Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-01-24

| Stdtco, uliu inc itdS'Ii WY d VI biiibI
ton state allows liquors shipped int,
its territory from another state. W,
give the following from a non parti.
san standpoint. hoping that it furn.
isles al the information asked for in
Il lengthy letter from 90. w. F.
! The policy of prohibiting by state
law the sale and manufacture OF
| alcoholic beverages began with the
! law of Muinc of 1916, replaced in 1851
| by more stringent one. which with
| the exception OF the years 1886 and
| 1851 mas been in force ever since that
| time. The Maine law" as the pro-
| hibitiye laws have commonly been
| called, was enacted in Vermont in 49,
and in New Hampshire in 1856. \ pro.
hibitiNC law was enacted in Connecti-
cut in 1854: IN New York in 1855 Crc.
pealed in 800, Prohibition laws have
a. one tune or another been enacted
| aiso III Delaware. Rhode Island
| Massachusetts. Michigan, Indiana,
Iowa, Nebraska. Illinois. Kansas, Ohio.
anu North aud South Dakota. Prohi.
| bition amendments to the constitution
| We're carried in Kansas 0ssO); Iowa
tlAs@, declared invalid on technical
grounds. l>N3l Ohio uss3): Maine
tissD; Rhode Island dS86); South Da-
kota tlSs') North Dakota uSsD. In
IOWA after the annulment of consti-
tutlondl prohibition through decision
o. the SUPREME court of thu stat, .
pfoillbitory law vas passed 1854
"hicH' WIN certain notifications to be
iio'eu DeloW, still remains on tie stat
u'e DOORS. The prohibitory clause in
Tue khode Island constitution was re-
peaied in 1889; the Ohio prcbibjtorv
ciause, like that of Iowa. failed 10
stand the test of constitutionaljtv In
le'o the prohibitory clause in tho
'ou." Dakota constitution was sub
united 10 referendum vote and de-
1eated. In 1903 the prohibitory laws of
vermont and New Hampshire were
repeated; that Of Vermont by referen-
uuln vote, that Of New Hampshire nv
act "f legislature. In 1906 Maine Kan.
sas and North Dakota were tho only
states having effective prohibition
iowa Is prohibitionist only in name. n
system OF licensed selling having been
ihaouuccu by tie So-called "mulct
law OF 1884. Under the provisions of
this law, every person, partnership. or
corporation carrying on the business
OF selling intoxicating beverages mnst
pay an annual tax of $500, the proceeds
10 De divided equally between county
ana municipality. In cities of 5000
anu over liquor sellers who are able
10 lille with the county authorities the
written consent of majority of the
resident voters. and who preserve or
DER and de2ency on their premises. and
furnish a satisfactory bond for tho
performance of their public oblica-
IONS are by the law given immunity
IRON prosecution under the prohibition
law, provided that their mulct taxes
are properly paid. In smaller places
tue consent of sixty-five per cent of
the resident voters is required.
The enforcement of prohibitory laws
mas oeen seriously hampered by the
limited control of the states over
trade. No state can prohibit the
purchase by one of its citizens from
citizens OF other states. of aleo-
holie liquors for his own consumption.
No state can interfere with transport
tation into the state of intoxicants
consigned to a citizen of the state for
his consumption. In 1890 the Su-
pren,e Court decided that no state
could prohibit the sale within the state
of alcoholic beverages so long as the
original packages in which they had
oeen imported were unbroken. In the
same year. however, Congress passed
law subjecting alcoholic beverages
imported into state, even in their
original packages, to the same police
regulations so would be applicable to
the same kind of goods if manufac-
tured in the state
While d number of bills for federal
prohibition have been introduced in
Congress. the only federal legislation
OF prohiuiti0nist nature enacted has
had reference to sale of alcoholic
liquors TO Indians living in tribal rcla-
tons. and to the sale of Intoxicating
beverages II army canteens u9oD.
Conflicting claims are made by sup
portcrs and opponents of prohibition
as to the possibility of enforcing pro-
hibitory laws. 1t is generally admitted
that in no state have the laws been rig
idly enforced for any length OF time.
In general, the local authorities have
been relied upon to enforce the laws.
Where public sentiment has not
strongly condemned the trade in alco-
hole liquors, the enforcement of the
law has been lax. This has been noto-
rlously the case in the larger cities.
Some states have appointed state COM
missions and state police officers for
the enforcement Of the liquor laws.
The experiment has been only moder-
ately successful. iuries often failing to
convict persons charged with violation
of the law.
There is no unanilnity of opinion as
to the general social effect of prohibi-
ton. Supporters of the policy claim
that drunkenness is decreased by it, in
spite of the laXity of enforcement; OPP
ponents of prohibition allegc that it
tends to diminish the consumption Of
milder intoxicants. which cannot east
~ H. secretly transported because OF
their large bulk, and to increase pro-
Fortunately the use of highly alcoholic
liquors. There are no statistics of
drunkenness and crimes and disorder
| resulting therefrom upon which a fair
comparison between prohibition and
non prohibition states may be based,