Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1910-09-01
PROHIBITION AND LIQUOR CON.
SUMPTION.

PROHIBITION AND LIQUOR CON.
SUMPTION.
The question OF prohibition and H.
quor consumption is always interest
Ing. The traffic in intoxicants and it's
regulation is perhaps the most i'm
portant question of our social system
today. For good many years there
has been militant crusade by a
great number OF enthusiasts, against
the saloon and the traffic in liquor.
The statistics would indicate that the
fight on the saloon has been more
effective than the fight directly on
liquor and its use. Recent statistics
OF the United States department of
statistics would indicate that while
dry" territory is increasing the use
of liquor is also increasing. For ex.
ample, the St. Louis Democrat
says:
For the fiscal year ending on June
30, 1910, the beer sales in the United
States amount to 59,4S5,117 barrels,
of thirty-one gallons each, as com.
pared with 39,330,84S barrels in 1900.
These figures are furnished by the
bureau of statistics at Washington.
There has been an increase of 51.2
per cent in the ten years. Assuming
that the population of the country
will be found to be about 93,00O,O0O.
which is larger estimate than any
body was making until a few weeks
ago, the population has increased 22.6
In the decade. In the same ten years
distilled spirits has increased in con-
sumption to the extent of 44.9 per
cent.
And yet in this decade there has
been large gain in the number of
prohibition states. There were only
three-Maine, Kansas and North Da-
kota-i1 1900. Half a dozen-North
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Missis-
sippi, Tennessee and Oklahoma-have
been added to the list in the past
three or four years. Moreover, in the
decade many other states, by local ex-
clusion acts, have shut out intoxi-
cants, or pretended to do so, from
counties and towns. While only
100000 people resided in dry" ter
ritory in 1900, 41,OO0,OOO are there in
1910.
~ How ia it that while the area of
the prohibition region is steadily and
rapidly expanding the amount of malt
and distilled liquors consumed by the
people is increasing at a much greater
rate than is population? 1t must also
be borne in mind that the figures
here given for consumption touch only
tthe liquors on which taxes are paid
to the government. For obvious rea-
sons the "moonshine" stills and brew
cries are not included. Nobody ex-
cept those who run them know any
thing about them officially, and they
don't tell. That the number is large,
however, is certain. More of all sorts
of liquors is drank now than ten
years ago. This Is manifest from the
governments books. OF course, this
means that the laws in the dry
states and in some of the dry" coun-
ties are evaded. They are evaded in
Georgia and Oklahoma and the other
states which adopted the exclusion
fad in the past few years, just as they
are in Maine, Kansas and North Da-
kota, where, technically, intoxicants
have been outlawed for several dec
AIDES. The query, Does prohibition
prohibit? must be answered by an
emphatic negative.
There are several questions to be
considered in forming a judgment
from these figures. And some of
them are difficult to answer. One OF
the questions to be answered is, how
much would the liquor traffic have
increased If there we're no prohibi'
tion states? If prohibition has de.
creased the tendency to increased con.
sumption of liquor in any particular,
then it has had some beneficial effect.
II the increase of liquor consumption
would have been greater with all
states wide open," then prohibition
has not been altogether failure. And
smother thing to be considered 10 that
fhe liquor tfahic has been outlawed
IL the prohibition states. Brewers
ia sdisti1lers and those representing
them have been kept ont OF the state
ana local poHties. That has been
some advantage. And we must re-
member, too, that there has been an
49,