El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1915-06-21

cided to strengthen their present laws
were Kansas. North Carolina, tTennes-
see and West Virginia The Kansas
measures approach the unique in pro-
hibition legislation. Two were passed,
one providing that the municipality
where liquor is sold is liable for dam
age for injury to persons OF property
resulting from intoxication- The other
which is aimed at those who permit
so-called key parties" to be held on
their premises, imposes similar liabiI-
ity upon the owner Of property where
liquor is sold or given away.
North Carolina passed an anti-ship-
ping act, known there as the "anti-jug
act" which forbids the shipment to
and receipt by any one person Of more
than one quart Of spirituOus liquors
and five gallons Of malt beverage
every Is days.
Tennessee Clamps on Lid.
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 fOther than holders Of
constitutional Officesl who fail TO en-
force the laws Of the state. The legis-
lature 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 fOrbidding
them to sell beverages containing more
than One-half percent alcohol and pro-
hibiting drug stores from selling in
toxicants except on bona fide prescrip-
tiOns given to persons who actually
are i'll
West Virginia enacted amendments
to the YOst prohibition law limiting
shipments OF liquor into the state and
1orblddlng a person to have liquor IN
4 lublic place even for his own use.
Nnv- hnraa fra- n in West
Virginia give a drink to another ex-
cept in his own home, home being spec
flied as a permanent place Of residence,
not hotel or other public place.
No Revision in Oklahoma.
All attempts to revise the prohibit
ton laws OF Oklahoma were defeated.
In Oregon, where prohibition be-
comes effective in January next as
the result of previous action by the
the legislature enacted a law to en-
force the amendment. The law prohib-
its the manufacture of Intoxicating
liquor in the state and its sale except
by physicians prescription or for scien-
tific, sacramento or mechanical uses.
1t allows a limited amount to be i'm
ported by the heads Of families
A law for similar purpose was enact
ed in Colorado where a prohibition
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 common
carriers from transporting liquor into
the state except for lawful purposes
this includes the transportation to in
dividuals who must sign a receipt that
the liquor is for their own use The
law contains a search and seizure pro-
vision and gives the governor $4,000
yearly for its enforcement
The legislature Of Washington, where
prohibition is also effective in Janu-
airy next. ignored governor Listers re-
quest for an appropriation Of $4,000
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 in
November, 1916, held no legislative
session this year.
Defeated in Some States.
Statewide prohibition proposals met
defeat in Connecticut. Indiana, Michi-
gan. New Mexico, New York and Wy
Oming. The question was before the
general assembly Of Connecticut as
proposed constitutional amendment
which the legislators declined TO send
TO the next assembly for ratification.
The legislature. however, increased
the cost of retail diQuor licenses b6 Z-S
percent and for the first time placed
social and fraternal Organizations
serving liquors to members under eX-
else legislation In Indiana state
wide measure died in a committee Of
the lower houses.
In Michigan the question promised
to be one Of the features OF the ses-
sion, but nothing came Of it. a bill
was introduced into the senate provid-
ing for the submission Of statutory
prohibition to the vote OF the people
at a general election next year. but
the prohibition leaders themselves
voted against it after the liquor fac
tion had attached certain amendments
TO il which, in the opinion OF the
"dryc" defeated the purpose Of the
While a strong effort was made in
the New Mexico legislature 10 secure
action on a constitutional amendment
resolution, the issue was not allowed
TO come to a vote in either house. in
New York all measures designed TO
have a statewide effect on the liquor
traffic were killed and in Wyoming the
issue was twice before the legislature
amendment, and twice defeated
BJ-h wet and dry measures
failed OF enactment in Illinois. They
were all killed by the house. The tenn
peranee measures introduced provided
for residence district option, for strict
enforcement Of the anti-liquOr laws in
prohibition territory and against treat
ing The vets" did not push their
bill providing for home rule in the
handling Of the liquor problem and
theiE bill repeating the township op-
ton law.
Local Option Defeated.
In New Jersey and Pennsylvania
county local option met defeat. but was
established by Minnesota The latter
state also enacted a "roadhOuse" bill,
prohibiting the issuance Of saloon Ii
censes to establishments outside Of
cities and villages.
The only action taken by the Ohio
legislature was the passage of a law
making state and county liquor leens-
ing officials elective instead of ap-
pointive, thus 'decentraliZing" the IL
censing system. The law was opposed
"
H+W ; On IEsl7ilIlSV = llIllI sIlIllTIIl , E%D