Semi-weekly herald., 1916-11-23
own in the territory.

Other gains in the United States
for antisaloon forces were numerous,
as were also their victories over the
efforts Of the liquor traffice to null
lify the prohibition laws. Arkansas
for instance, which is now prohibi-
ton voted two to one against a bill
to substitute for the statewide pro
hibition law the Ohio local option
law. The effort Of the brewers was
defeated by majority of 10000.
Colorado, also prohibition, defeat
ed the "becr amendment" to allow
beer and fermented liquors, by ma
jority Of about $4,000.
In Tennessee, local option, sought
in Shelby county, was decisively de-
feated.
Iowa, Arizona and Washington,
other "dry" statea defeated at
tempts of the liquor traffic to null
lify their prohibition laws.
Idaho strengthened her prohibition
law by accepting this year consti-
tutional amendment for prohibition,
thereby making it more difficult for
the liquor interests to carry into eff
feet their efforts for notification.
Oregon adopted the so-called "bone
dry" prohibition amendment, which
prohibits the shipment of any liquor
into the state for beverage purposes.
Under the statute law, which went
into effect Jan. /, 1916, persons were
allowed to receive from out side the
state small quantitiesof liquor.
Minnesota gave evidences Of soon
going "dry." The "wet" leader in the
Legislature was defeated by "dry"
opponent, the Minneapolis Legislative
"drys" and "wets" and "drys'
in the last Legislature, and a very
large vote was cast for the Prohibit
ton candidate for United States sen.
| ator.
Large areas of Maryland voted
dry which have heretofore been pro-
nouncedly wet.
Even though their two amendments
were defeated in California, the anti
liquor forces regard the increased
vote for prohibition there In tho
light of victory for the prohibition
movement itself,
The 90 antisaloon states, with tn
dates when the people decided for
prohibition, either by state statute
or by constitutional amendment are
as follows: Alabama, statute, 1915;
Arizona, constitution, Nov. 8, 1914;
Arkansas, statute, Feb. 8. 1915; Colo
RADIO, constitutional, Nov. 8, 1914;
Georgia, statute, 1907; Idaho, statute
February, 1916, constitutional, Nov.
Z, 1916; Iowa, statute, 1915; Kansas,
constitutional, 1881; Maine, constitu-
tional, 1884; Michigan, constitution
al. Nov. Z, 1915; Mississippi, statute,
February, 1908; Montana, Nov, Z,
1916; Nebraska, constitutional, Nov.
7, 1915; North Carolina, statute by
referendum, May 20. 1908; North Da-
kota, constitutional, Oct. 1, 1889;
Oklahoma, constitutional, Nov. 8,
1914; South Carolina, constitutional,
Nov. 7. 1915; South Dakota, consti-
tutional, Nov. Z, 1915; Tennessee,
statute, January, 1909; Virginia, sta
tute, Sept. 20, 1914; Washington,
statute. by the initiative, constitu-
tional, N>pember, 1912. -
Aside from the prohibition states
there are vast areas of "dry" terri
tory in most of the other states. and
each year sees these areas increas-
ing. BY far the greater part Of
Wyoming, Utah, Texas, New Mex
leo, Florida, Kentucky, Minnesota
New Hampshire and massachusetts
is dry. Southern and southeastern
California. northern and western
Louisiana, northern and southern
Missouri, southwestern New YorI,
State and southern Delaware are for
the most part without the saloon.
"Wet" districts include most Of
Nevada, much of the north, central
and Pacific coast portions of Cali
fornia, the lower Mississippi River
and Gulf counties of Louisiana and
the Mississippi River sections Of
Missouri and Illinois, Eastern Wis
consin, most of New Jersey, scatter
ed counties Of Pennsylvania, the
Hudson River and north central Sec
tions Of New York State, much Of
Rhode Island and scattered portions
of Massachusetts,.
These "wet" districts are feeling
more and moro the effect Of the anti
saloon campaigners. whose influence
in "wet" communities grows strong
er as the prohibition wave spreads
across the country and the activities
of anti-liquor advocates in the states
which have gone "dry" can be trans
ferred Observation-Disclosures Science