The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-06-21

tion. 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 own CT of property where liquor is sold or given away.
 North Carolina passed an anti shipping act, known there as the fanti-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 fifteen days.
 Tennessee, where the prohibition laws have not been strictly enforced Fin oh charger cities, 1t is said, passed an custer law, modelled after @ Kan sas Statute, which provides for the removal from office of state, county or city officials (other than holders Of constitutions onces) who fail to enforce the laws Of the state The legislature also enacted measures for bidding social and fraternad clubs to dispense liquor or na4nta.in lockers for members; placing the supervis- oin of soft drink stands under the pure food and drug department and forbidding them to sell beverages containing more than one-haIf per stores from selling intodcants except on bona fde prescriptions given to persons who actually are Ill.
 West Virginia enacted amend ments to the Yiost 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 a drink to an other except in his own home, home being specified as permanent place of residence, not a hotel or other public place.
 All attempts to revise the prohi1oi- ton laws of Ok1ah on1a were defeat ed.
 Tn Oregon, where prohibition be- comes effective in January next, as1 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-S hibits tn manufacture of intoxicating liquor in the state and it's sale except on physicians prescription or for scientific saoramental or mechanical uses It allows g. limited amount to be imported by the heads of fa1nil- les.
 law for a similar purpose was enacted in Colorado where a prohtbi tion amendment goes into effect the same date. The Colorado law for bide the buying, selling and giving away of liquor except for medical or sacramental purposes and prohibits common carriers from transp orting liquor into the state except for lawful purposes-thiS includes the transpor- tation 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 s1,0Ooo yearly for it's en- foFcement.
 The legislature of Washington, where prohibition is also effective in January next, ignored Governor Lis ter's request for an appropriation of $50,0 900 to enforce the law.
 The liquor traffic in Arkansas, hav- ing been banned by the previous leg is1ature 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, Indiana, Michigan. New Mexico, New York and Wyoming. The question wasS before the General Assembly of Connections as a proposed constitutional amend ment which the legislators declined to send to the next assembly for ratifi- cation. The legislature, however, in creased the cast of retail liquor h- censes 66 2-3 per cent. and for the first time placed social and fraternaI organizations serving liquors to members, under excise regulation. In
 
 a committee of the lower house. -- In Michigan the question promised to be one of the features of the ses- 1 sion, but nothing came of it. A bill was introduced into the senate pro viding for the submission of statutory prohibition to the vote of the people at general election next year, but the prohibition leaders themselves voted against it after the liquor fac ton had attached certain amend | Ar A. the t'drys'' defeated the purpose of l the bill.
 | While a strong effort was made in the New Mexico legislature to 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 li- quor traffic were killed, and in Wyom- | ing the issue was twice before the legislature in proposals for a consti- 1 tutional amendment, and twice de- feated.
 Both ''wet'' and dry measures failed of enactment in Illinois. They l were all killed by the house. The 1 temeprance measures introduced pro Vided for residence district option, for str1cter enforcement of the anti-i- 1 quor laws in prohibition territory and against treating. The vets did not push their bill providing for home rule in the handling of the liquor problem and their bill repeating the township option, law
 In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, l county local option met defeat, but was established by Minnesota The | latter state also enacted a road house" bills prohibiting the issuance of saloon licenses to establishments l outside of cities and villages.
 The only action taken by the Ohio | legislature was the passage of law making state and county liquor licens- l ing officials elective instead of ap pointiVe, thus fdecentraIzfng' the li- censing system. The law was opposed by the so-ca1led 'thberaf' interests. | The Massac achusetts law makers passed a bill to prevent the shipment of n quor from license to no license com l Inn1t t fnfad aka