The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-05-24

rOse-Diebel bipartisan DooRe gang
boldly cast aside the mask behind
which II has manipulated the Re-
publican and Democratic State ma
chimes for years and openly Haunted
its alliance with the saloons OF Phila-
deiphia.
Thousands of booze-indoraed bal
lots, with the Penrose gang candi-
dates chalked up side by side with
Mike" IAebels Democratic whiskey
stalwarts. were passed over the bars
of the city to saloon patrons as they
got their drinks. The satellites of
the saloons were instructed by the
bartenders and booze vendors to vote
for the Penrose- Liebei candidates as
marked on the bipartisan whiskey
ballots.
The Penrose machine candidates
were marked for the benefit of organ
ization Republicans; the Mike" Lie
bel gang henchmen, for liquor DEM
ocrats. The booze stalwarts OF both
parties were ordered to take the
marked ballot along to the polls so
that they by no chance would cast a
vote for any other than an officially
approved booze candidate.
Two men alone on. the Penrose
slate were cut by the bipartisan
booze outfit. These are John Wanna
maker and Alba B. Johnson. president
Of the Baldwin Locomotive Works,
"uninstructed" candidates for dele
gates-at-large. For Thorn the liquor
gang substituted Dallas Bum baugh.
an ex-policeman of Pittsburg, who
was put on the ticket that his name
might be confused with that of Gov
ernor Brumbaugh, and George T.
Weingartner. of New Castle.
OF course, the big-partisan booze
outfit did not expect to elect either
Bumbraugh or weingartner. but only
put the regulation TX" after their
names to prevent either Wanamaker
or Johnson, Or any OF the Brum-
baugh candidates from getting those
two votes Mr.. Weingartner is
man of progressive principles. and in
his home county of Lawrence has
been an advocate of local option for
years
Messrs. wanamaker and Johnson
have both been active in reform and
anti-liquor campaigns. and their
names were especially sought by
Penrose, when making up his slate.
I'm order TO give It an air OF progress
siveness'' and "bigness," which II had
in no other respect.
There was no such cutting neces-
sary with the Mike" IAebel ticket.
This staiwart Democrat, elected to
tsOf
district with the aid of Penrose,
headed an out-and out slate of liquor
candidates He made a clean cut
fight In the interests Of booze against
Congressman A. Mitchell Palmer,
a local option advocate, whose seat
the annual value of liquor consumed
in Portland was variously placed at
from 81, 900. 900 to $t6.00o.oee. Prob
ably 100000 In very conservative.
This is arrived at in several ways.
One Is by taking the annual per cap
tia consumption of the United States.
which can be arrived at from the GEN.
sus reports and multiplying by Port
lands 100000 population. second
is based on the fact that Portland had
500 saloons, sixteen restaurants and
grilis paying an $500 license. and
twenty-one groceries paying $4oo IL
oense A conservative estimate for
the average saloon was $50 business
per day. That would likewise show n
annual business of nearly 100000.
Other estimates of experts. based on
the large rents the saloons were pay
ing, the cost Of their liquors. bartend-
ers. water, light. internal revenue
charge. and other expenses, place the
total cost of liquor consumed in Port
land much higher, reaching even to
5000. 900 a year.
Cut Down s5 Per Cent.
Based on the April shipments then
we would now be consuming in Port
land 1881. 64l per year, as against
conservative estimate for wet years
of over $4,000, 900. In other words.
the Oregon dry law has reduced
drinking to less than per cent of pre-
yious years, based on the showing to
date. OF course. shipments Into the
State will doubtless increase to larger
proportions as much liquor is still
stored from the stocks laid in before
January /, but plenty OF allowance
can be made for this and still leave
the figures most surprisingly low.
Oregon, in 1910. had .73 OF one
per cent of the population of the
United States. The census of manu-
features for 1908 shows the total
wholesale value of distilled liquor
product at the distillery of 1904, 6s9,-
Ala: of malt liquor product at the
brewery, s374.73o,os6; of vinous T.
quor s13.120,s4s. Oregon manufac-
tured st,s75453 of malt liquor and
no spirituous or vinous liquor of
enough consequence to be tabulated.
Assuming the Oregon per capita con-
to have been the same as
that for the rest OF the Un:tel Statc~
We should have consumed tat factory
prtces) VI, 494.306 of distilled, $E.T25.-
$40 of malt and $s5.s32 of vinous.
Deducting from the malt total this
$l.SbT,453 manufactured IN Oregon
we have $s77,077, net imported INTO
the State each year.
Great Shrinkaxe Is Shown.
"On the same per capita basis,
Portland In 1915. with ESQ. 900 popula-
ton. was paying lat factory prices)
s56S.6I0 for whiskey. Adding to his
freight. wholesalers profits, retailers
expense and profit, would bring the
retail selling price. according to the
opinion of reliable former liquor deal
ers here. to five times the factory
price. which would be $2.94S,0b0,
which represents the price of whiskey
consumed as against an estimate for
this year based on the shipments for
April OF s220,s20
In other words, the amount OF
whiskey drunk has apparently shrunk
to rs percent OF other years, on this
record.
Beer-drinking has about entirely
disappeared. based on showing for
shipments to date. Placing the retail
price OF beer at three times that at
the brewery (beer averaging the