous police policy, the
arrests of victims of inebriety num-
bered 2,5S5, or 30 to each 900 popula-
\ zion, while in Bridgeport, in the same
state, with 312 saloons, the arrests
footed up only 7s4, or II TO every 900
Eesidents.
In wide-open New York the arrests
4or intoxication were IL to each 1 200
people; in decorous Philadelphia, %
90 each 1000; in intellectual Boston, "a
90 each 1000. and in beer-drinling Mil
staukee, with 1,747 licensed saloons, six
10 each 1000. These figures, selective
Nm character and capable Of abundant
expansion, display downright discrep-
ancy, and their explanation lies in the
varying local policies of police author
1ties in dealing with the votaries of
Sgrog.
\ American laws prescribing penalties
for drunkenness range through wide
pcxtremes. 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 holiness the diff
ferent angles of vision from which law
making assemblies view the subject.
In the general statutes of IS states, all
In the west and southwest, no specific
legislation bearing on drunkenness
may be found, but punishment is pro-
wided for in local ordinances.
In the prohibition states of Maine
and New Hampshire the misdemeanor
Is punished exclusively by imprison-
ment. In Maine common drunkards
may be confined in the house of correc-
y ton until discharged by the overseers
Nof the poor or by two justices Of the
peace. In New Hampshire the maxi
mum period for which drunkards may
be incarcerated is six months.
In Ohio, South Dakota and Virginia
the statute books prescribe fines for
tntoxication, but make no reference
TO imprisonment. The penalty is in
elastic, and in Ohio it is fixed at five
Scollars; in South Dakota at ten dol
lars, and in Virginia, except where &
different punishment is established by
local ordinance, at one dollar.
In 1e commonwealths the alternative
penalties of fine or Imprisonment are
authorized, The lghtest monetary
punishment for intoxication is found
In Delaware, where a uniform fine of
so cents is exacted. On the other hand,
the fines in Illino obs range from $50 to
500. The reason for making the pos
sible financial retribution for inebri-
ETY. 200 times as large in the Sucker
state as in the Blue Hen state is not
easy to explain, unless in the south it
be on the theory of the late w. R.
Traverse, who said that he stammered
more in New York than he did in Balti-
more, because New York was much
bigger place.
Alabama likewise authorizes a maxi
mum fine of 500 for person who
manifests a drunken condition by
ooisterous or indecent conduct or loud
and profane DISCOURSE" but the mini
mum exaction is five dollars. Similar
variations exist in imprisonment pen
alties for intoxication. For instance,
the maximum term for which a drunk
ard may be imprisoned in Wisconsin is
Eve days, while in Rhode Island a
habitual drunkard may be committed
for three years, and in New York a
habitual female drunkard may be kept
In the house of refuge at Hudson for
five days.
In eight states and territories stat.
utory provision is made for the insti-
tutional treatment of inebriates
North Dakota authorizes the commit.
ment, at county expense, of habitual
drunkards to "any reputable institu.
ton for the treatment of drunken.
ness" designated by committee APP.
pointed by the governor. The victim
must express desire to undergo treat.
ment and must be impecunious, and he
cannot be committed a second time al
the public expense. In the territory
of oklahoma, where the law is sub
stantially similar, not more than -four
\ persons can be sent to the institution
u ~-@s---- -