The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-06-28

by large majorities in both houses.
The legislature. however, placed on
the State books a law modelled after
the Webb-Kenyon law and imposing
heavy penalties for the shipment OF
liquor from wet" to dry territory
in the State.
vermont's prohibition proposal was
in the form of law which will be
submitted to the people at the munich
pal election In the spring of 1915. II
passed. its effect will be drastic as ii
makes no provision for the sale OF IL
quor for medical and mechanical pur-
poses.
States Strengthen Laws.
The four prohibition States which
decided to strengthen their present
laws were Kansas. North Carolina.
Tennessee and West Virginia. The
Kansas measures approach the unique
I'm prohibition legislation. Two were
passed, one providing that the
municipality where liquor is sold is
liable for damage for injury to per-
sons of property resulting from intox-
ication. The other, which is aimed at
those who permit so-called "keg par
ties to be held on their premises. Inn
poses similar liability upon the owner
of property where liquor is sold or
given away.
North Carolina passed an anti-ship-
ping act. known there as tsle anti
Jug act. which forbids the shipment
to and receipt by any one person OF
more than one quart of spirituous II
quors and five gallons of malt bever-
age every fifteen days.
Tennessee. where the prohibition
laws have not been strictly enforced
In the larger cities 1t is said, passed
an custer law. modelled after Kan
sss statute, which provides for the re-
moval from office of State county or
city official tother than holders oil
constitutional offices) who fail to en-
force the laws of the State. The leg
islature also enacted measures forbid
ding social and fraternal clubs to dis
pense liquor or maintain lockers for
members; placing the supervision OF
soft drink stands under the pure food
and drug department and forbiddine
them to sell beverages containing
more than one-half per cent alcohol
and prohibiting drug stores from sell
ing intoxicants except on bona ffde
prescriptions given to persons who
actually are III.
West Virginia enacted amendments
to the Yost prohibition law limitina
shipments of liquor into the State and
forbidding a person to have liquor in
a public place even for his own use
Nor hereafter can any one in West
Virginia give drink to another ex-
cept in his own home. home being
specified as a permanent place of resi-
dence. not a hotel or rather public
place.
Oklahoma Defeats.
All n fap n tn reviaa the nrnhihf-
ton laws oe Oklahoma were defeated.
In Oregon where prohibition be-
comes effective In January next as
the result of previous action by the
voters on constitutional amendment,
the legislature enacted a law to en-
force the amendment. The law pro-
hibits the manufacture of intoxicat-
ing liquor in the State and it's sale
except on physicians prescription or
for scientific. sacramentai or mechan-
icai uses. 1t allows limited amount
10 be imported by the heads of fami-
lies.
A law for similar purpose was
enacted in Colorado where a prohibit
ton amendment goes into effect the
same date. The Colorado law forbids
the buying, selling and giving away
of liquor except for medical or sacra-
mental purposes and prohibits COM
mon carriers from Transporting liquor
into the State except for lawful pur-
poses--this includes the transporta-
ton to individuals who must sign a
receipt that the liquor Is for their own
use. The law contains search and
seizure provision and gives the gov
ernor $4,000 yearly for its enforce
ment.
The legislature of Washington.
where prohibition IL also effective in
January next. ignored Governor Lis
ter's request for an appropriation of
$50, 000 to enforce the law.
The liquor traffic in Arkansas. hav
ing been banned by the previous leg
islature with law which likewise
takes effect In January, was not up
for consideration this year. Virginia.
Which goes into the ..dry" column la
November, 1915. held no general leg.
islative session this year.
Statewide prohibition proposals
met defeat in Connecticut, Indiana
Michigan. New Mexico, New York and
Wyoming. The question was before
the General Assembly of Connecticut
as q proposed constitutional amend
ment which the legislators declined to
send to the next assembly for ratiff-
cation. The Legislature. however, in
creased the cost OF retail liquor IL
censes Sc "a per cent aud for the
first time placed social and fraternal
organizations serving liquors to men,
bers. under excise regulation. In In
diana Statewide measure died In
committee of the lower house
In Michigan the question promised
to he one, OF the features of the SEES
sion. but nothing came of ii. A bill
was introduced into the Senate pro-
yiding for the submission of statutory
prohibition to the vote OF the people
at general election next year. but
the prohibition leaders themselves
voted against II after the liquor fac
tion had attached rerfaiu aoenarneafs