Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1918-04-09
IN MASSACHUSETTS

"HE favorite plea of those who
sell liquor is for regulation in
stead of prohibition. They are
ready enough to admit, in the face
of growing anti-liquor sentiment
largely brought about by abuses of
the liquor-selling privilege, that re-
forms in the trade are worth consid-
Grafton, but that more harm than
good would result from total elimi-
nation of the traffic. Massachusetts,
which has just ratified the prohibi-
ton amendment, takes a different
view.
In that State the sale of liquor is
regulated as wisely and as effectively
as is possible anywhere, perhaps.
For a longer time it has had a thSr-
oughIy workable local option law,
and, according to the New York
Times: Each municipality having
1000 inhabitants decides by popu-
lar vote whether the sale of liquor
shall be allowed within its bounds.
Towns with fewer than 1000 inhab-
itants are not permitted to have Ii
censed drinking places. In the larger
communities the number of drink
ing places is restricted. The hours
in which they may be open are
fixed by the State and obedience to
the statute is enforced generally Ivy
capable local police, whose conduct
is closely checked by the State po-
lice. The fees charged for licenses
are high, the revenue from this
source being the important consid-
Grafton with the taxpayers. Finally,
if the municipal authorities consider
| It inexpedient to issue licenses,
even after an affirmative vote on the
question at the polls, they cannot be
compelled so to do"
Here we have a State in which the
people have had ample opportunity
to observe the results of effective
regulation. If the arguments of the
liquor advocates worked out in prac.
tice Massachusetts, would have hest
tated long about registering theil
approval of a change so radical al
the adoption of the federal amend
ment proposes. The only conclusion
is that purely regulative measures
are only make-shifts and that tota
elimination of the liquor trade is tn,
sole remedy of the evil.
The Times, commenting upon tn
situation in Massachusetts, observe
that the legislature there declined Il
consider for a moment the "dishon
est plan" of postponement worke;
so cleverly in New York, and by re
ferring the amendment to a popula
vote, and this will be an argumen
that will not be valid in Pennsyl
vania next year, for the reason tina
every legislative candidates atHitud
on the liquor question will be sub
ject to the closest scrutiny at III
coming primaries and afterward a
) the general elections. But in an
other way the situation in Massa
chusetts does somewhat resembl
that in Pennsylvania in that the for
eIgn element of both States consti
trtes no mean proportion of the to
tai population. No great protes
was raised in Massachusetts, agains
the amendment by these aliens an
/ and none will be in Pennsylvania mex
! year, the German drinking club.
which used to march through tn
) Capitol grounds every time an anti
/ liquor bill was up for vote. bein
l now beyond the pale of popular cor
5 sideration and the other organizs
tions of foreigners apparently raj
ing little how the question is decidcc
II Pat" o'Brien. after his expert
ence, is willing TO so back to fight tn
Hun. how much more willing ough
you to be to put $50 into a Lbert
4 Bond.