The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1902-01-02
5'z5}aIAZiEIj}I(l:IlI!|I!li'II5
NN -EgAN T.
TREATING The DRUNKARD.
Differences Between the Laws of tn e
Various States-Vnried
Punishments.

ton were recorded in the 129 largest
cities of the United States indicates
the econ9mic and social magnitude of
the question. The attitude of legisla-
lures and police departments toward
ine'briety is study in diversity.
The policy of the police toward
drunken individuals varies so widely
in different cities that no common ra-
ito exists between the number of ar
rests for intoxication and the volume
of drinking. In the prohibition city
of Portland, Me, the years arrests for
drunkenness aggregated 423, or eight
to every 1000 population. In Toledo,
o., where there were 647 licensed sa-
looms and where, under Mayor Jones.
the practice of official leniency toward
drunkards obtains, there were only
367 arrests for drunkenness, or three
to every ] 900 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 PA saloons and with
a somewhat. rigorous police policy. the
arrests of victims of inebriety num-
bered 1856, or 80 to each 1000 popula-
ton, while in Bridgeport, in the same
state, with 312 saloons. the arrests
footed up only 7S4, or II to every 1000
residents.
In wide-open New York the arrests
for intoXication were 13 to each 1000
people; in decorous Philadelphia. %
to each 1000; in intellectual Boston. "a
to each 1000, and in beer-drinlling Mil
waukee, with 1,747 licensed saloons. six
to each 1000. These figures, selective
in character and capable of abundant
expansion, display downright discrep-
ancy, and their explanation lies in the
varying local policies of police author
titles in dealing with the votaries of
grog.
American laws prescribing penalties
for drunkenness range through wide
extremes. 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 boldness 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-
vided 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-
ton until discharged by the overseers
of 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
intoXication, but make no reference
to imprisonmen The penalty is in
elastic, and in Ohio it is fixed at five
dollars; in South Dakota at ten dol
lars, and in Virginia, except where a
different punishment is established by
local ordinance, at one dollar.
In 16 commonwealths he alternative
penalties of fine or Imprisonment are
authorized. The lightest monetary
punishment for intoXication is found
in Delaware, where a uniform fine of
so cents is eXacted. On the other hand,
the fines in Illinois range from $40 to
800. 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, because New York was much
bigger place.
Alabama likewise authorizes a maxi
mum fine of 500 for a person who
"manifests a drunken condition by
boisterous 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
five days, while in Rhode Island a
habitual drunkard may be committed
for three years, and in New York a
habtual 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-
tion for the treatment of drunken
2 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 at
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
from one county in year. In Moth
Carolina the period of treatment can
not be less than three months nor more
than a year, and drunkard may COM
init himself, upon application indorsed
by respectable friend
Legislation providing for the suspen-