Middletown transcript., 1915-06-26
[ Continued from First Page]
STATES ACT ON PROHIBITION

OOOhS d law IliOuClcu dllCI Illc w CDO-
Kenyon law and imposing heavy penal
ties 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 sub
mitted to the people at the municipal
elections in the spring of 1916. If
passed, it's effect will be drastic as it
makes no provision for the sale Of liquor
for medical and mechanical purposes.
The four prohibition states which de-
cided to strengthen their present laws
were were Kansas, North Carolina,
Tennessee and West Virginia. The
Kansas me asures approach the unique
in prohibition legislation. Two were
passed, one providing that the munich
pality where liquor is sold is liable for
damage for injury to persons or prop
erty resulting from intoxication. The
other, which is aimed at those who per-
nit so-calIed "keg parties" to be held
on their premises, imposes similar liza
bility upon the owner of property where
liquor is sold or given away.
North Carolina passed an anti-shipping
act, known there as the 'anti-jug act'',
which forbids the shipment to and re-
ceipt by any one person of more than
one quart of spirituous liquors and five
gallons of malt beverage every fifteen
days.
Tannossao ,,,bara tho nrob;bitiOn louyc
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 removal from
office of state, county or city officials
(other than holders of constitutional
offices) who fail to enforce the laws of
the state. The legislature also enacted
measures forbidding social and fraternal
clubs to dispense liquor or main tain
lockers for members; placing the super
vision of soft drink stands under the
pure food and drug department and for
bidding them to sell beverages contain
ing more than one-haf per cent. alcohol
and prohibiting drug stores from selling
intoxicants except on bona fide Irescrip-
tiQns given to persons who actually are
i'll.
West Virginia enacted amendments to
the Yost prohibition law limiting ship
ments of liquor into the State and for
bidding a person to have liquor in
public place even for his own use. Nor
herafter can any one in West Virginia
give drink to another except in his
own home, home being specified as
pc rmanent place of residence, not
hotel or other public place.
All attempts to revise the prohibition
LAW of Oklahoma were defeated.
ln Oregon where prohibition becomes
eff ective in January next as the result
of previous action by the voters on a
constitutional amendment, the legisla-
ture enacted law to enfore the amend
me bit. The law prohibits the manufac-
tur of intoxicating liquor in the state
and its sale except on physicians pre-
scription or for scientific sacramental or
mechanical uses. 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 prohibition
amendment goes into effect the same
date. The Colorado law forbids the
buying, selling and giving away of
liquor except for medical or sacramental
purposes and prohibits common carriers
from transporting liquor into the state
except for lawful purposes this in
cludes the transportation to individuals
who must sign a receipt that the liquor
is for their own use. The law contains
a search and seizure provision and gives
the governor $4,000 yearly for its en-
fOrcement.
The legislature of Washington, where
prohibition is also effective in January
next, ignored Governor Listers request
for an appropriation of $500, 900 to en-
force the law.
The liquor traffic in Arkansas. having
been banned by the previous lie gislature
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.
Statewide prohibition proposals met
defeat in Connecticut, Indians a,
Michigan, New Mexico, New York
and Wyoming. The question was
before the General Assembly of Con-
necticut as a proposed constitutional
amendment which the legislators de,
clined to send to the next assembly for
ratification. The legislature, however,
increased the cost of retail liquor Ii.
eenses &c 2-3 per cent. and for the first
time placed social and fraterhal organi-
cations serving liquors to members,
under excise regulation. In Indiana, q
statewide measure died in COMMITTEES
of the lower house.
In Michigan the question promised tC
be one of the features of the session
but nothing came of it. A bill was in
trOduced into the Senate providing fol
the submission of statutory prohibition
to the vote of the people at genera
election next year, but the prohibition
leaders themselves voted against it after
the liquor faction had attached certain
/, amendment to it which in the opinion Of
the f'drys." defeated the purpose ot