New Britain herald., 1915-06-21


 l,euor from wet" to dry" territory in the state.
 vcrm6nt's Law Drastic. vermont's prohibition proposal was in the form of a law which will be submitted to the people at the mu- nicipal elections in the spring of 1916. If passed, it's effect will be drastic as it makes no provision Tor the sale of liquor for medical ana mechanical purposes.
 The four prohibition states which decided to strengthen their present laws were Kansas, North Carolina, Kansas measures approach the were passed, one providing that the municipality where liquor is sold is liable for damage for injury to per sons or property resulting from in- toxicaticn. The other, which is aimed at those who permit so-caiIed "keg- parties" to be held on their premises, imposes similar liability upon the owner of the property where liquor is sold or given away.
 "Anti-Jug" Act.
 North Carolina passed an anti shipping act, known there as the 'anti-jug' act, which forbids the shipment to and receipr by any one person of more than one quart of spirituous liquors and five gallons of malt beverage every fifteen days.
 Tennessee where the prohibition laws have not been strictly enforced in the larger cities, it is said, passed an custer law modelled after a Kansas statute which provides for the re- moval from office of state, county or city officials (other than holders of constitutional of7ces) who fail to en- force the laws of the state. The leg isIature also enacted measures for bidding social and fraternal clubs to dispense liquor or maintain lockers for members; placing the supervision of soft drink stands under the pure food and drug department and for. biding them to sell beverages con- taining more than one-half per cent. alcohol and prohibiting drug stores from selling intoxicants except on bona fide prescriptions given to per- sons who actually are i'll.
 West Virginia enacted amendments to the Yost prohibition law limiting shipments of liquor into the state and forbidding a person to have liquor in 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 permanent place of res idence, not hotel or other public place.,
 Defeated in Oklahoma.
 All attempts to revise the prohibit ton laws of Oklahoma were defeat ed.
 Tn Oregon, where prohibition be- comes effective in January next as the result of previous action by the vo- ters on a constitutional amendment, the legislature enacted law to en- force the amendment The law pro- hibits the manufacture of intoxicat- ing liquor in the state and its sale ex- cept on physicians prescriptions or for scientific sacramentai or me- chanical uses. It allows a limited amount to be imported by the heads of families.
 A law for a similar purpose was enacted in Colorado where a prori- bition amendment goes into effect the same date. The Colorado law for bids the buying. selling and giving away of liquor except for medical or sacramental purposes and prohibits common carriers from tranportine liquor into the state except for law full purpose and prohibits common carries from transporting liquor into the state except for lawful purposes this inclues the transportation to individuals who must sign a re- ceipt that the liquor is for their own use. The law contains a search and seizure provision and gives the governor s1o,0oo yearly for its en- forcement.
 Ignores Governors Reqest.
 The legislature of Washington where prohibition is also effective in January next, ignored Governor Lis ter's. reqest 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 a law which likewise takes effect in January. was not up for consideration this year. Virgin ia, which goes into the dry column in November, 1916, held no legisla- tive session this year.
 Statewide prohibition proposals 1 met defeat in Connecticut, Indiana, | Michigan, New Mexico, New York |