The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-07-30
COUNTY OPTION
 WORKSOUTO.
North CarOIina's I& COun- ties Selling Liquor
 Profit By $62S,7S6
By CHILRs COLEMAN IInliaA Prnsa Stan Carreanandentl

" OWA1no OOAMNAAN
 8Unlied Press Stan CoFrespondentl
 Raleigh, N. O., July 30 (U. P)- mo first year of repeal in North Carolina. where 10 of the states 100 counties are permitted to sell all forms of alcoholic beverages legally, has been successful both from the standpoint of financial rruflts to the counties and from the Standpoint of law enforcement, 0 United Press survey reveals.
 Gross sales of the 64 county operated stores for the fiscal year ending July 1, 1886, totaled $S,i00,- 1ea.T2, unotiicial figures show, and oe this Q net profit of $620'qSe.el went directly into treasuries of the l0 counties and the numerous cities in which the stores are operated. rive per cent of the net profit was turned over to law enforcement agencies to combat bootlegging, and 3 per cent of gross sales, or $93,0l2.- ei, went to the state of North Carpllna in the form of sales tax.
 The county option system was 1naugurated Q year ago under an act passed by the loS6 general ass nemhly, with each county sole judge and sole controlling force of its own li0uor sales. There is no state agency supervising the liquor stores, and the sales tax is the only reve- nue the state receives from liquor receipts.
 Drunkenness on Decline
 Opinion was almost unanimous among observers in the ls wet counties that hootlegging had de- clined since the advent of the liquor stores. Most counties reported fewer arrests for drunkenness than in previous years, and in several lo- callties church and WCTU officials and law enforcement officers have openly praised effects of the legal sale of liquor. In other counties, however, strong opposition in the form of sermons and church boycots has developed.
 m several counties, ocers rec ported that 1t is impossible for Q bootlegger to make Q living as long as the county stores are operating" Tn contrast, two counties reported s'more public drinking" and insisted that bootlegging operations had not diminished, that consumption or le" gal liQuor merely had been added to that which already existed under prohibition.
 Wet counties agreed that reve- n,Ia from the lluuor control remain 1n the counties, all opposing Q move to centraliZe liquor control In Q stAte agency. Reduced tax rates, new school, health departments, wiping out of county debts and reduction of county relief loads were cited as benefits accruing to the county as result of profits from the legal sales ot liquor,
 Central Control Opposed
 M was generally agreed that ceptralization of control in Q state agency would remove many of the advantages of legal liquor in the state, and would as well "encour- aRe graft and corruption by making liuuor 0 political issue"
 In the recent, bitterly fought democratic primary election, liquor was among the foremost issues of the race for nomination for gover. nor. Clyde R. Hoey, who won the nomination, was known as 0 dry, but announced in the campaign that h0 favored local option and would respect wishes of each community. Ills opponent, Dr. Ralph w. Nc. Donald, 3S-year- college profess sor, advocated Q statewide referen. dunn on the liquor question.
 Many counties. observing that none of the ls wet counties failed to show Q profit during the first year of operation of the liquor stores, are urging that they be given an opportunity to vote again on the local option when the legis- lature meets in January, 1887. Most observers agree that such Q refer endum would result In at least doubling the number of wet coun- ties in the eastern half of the state.