The united opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1881-1970, 1902-12-05

ury. This proposal was accepted. Twenty
highly respected firms and private indiVld'
uals formed Bolag or company, whlcn on
October list. 1865, began It's operatlonss an
example which was speedily followed IN
other towns.
''Mr James Whyte, the secretary Of the
United Kingdom Alliance, in referring 10
the establishment of the company SYSTEM
says: The Gothenburg companye was
formed in the faith that body of honest
and intelligent men, deeply moved by tne
sins and sorrows of which the liquor trafhc
was the unfailing source, would, II they
undertook to conduct the traf1ic for no
profit or emolument of their own, but for
the public good, be able to prevent, or at
least to greatly mitigate, the terrible evils
which experience has shown to be insep-
arabic from the common sale of drink when
carried on tor pFtfTa1e peFSTbnat sre
tant differences between the company sys-
TEN in Sweden and the company system IN
Norway, and in each country, the different
companies have their special regulations;
yet, in common parlance, the term 'Gothen-
burg system Is used as. descriptive Of the
whole Gothenburg having been the first
system. But the principle which underlies
the entire company system In Scandinavla
is the elimination Of private profit from
"The Gothenburg committee in their re-
port say: Neither local enactments nor po-
lice surveillance can do much so long as
public houses are In the hands Of private
individuals who find their profit in en-
couraging intemperance. without regard
for age or. youth, rich or poor" ,+ 81.
1.-The Prime Minister of Sweden put the
same thought into different words: "
stands to reason he said, That when u
private individual engages in the brand!
trade as we'll as in any other, this inter
est win induce him to sell as mucn as LIZ
can"
Referring to the fact that in Sweden the
beer trade has never been ihcIudea , IN Tue
I'm the meantime the committee make
various suggestions for controlling the peer
trade Of a kind with which we In bngla iiid
expect small result. Their recital serves
as a reminder of the insuperable dinculty
of exercising effective control over traq 4e
extend 1t. Happily there is reason to pc
licve that early legislation will remove the
difficulty which now keeps the sale OF Deer
outside company control.
Referring, finally, to the advantages OF
the Scandinavian system, the author men
lions, among others, the following;
"a trade universally recognized as dan
gerous is taken out of the hands OF the
private dealer, who naturally seeks to eX-
tend 1t, and is brought under effective re-
strictlon and control.
"If, as seems clear, prohibition is at
present impossible in large towns, the con-
trolling system provides what is incompara-
bly, the least harmful satety F cinb aim
Guilty, and no driving Of the trafhc below
the surface.
''The controlling system secures for the
community the vast monopoly profits which
now 90 to those interested in the trade,
and makes 1t possible to use them Tor the
of adequate counteracting
THE system enlists the active co-opera-
ton of good citizens, and is responsive to
an enlightened public opinion.
IF, then, 1t be asked to what practical
conclusions Of value to this country the
experiments in Scandinavia point, we re-
ply that there are two which far exceed all
others In importance , Tne Fst the PEG
consing reform must be built, is to take
the trade out Of private HANDS. So long as
the private interest Of the seller runs
long will the effort of the State to restrict
and control the traffic be bafied."
Passing to the dlspensary system OF
South Carolina the book says: ..'The dis
the retail trade in alcoholic liquors Is taken
out Of private hands and carried on In dis
saloon is abolished. and no sale permitted
except an on sale in sealed bottles The
system has been adopted to greater or
less extent in South Carolina, North Caro-
lima, Georgia and Alabama.
'Tn South Carolina, where a state mo
nopoly has been adopted, the dispensaries
are under centralized (State) management,
but where the dispensary system has been
adopted without State monopoly the dis
pensarles are managed locally.
when the dispensary system Is strictly
as Il state mOuOpOlyY Tue Oniy a.
tentative to the dispensary is prohibition.
There are, however, States in which the
dispensary is not State monopoly, but IN
or not, as they may determine. Within the
limits of these States there may be some
under the dispensary system,
others under prohibition, and others again
under some form of license.
This system has two-fold aim: First
to reduce the evil of the liquor traffic by
taking it out of private hands; and, sec
ond, to retain the whole of the profit Tor
State and municipal purposes
Under the heading, Results OF the
South Carolina State monopoly" the au-
thor continues:
Certain advantages of the system are
undeniabe. 1t has the great merit which
attaches to any system under which the
liquor trade is taken out of private hands,
namely, that administrative reforms which,
under private license, are either unat-
talnable or can only be secured after an
arduous national struggle, become at once
easy Of attainment. Not only has the or
binary saloon been abolished, but the
places for the sale of drink have been
greatly reduced in number, the hours OF
sale have been shortened, sales to minors
done away with, and gambling and the inn
moral accessories of the public house no
longer exist. The limitation OF sale TO
sealed bottles which may not be opened on
the premises, does. away with the treating
habit. Further, the bartender having no
inducement to push sales, the enforcement
of bylaws can be secured, and the DONNA
ton of the whisky rings in politics has be-
come q thing of the past"