The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1906-03-27
DON'T FANCY
LOWER LICENSES
FOR DRUGGISTS

The wholesale liquor dealers are not the
least bit pleased with the proposition TO
reduce the liquor license fee OF wholesale
druggists: but present indications do not
warrant expectation of any concerted OPP
position on their part. though some OF
them, in a quiet. forcible way do not hes
ltate TO say they think the druggists are
at least altogether too generous to them
selves.
II Is generally believeD. however. that
Representative Gibson's bill reducing the
license fee will be passed without any
very prolonged discussion in the assem-
bly,.
Some OF the wholesale liquor dealers say
they have not given the matter much
serious thought: but when pressed for an
opinion all stated that personally they
were much opposed 10 the granting Of the
reduction 10 the wholesale druggists un-
less the same privilege be extended to
themselves.
As to protesting against the bill. how
ever. there has been no move made as yet
with that end In view.
The liquor dealers claim that the drug
gists have the same right TO sell In un-
limited quantities as have they, and that
IL their druggists trade Is limited II is
not because OF any provisions in the pres
ent law.
The druggists, OF whom Messrs. Hall
& Lyon, BlaDding a. Blanding. and George
l.. Clahin are perhaps the leaders. claim
that they are In the wholesale liquor busi-
ness merely because circumstances force
them into IL, and that they are not there
for the profits accruing themefrom.
They claim that the liquor business is
but very small part of their trade. and
that the present license fee Is so exor-
bitant that what small profit might come
10 them Is more than wiped out oy the
$1,000 license fee each year.
They assert that the books OF the inter-
nal revenue office will show how small
their liquor trade Is. and Will bear them
out I'm their position. Their trade Is ex.
clusively with the medical fraternity ana
for medicinal purposes. and hence cannot
but be limited
In other states, they urge. the license
fee 10 druggists is not the same as that
OF the liquor dealers. this being true par
ticularly In Massachusetts and In Boston
Mr.. W. o. Blanding stated that the IL
cense fee In Boston is $500 for the drug
gists. but that the general license Zee Is
higher The druggists here, he said. had
carefully considered the matter, and after
Investigating the condition I'm other cities
and figuring their earnings from that
source came to the conclusion that the re-
duction asked for was only fair and Just.
He said he had written TO other states for
comparison, but as yet hard received no
definite replies.
George L. Clafin expressed the same
sentiment
Mr.. Lyon of Hall & Lyon was out OF
town and could not be seen. Others In
authority, however. were unanimous in
the opinion that the present fee, for them.
was exorbitant and that the reduction
asked for should be granted.
With the sentiments OF the liquor deal
ers against this special legislation, how
ever, there may be possibilities of fight
The liquor dealers. however. all state that,
though individually not favoring the
granting OF a reduction to the druggists
no concerted action has yet been taken,
and incline to think that none will be-