The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-09-11

|
 cltng liquors must procure, each year, 9 stamp or license from the internal revenue ! dena rtment of the United States. The humber of such licenses issued in state l in any year shows therefore, the numper | of persons or firm selling liquor !n such
 state during the year in question
 The report of the United States com
 missioner of internal revenue Tor i'ol
 Gage 60 shows that in that year Ncr- mcnt had cos and New Hampshire loSl 1 retail liquor dealers. Both states were then under prohibition In 1903, both New Hampshire and Yer meth abandoned prohibition as failure and adopted license systems.
 The report of the internal revenue com- missioner for 196, tpage 51 shows that 1 in that year. under license. Vermont had SO5 and New Hampshire s72 retail liquor dealers.
 Vermont had, therefore in 1901, 393 more retailers of liquor than in 1906 or double as many liquor sellers under proh- bition, as under license. While New Hampshire had G00 more liquor dealers in l90l under prohibition, than she had in 1906 under license.
 In 1901. New Hampshire and Vermont together had, while under prohibition, one retail liquor dealer for every 20' of their population or a greater number in pro poi ton to population than the average (one for every 333 of population m all of the license states of the Union. From the report of the United States commissioner of internal revenue for l9Q6, page 5l. it is shown that the nunher
 of retail liquor dealers in proportion to
 population in each of the states given 1 below, was as follows: Prohibition States. 1 Kansas, 1 for every 366 of population ! Maine. 1 for every l15S of population.
 North Dakota. 1 for every 3l9 popu- | lation.
 License States. Arkansas l for every S25 of population. Alabama for every S54 of populat T. Delaware 1 for every il3 of population. | Florida 1 for every 525 of population. Georgia l for every 121S of population. Kentucky, 1 for every lS3 of population. Massachusetts 1 for every 552 of popu- laton.
 Mississippi. 1 for every 2Ssi of popula- tion
 Missouri 1 for every 32l of population.
 Nebraska 1 for every 3S0 of population.
 New Hampshire for every PIP of popu- laton.
 North Carolina, 1 for every 1892 of popu- laton.
 oklahoma and Indian Territory, 1 for every i50 of population. Texas 1 for every 5l5 of population. | Vermont l for every 1l27 of popula ton.
 West Virginia, for every i39 of popu- lation.
 All of these seventen license state had fewer retail liquor dealers. in proportion to population, than had prohibition North Dakota.
 Maine had more liquor sellers in propor- ton to population than Vermont, Georgia or North Carolina Texas Kansas had moresretai liquor dealers in proportion to population than Massaehu- sets or Kentucky or many other states.
 Oklahoma had fewer liquor dealers in proportion to population than Kansas or North Dakota
 North Dakota had more liquor dealers in proportion to population than the aver age in all the license state and terri tories of the Union, and i5 per cent more than South Dakota Thus official statistics of absolute aeeur- acy prove that prohibition does notp TO- h1bit This conclusion is made much stronger if it is considered that none Of the prohibition states contain large cities, which have always increased the propor- ton of saloons, while many of the li- cense states have one or more large cities.
 From the same authoritative source it may be learned that local prohibition, in communities under local option laws. tS equally failure. Ii Coes not prevent the sale If only drives il into more secret and dlsreputable hands and places
 In Arkansas, which is largely under To- cal option, the number of liquor dealers increased from 980 in 1901 to l690 in 1906. an increase of 62 per cent.
 Tn Florida also largely local option, the number of dealers increased from 6lS in 1901 to l007 in 1906, an increase of s2 per cent.
 In Michigan, very large per cent of which is under local option. then umber of liauor dealers increased from 7680 in 1901 to 9G0O in 1906. an increase of 9 per cent.
 In Mississippi, 90 per cent of which is dry the number of liquor dealers in- creased from 462 in 1901 to cor in 1908, an increase of 3l per cent
 In Oregon, which adopted local option in isjl the number of dealers increased from l5l3 in 1901 To 2lol in 190G an in- crease of 5S per cent.
 In Tennessee, where the most drastic local option laws are in force the num- her of dealers increased from 1882 in lsJi to 233l in 190G Nh increase of Y per cy1t most violent local option movement Of any state In the Union. and in which a vast proportion of the territory is dry. shows an increase iu the number of ! lduor dealers from j4j9 in 1901 to 59l5 in i leo,. or an increase of per cent
 These figures are more eloquent than { any amount of arg1ment. They show con clusively that prohibition In any form f does not check the sale, but only change [ the manner of selling and that very . much for the worse.
 If, then, the number of retail liquor 1 sellers in prohibition states and in com { munltles under local option is as great | as. or greater than, the number in H. | cense states. prohibition does not pro- | hibit for these licenses would not be taken out and paid for unless it was profitable to do so and the profit can i only come from the sales of liquor. The | business may he carried on little less i publicly. but ths drinking Is all the worse