Henderson daily dispatch., 1936-11-18
LIoUOR-REVENUE VS.. REFORM

Ill
Three wears of repeal finds state
Governments in the United States
seeking revenue rather than soclal
welfare in the administration of their
administration of their new response
bility High taxes, often levleo WIFI
out sufficient discrimination between
light and heavy drinks, make poot-
logging profitable. AS much as oo per
cent of the increasing drink demand
is estimated to be supplied by bootleg
gers and other illicit traffickers.
This indictment comes with the
force of high and unbiased authority.
It is the documented finding of re-
search workers who have spent more
than two years travelling throughout
the country to study the various state
systems of liquor control. Under the
title, After Repeal" Leonard V. Har-
rison and and Elizabeth Lame pub
lish their findings with copious tables
and notes on state liquor administra-
tons This book has been summarize
ed in three articles in the Monitors
news columns, the last article appear
ing today.
The fairness of these investigators
is apparent in their work Full
weight appears to be given to every
possible benefit that might have come
from repeal. Dogmatic statements
are avoided, and this moderation adds
strength to their report.
At no point do Mr. Harrison and
Miss Lame bear down harder than in
their condemnation of the greed for
revenue, which they find too often
engulfing social considerations in post
repeal liquor systems. They report
not single state in which liquor con-
troll has been placed under the depart
ment of social welfare. In many
states, the fiscal department has been
entrusted with this vital social re-
sponsibillty. Those whose sole inter-
est it is to make the liquor traffic
pay, just as the entrenched private
interests did before prohibition, can
not be expected to protect society
against what the authors conServate-
ly call "a potentially harmful luxury"
A partial eXplanation-but not
sufficient reason-for the emphasis
on revenue rather than reform, is that
repeal came at a time when state
finances were severely strained, and
older tax sources were overburdened.
The balance was therefore tipped to-
ward the wrong side of the conflict
ing aims of liquor taxation-the de-
sire to derive the maximum revenue
from this rich new source, instead of
seeking to deter consumption and to
prevent illicit trading. AS a result,
high taxes have favored illicit trad
ing, so that an estimated half of the
liquor sold brings no revenue into
state Golfers.
Now that the general business sit
uation is improving, states might we'll
reconsider their hasty action 1t is
time for states, as we'll as individuals,
to shake off the apathy which follow
ed repeal and which Mr. Harrison
and Miss Lame report continues to
the present. Liquor does not change,
under any law. 1t is always a social
menace. States, which have succeed
ed the Federal Government in efforts
to control this menace, cannot escape
their responsibility to the future.
After repeal, they kept liquor con-
troll in their own hands, instead of
turning it back to local agencies as
it had largely been before prohibition.
Yet, the report finds:
Although the direct bearing high
LdASS nave Oh llllClL liquor activities
is fully reali- ed among states, the
tendency is in the direction of still
greater imposts.
The Federal Government. mean
while, is tending toward lower inn
posts on liquor under its control.
"Revenue-getting with a vengeance"
needs to give away to a social pro-
gram of liquor control Some ID
states have retail monopoly systems
with sale in stores by the package.
instead of in saloons by the drink,
Yet even the monopoly states add
taxes to the profits made from sale of
liquor. Wyoming has a wholesale
monopoly, with licensed retail sale.
Other states have private liquor SALE
under state licenses.
Government in the liquor business
and making the traffic pay all it can
bear, does not promise well for real
izing the still unfulfilled promises of
repeal. The saloon is coming back.
Bootlegging and speakeasies are still
with us. Even the expected revenue
from taxing the liquor traffic is be-
low estimates, because of the illicit