The Bottineau courant. (Bottineau, Bottineau County, N.D.) 1895-1929, 1907-01-18

SiNtAONs ~ lNO1u lI1o, l1lC
Norwegian system makes the
State and the local community
or municipality the receiver of
the main share of the profits
and provides that no part of
the local community's share is
devoted to purposes, however
worthy in themselves, which
would. otherwise be provided
for out of municipal taxes.
Sweden seems only now to
be awakening to the conscious
ness of the flaw in the Gothen-
burg system, and the new
Swedish liquor law which
comes into operation this year
approaches he Norwegian
system, Norway seems to have
been from the first aware of the
flaw in the Gothenburg system.
The two important pieces of
Norwegian liquor legislation
have been the laws of 1894 and
1904. In the former law it was
enacted that of the profits, Is
per cent, should go to the COM
munity in compensation for
the loss of revenue formerly
derived from licenses, 20 per
cent, to useful purposes fol
which the municipality was
not legally bound to provide,
and the remaining IS per cent
to the State, to accumulate
until 1911 as a fund to provide
insurance against old age and
sickness or accident. The law
of 1904 went still further in the
same direction, providing for
the gradual. reduction of the
community's share. in five
years from 20 to 10 per cent.
In another important respect
the Norwegian system differs
from the Swedish-namely in
the existence of a continually
recurring: exercise Of local
option. The provisions of the
law of 1894, which is continued
under the law of 1904 is that at
the: end of every term. of FIVE
years vote of the: entire COM
munity above twenty five years
|of age, shall lie, taken, il de-
manded byra twentieth part of
thepopu1ation, on the question
of the continuance or. abolition
of the Sarnlag, or Company
that is to say the machinery
provided by the Norwegian
liq uor law-if it. already exists,
or of it's inauguration, if it
does exist, and that the question
8 h a l l. be determined BY a
simple majority of those entitl-
ed to vote. This arrangement
Prof. Seth says ''ensures' that
the San1lag e. shall be conducted
in a manner approved by local
public opinion, and shall give
place to some other method of
dealing with the problem as
soon as the. community ceases
to be satisfied with the Samlag
method. In Sweden there has
been no provision, so far for
such an appeal TO public
opinion, and the fact that it is
not subject to effective public
opinion is another reason for
the comparatively lax ad-
ministration of the system in
that country" E'-r'.:* - : '><.-
The Norwegian law allows
a municipality either itself to
conduct the retail trade in
spirits, wine and beer, or to
delegate the :, business . to r. a
Company (Samlag) working
under it's supervision. In no
case, however, has a municipal
ity elected to- conduct the !busi-
nessritself. The. results of the
Norwegian system :; are un-
doubtedly of the most decisive
Importance for the cause of
temperance. That country
which was formerly one of the
most drunken in Europe is now
the most temperate" is to be
attributed in the opinion of
those best qualified to Judge,
Prof. Seth tells as, to that
system. 1t is to be noted, how
ever, that. Norway's liquor law
does not satisfy the aspirations
of the most advanced temper
ance reformers, who in Norway
as elsewhere, aim at prohibi-
ton as as ultimate ideal. The
great mass of the temperance
reform i sentiment in, Norway
recognizes the actual value of
the system that exists, and
devotes itself to efforts to
improve its details. AS Prof.
Seth puts it, they are temper
ate, t h e, advocacy of their
cause" " They are, apparently,