Middletown transcript., 1916-11-11
"DRYS" WIN IN FOUR
OUT OF ELEVEN PLACES
City Goes "Wet" BY Nearly 5o,Ooa
Prohibition Is Beaten In
County BY About
1900.

! Prohibition was given a severe drub-
bing in of the II localities in which
the proposition was voted upon in this
State.
Baltimore showed it under by a ma
jority of $4,000.
In Baltimore county it was beaten
apparently by something like 1000
votes.
Allegany county turned it down b.
the decisive majority of 1900 votes.
Prince Georges county gave a ma
jority against it Of $50 votes.
The Brooklyn and Curtis Bay district
Of Anne Arundel county turned it down
by about 100 votes.
Annapolis gave a majority against ie
of about 500 votes.
In Ellicott City it was defeated by 2G
votes. The vote here was 139 for 20
165 against
others Went "DrN"
The "drys" carried Frederick county
by majority of 1000 votes.
They likewise carried Washington
county by about 500 votes. Havre Do
Grace was carried by them by only "a
votes out of a total of over 900. Car
roll county is believed to have gone
"dry."
City's Vote Surprise.
The "wet" majority in Baltimore city
was surprise to everyone. The vote
in $50 out of 316 precincts was 58,091
against 22,O99 for, or majority OF
1892.
In 66 precincts of Baltimore county
the vote was 15,455 against prohibition
to 1851 for the proposition. This
makes majority in favor of the sale
of liquor in the county Of 6,20S vot0ss
with "a precincts to be heard from.
Most of the Baltimore county pre-.
cincts that have been heard from are
in the lower part of the county, but NO
one thinks that the upper precincts,
which are believed to have recorded
"dry" majorities can overcome this
lead.
10000 Was Expected.
Because it was felt that the "drys"
were exceptionally well organized In
Baltimore city, while the "wets" SEEM
ed to be working more or less unsyste-
matically, the general opinion was that
the city would not go "wet" by more
than 10000 or $4,000. A great many
estimated the probable majority for
the sale of liquor considerably below
that figure.
Fight Is Old One.
The "wet" and "dry" vote of Tues
day was the elimination of an agitA-
tion that has kept Maryland stirred for
years. The fight started with an at
tempt to secure the passage of Local
Option bill. William H. Anderson was
brought here from Illinois to direct
things on behalf of the Anti-SaloOn
League, and did so until a little over
two years ago, when he was succeeded
by the Rev. DR.. Thomas M. Hare, who
had been given credit for the passage
of the Prohibition bill in West Viz
ginia.
Just before DR.. Hare appeared upon
the scene, the Anti-Saloon League
switched from Local Option to State
wide prohibition. Anderson had all
but succeeded in passing the Local
Option bill at the Legislative session OF
1912, and the switch was made when
he began to have visions of better sue
cess with succeeding Legislatures.
At the session of 1914 the Statewide
Prohibition amendment was intro
duced. Its advocates had no real hope
of securing its passage at that session.
and when it was called up it was over
whelmingly defeated. Last session the
"drys" came back with Statewide
prohibition bill instead of an amend
ment. After terrible fight they were
forced to abandon the Statewide fea-
ture and accept as compromise bill
permitting each locality in which
liquor was sold to vote as a unit
Neither the "drys" nor "wets" were
satisfied with the measure, but it was
the best either side could secure.