Evening journal., 1907-08-15
Local Option and Revenue.

Many requests have come from the
people Of Wilmington in regard to the
effect which local option VIII have on
the revenues Of the city and l ask the
privilege Of stating through the coli
umns OF THE EVENING JOURNAL
the facts as we find them for the infor-
nation OF your many readers.
We are continually hearing the ar
gument that after the liquor licenses
are cut off taxes will be raised. In the
first place, the amount of money re-
ceipts from liquor licenses of all sorts
much overestimated. According TO the
report Of the State Auditor and the
state Treasurer, the grand total Of re-
ceipts fro mliquor licenses Of all sorts
for the year 1906 was S77490.06. OF
this amount New Castle county paid
66,94S.91, Kent county S6,540.40, and
Sussex county $4,00O75 For the whole
State Of Delaware to raise $4,000, even
IN this whole license tax were a dead
loss on adopting local option, which
we will show you is not true, would be
a very small proposition But let us
notice its unjust distribution even as
a tax. New Castle county paid &c.,
94S.91 OF the tax and Kent and Sussex
combined paid s10.54t.15, or New Castle
paid six times as much license tax into
the State treasury as Kent and Sussex
combined, and of that amount about
$50 900 came from the city Of Whining
ton alone but most OF il came in the
final adjustment from the poorer
classes OF our city and not a cent came
back TO our city or 10 our county, but
all went into the general State fund.
Wilmington had the expense Of extra
policemen to control the traffic, the
costs OF city courts and the care Of the
drunkards, and the State got the H.
cense tax. But that Is not all Of the
story. The administration OF the license
law and the care Of the drunkard costs
us more than the amount of the IL
cense. The saloon increases crime and
criminals are expensive to a commun-
ity. According TO the annual report of
our chief OF police for 1905, out of 1854
arrests made in Wilmington, 1855 were
for drunkenness, 153 were for drunk
enness and disorderly conduct, 3 for
drunk and exposing person. 2 drunk
and trespassing. making 1413 arrests
out Of 1854. more than one-third OF the
total arrests made in which drink di-
rectly figured. But many of the other
arrests are largely attributed TO
drink. and we will name some Of them
so that the reader can determine what
proportion 10 add to the list; Arrests
for assault and battery 800, for dis
orderly conduct 494. for lighting on the
streets Al. for non-support 23, neglect
ed children %. for neglecting children
IS, and for vagrancy 147. Win those
who argue that a license law pre-
vents speak -easies notice also that
there were % arrests for selling liquor
without a license.
The facts for 1906 as laid down In
the same report are equally convincing.
During that year there were 4423 ar
rests OF these 1905 were for drunken
ness 1874 for drunk and dlsorderly con-
duct. 1 for drunk and exposing person,
making 1000 arrests due to drink be-
sides 3b3 arrests for assault and bat
terry, G6S for disorderly conduct, 81 for
fighting on the streets. 80 for nom
support, Is for negecting minor chill
dren. 125 for vagrancy A large per
cent Of these latter are due also to
drink. There were also IL arrests for
selling liquor without a license.
/ woll allow every taxpayer who
honestly considers thes facts 10 draw
his own conclusion whether the arrest
and trial of such a large number of
drunSs does or does not raise taxes
In this city We appropriate $4,000
for police which was raised $4,000 this
year. and yet more policemen are need
ed to control this trafiic In my iudg
ment, the 2O2 saloons in this city are
a great financial burden on us and at
the same time the state gets what
ever advantage which may come from
the license.
Mr.. Hoffecker Of Smyrna, foreman
OF the grand jury in the fall of 1906
OF Kent county said there were Al in
dlctments found. OF these "a were di-
rectly due 10 drink 4 of the other
we're indirectly due 20 drink, leaving
but in which apparently drink did
not figure, Ti--t means that without
the curse OF rum last fall Kent county
instead of having Al criminal cases
would have had at most only and
probably only g. Yet according to the
report of the county treasurer for New
Castle county our court expenses for
1906 were $23.00O, large part Of which
every man knows who is familiar with
our criminal courts is due to drink.
The expense for magistrate and con-
stables was s4i479S. TOR coroners and
physicians sSi37.57, board OF prisoners
was $50. 75O40 nearly all Of which is
caused by drink. TO the trustees of the
poor $35,152.57, the larger part OF which
Is the result OF poverty caused by
drink, s12.152 10 the Ferris Industrial
School largely caused by drink and
S23S5 TO the Girls Industrial School,
making a total of s119,725.52 out of
SSls573 spent by the county. This Is
more than Ia OF the expenditures Of
the county which every taxpayer helps
10 pay, This is only the cost as taken
from the figures of the county treas
urer. Now add In the sums you give
to private charities made necessary by
drink and the burden of this county is
greatly increased. In other words, the
drink traffic costs New Castle county
more than the whole state gets from
Il, but as IL now stands. the people OF
this county through the license law
pays $50, 6,94S9i as license tax and
also Sl1s,725S2. a large part of which
is paid in administering the trade. The
taxpayers of New Castle county would
be money in pocket II they paid the
whole amount OF the liquor license for
the whole State II they could get rid
OF the cost which rum saddles upon
them. Does that process raise taxes?
The liquor men keep fooling us by
pointing out the $4,000 of revenue and
not a word is said about the cost OF
liquor TO a community and the costs
.I.,IIa