Daily Arizona silver belt., 1909-05-11
MIR. BRYAN AND THE LIQUOR
 TRAFFIC

MIR. BRYAN AND THE LIQUOR
 TRAFFIC
 William J. Bryan, whose enemies have besn accusing him rather maliciously, and probably not with any great sheer ity, of lukewarn.:.ess toward the prohi- bit4on movement now sweeping portions of the west and south like an epidemic, has found a way to show his sympathy with that movement without going too far in the indorssment. He takes up an ancient grievance of the prohibition ists-the issue by the federal govern ment of licenses to sell liquor in prohi- bition territory--and urges that the is- sue of licenses in disregard of local sentiment and local law be prohibited by an amendment to the internal reve- nue sections of the new tariff bin. The state of facts whi :h MT. Bryan regards as warranting ths legislation is thus described in tho Commoner:
 The Federal government is to- day issuing licenses tor the sale of liquor in territory where toe local authorities have prohibited the sale. In several states the sale of liquor is prohibited by statute, in a mum Der or states lts sale IS prohlblJed in majority or coGntes, and in all of tLe states it is prohibited in
 many villages, towLs, cities and precincts. But in spite or the at tempt or the local authorities i'll these distrlcts to prohibit the sale or hquor as beverage, the federal government continuts to issue h-
 ceases in Iontempt.o.s disregard of local sentiment and local law. The government receives Sz5 Tor
 each neense, and in receiving the money 1t must elJh.r intena to col leet that sum wlrLoGt glvlng any
 thing valuable in ratlrn tin case
 the one receiving the incense does
 noG sell hQuor) or to enco.lase the oAe receiving the Incense to violate
 the local law, TOT he caLnoS lsS nlS license wltAo.t vloiatlng the law.
 MT. Bryan appeals to the democrats in congress to propose the amendment he suggests and to put the issue of pas sage squarely before the republicans. he arguss that the democratic members could consistently support it, for it ac- coros with their doctrine of home rule, strengthening the authority of local governments to deal with their own affairs, and stopping what many have considered an upjustitiabls conflict of federal legislation with local regulation of the liquor traffic. Moreover, says MT. Bryan, the federal license encour- ages the violation of law, and no one, whether in favor of prohibition or not, shoald favor the nonenI orcement or law
 This dexterous plea will doubtless add to MT. Bryan's popularity in local option and prohibition territory, though it may be questioned whether congress is anxious to face in the open any phase of the prohibition controversy. Yet 8 very important bit of legislation affect ing the liquor traffic was allowed to be- COAl46 q idW dI Sie Af$sJ oSoSAS~A sNA- ~sAe>AA it's incorporation by amendment into the penal code. We refer to the clause of the code forbiddins interstate ship mert by railroad or express companies of liquor c. O. D., practice which in some portions of the country was the equivalent of conducting large retail business in original packages. It is also required that all such packages shall be plainly labeled so as to indi- cate the nature of their contents. The new law does not take effect until next year, but since it's enactment at leass one express company has voluntarily abandoned the shipment Of liquor 0. O. D.
 Although the extreme prohibitionists profess not to be satisfied with this legislation, because it does not absolute ly forbid the shipment of liquor across state boundaries into prohibition terri tory, there can be little question that 1t will prove an effective aid to the en- foreement of prohibitory laws. MT. Bry- an might cite the new law as precedent for further congressional action such as ho suggests.