Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1915-06-23

LII "S "CAV INdIISuCS sNOSIA SOAOlIA0
I Tennessee and West Virginia. The
Kansas measures approach the unique
in prohibition legislation. Two were
passed. one providing that the NUM-
cipality where liquor is sold is liable
for damage for injury to persons OF
property resulting from i%ntoxication.
The other, which Is aimed at those
who permit so.called "keg parties to
be held on their premises, imposes
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 the amt.
jug" act which forbids the shipment
to and receipt by any one person of
more than one quart OF spirituous H.
q,lors and five gallons OF malt bever.
age every fifteen days
Tennessee, where the prohibition
laws have not been strictly enforced
in the larger cities, il is said, passed
an custer Law. modelled after Il Kan
sas statute, which provides for the
city officials (othcr than holders Of
removal from Office Of state, county Or
officials (other than holders Of con-
stitutional O~lices) who fail 10 enforce
the laws OF the state. The legislature
also enacted measures f~Ort!dding 80
cial and fratcrnal clubs TO dispense
LIQUOR or rGaintain lockers for mem
berS: placing the supervision OF soft
drink stands under the pure food and
drug department and f%orbidding them
TO sell beverages containing more
than ono-half per cent alcohol and
prohibiting drug stores from selling
intoxicants except on bona tide pre-
scription given to persons who actll-
+ ally are i'll. .
Amend Yost Laws. =
West Virginia enacted amendments
to the Yost prohibition law limiting
shipments Of liquor into the state and
forbidd;ng a person to have liquor in
a public place even for his own use.
Nor hereafter can any n ia West
Virginia give a drink to another in
his own home, home being specified
as a permanent place OF residence,
not a hotel or other public place. i,
All attempts to revise the prohibi.
ton laws of Oklahoma were defeated.
In Oregon, where prohibition be-
comes effective in January next as
the result of previous action by the
voters on a constitutional amendment,
the legislature enacted a law to en-.
force the amendment. The law pro.
hibits the manufacture of intoxicating
liquor in the state and its sale except
on physicians prescription or for sci.
entific sacramento or mechanical us.
es. 1t allows a limited amount to be
imported by the heads Of families.
A law for a similar purpose was en-.
acted in Colorado where a prohibit.
I rion 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 II.
quor into the state except for lawful
purposes-this includes the trans
portation to individuals who must
sign a receipt that the liquor is for
their own use. The law contains q
search and seizure provision and
gives the governor $4,000 yearly fof
its enforcement.
The legislature Of Washington,
where prohibition is also effective
in January next. ignored Governor
Listers request for an appropriation
of $4,000 to enforce the law.
The liquor traffic in Arkansas, hav.
ing been banned by the previous leg.
i%slature with a law which likewise
takes effect in January, was not up
for consideration this year. Virginia,
which goes into the dry" column In
November, 1916, held no legislative
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 a proposed constitutional amend.
ment, which the Legislators .drclined
to seEd to the next assembly for rati.
fcation. The Legislature. however, in,
creased the cost Of retail liquor Ii.
censes G5 % per cent, and for the
first time placed social and fraternal
organizations serving liquors to mem
bers under excise regulation. In In.
diana q statewide measure died in q
committee of the lower house.
In Michigan the question wrOmised
to be one of the features of the SEES.
sion, but nothing came of it. A bill
was II troduced into the senate prOvid.
ing for the submission of statutory
prohibition to the vote O fthe people
at a general election next year, but
the prohibition leaders themselves
voted against it after the liquor fac.
ton had attached certain amendments
to it which, in the opinion Of the
"drys," defeated the purpose Of the
bill. ~
While a strong effort was made in
teh New Mexico legislature to secure
action on a constitutional amendment
resolution, the issue was not allowed
to come to a vote i either house. In
New York all measures designed to
have a statewide effect on the liquor
yrafac were killed, and IN Wyoming
rthe issue was twice before theslegis.
lature in proposals for a constitution.
al amendment. ana twice defeated.
Failure in illinois.
Both wet" and dry" measures
failed 81 enactment IN Illinois. They
were all killed by the Fho,.se. The
temperance measures introduced pro
vided for residence district option, for
stricter enforcement Of the anti-lio.
quor laws In prohibition territory and