Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1918-03-19
BELIEVES PROHIBITION
COSTS ARE EXCESSIVE
Governor Davis Says Cost OF En-
Forcing "Dry" Law in Virginia
Is Above Other States.
WOULD CUT EXPENSE TO $40, 600
Declares State Must Have No Multi
plication OF Ofliccholders, When
Federal Agents Enforce Laws Pro-
hibitinE Interstate Traffic.

In a special message to the General
norcland Davis recommended numerous
changes IN the prohibition bill and dis
approved of the annual appropriation
Of $4,000 for the conduct OF this de-
Of the measure. he said. but could not
reconcile himself 10 the excessive cos.
OF enforcing tho dry" laws.
Governor Davis included in his mes
sage data from tho various States OF
the Union now having similar prohibi-
ton departments, and called attention
TO tho fact ;hat many OF them have
included the duties OF Prohibition Com
missioner with those OF other State Of
Gcers. Virginia should no, be put TO
the expense OF q multiplication OF
oficehoidcrs." he said. we have a
liquor traffic. and the custer law
should be used when local officials fail
OF their duty"
The appropriation OF $4,000 he con-
sidcrs excessive and without either
moral or economic Justification and
greatly II cXcess Of the average OF
other States. For this reason he rec
ommcnds that the department be given
only $4,000 for the year.
MADE CAREFUL STUDY OF
PRACTICE OF OTHER STATES
The Governors message is as fol-
lows:
approve the general purposes Of
this bill. but disapprove that par, APP
proprat!nG $4,000 per annum for its
enforcement.
.lfier IA careful study OF the methods
OF prohibition administration and en-
forccment in cach of the other twenty
TWO States OF the Union. in which the
use OF liquor is inhibited, | find tina.
Virginia is proposing TO cXpend more
for the cnforcccmnt OF its prohibition
laws than any O! the other States
Only one Statc--South Carolina has
an annual appropriation OF more than
$4,000 and that state cXpends less
than s50.0G0; while only five States
provide any special appropriation at all
for the enforcement of their prohibit
tion laws.
Two states oniy--South Carolina and
S"Uth pakota--haTe special state pro-
hlbition officers. and in two others cN-
ist!nG state officers arc constituted
cX oflcio State prohibition officers
c.. in West Virginia. the State tax
commissioners is OK o'lcio nc state pro-
II biticn officer. anH in Michigan the
-: &c food ana ,i;:.- commissioner is
cH4"Scd with tn enforcement or these
laws.
GIVES DIGEST FROM All.
PROHIBITION STATES
That q more intelligen; understand
ing may be had of this question, I have
secured, through the respective Gov
crnors or Attorneys General of the
prohibition states. special reports
within the past few days from each and
all of these States \ digest Of these
reports follows:
Aiabal!!a--Enforccd as other laws: no
special Salaricd state prohibition of1i-
Ger: 40 special appropriation; annual
cost OF enforcement not reported sep
aratcly.
Ariaona--Enforccd as other laws by
Atiorney -Cicneral and local officials; no
special salaricd State prohibition otIi-
Ger: no special appropriation: annual
cost OF enforcement not reported sep
aratcly.
Arkansas Enforced as other laws;
no special salaried state prohibition
officer: no special appropriation: annual
cost of enforcement not reported sep
aratcly.
Colorado Enforced by Governor: no
special salaried State prohibition Off
ccr annual appropriation. $4,000.
which is the annual cost OF enforce.
meat.
GcorSia--E EnfogNred as other laws: TO
special salaricd state prohibition off,
GER no special appropriation: annua!
Ccontlnued on Fifth paxc)