Worcester Democrat and the ledger-enterprise. (Pocomoke City, Md.) 1921-1953, 1939-03-03
A. B. E. BOAD
TESTS BANNING
SUNDAY SALES

OOnCEOk DO0Iu VI Virginia S>AAAA~>~~
10 the press its intention to adopt
regulation which would forbid its u
censees to sell wine and beer on Sun
day. Thereafter, upon the formal pro
mitigation of this regulation, which
was effective on February 18th, the
Board further announced that this ban
on Sunday sales of beer was being un
dertaken as an experiment, in an eff
fort to determine what results, If any,
would occur in the direction of tenn
perance, and that this experiment
would be conducted for at least sixty
to ninety days.
Prior to this regulation, observation
of the Board and representations made
by interested and prominent citizens
indicated that the cause of temperance
might be served by the Sunday ban.
It was alleged that drunkenness would
decrease, that automobile accidents
would decline, that general public or
der would be improved. Opponents OF
the proposed ban alleged that the pro-
hibition of Sunday sales of wine and
beer would be accompanied by increas-
ed consumption of distilled spirits, by
wholesale violation of the regulation
by increased bootlegging, by disre-
gpect for the A. B. C. Act and other
laws, and by failure of local and
Board officers to enforce the ban.
There was no other way to test
these representatives than by banning
Sunday sales and the Board placed the
ban solely with a view to testing the
proposition, hoping sincerely that DEL
mite good effects would result. A
storm of protest against this action
was expected, but the Board felt them
as now, that it was its unmistakable
duty to give the ban a fair trial.
The regulation has now been In Ell
feet for thirteen Sundays and the nine
ty-day trial period ends this week.
During this period the Board has COM
piled all available statistics; namely
arrests for drunkenness on Sundays
and other days, violations of the A..
Il. C. Act, consumption of distilled
suirits and wines bootlegging of spirits
purchased in State stores, day by day
corresponding days prior to the ban In
comparison of State store sales with
a group of selected and typical locali-
ties in Virginia.
In addition, the Board has received
and studied voluntary and unsolicited
petitions, statements, and opinions
submitted by citizens, trade groups
temperance societies, local enforce
ment officers, city officials, town and
city councils, and county boards OF
supervisors.
Findings in this latter group OF
material show wide divergence; so
vide, in fact, that certain petitions
urging opposite views were in some in
stances signed by the same persons.
The Boards statistical material is
utterly confusing. It neither sup
ports fully the hopes of the Board in
placing the ban, nor does it bear out
clearly the allegations of opponents
of the ban.
1t was impossible to compile detail
ed statistics for each of "a cities, 100
counties, and IT'S towns in the State.
Therefore, the Board limited it's study
70 certain typical communities and to
the State as a whole chiefly for the
four-week period after the ban as com
pared to the four-weeks prior period.
AS examples of the failure of these
statistics to reveal definitely either
good or bad effects, the findings in
Richmond and Norfolk are cited. Con-
sumption of distilled spirits increased
m Richmond less than one per cent,
but March arrests for drunkenness,
which are normally 10 per cent above
those for February, this year increas-
I'D over 81 per cent-and this despite
the fact that Sunday arrests were viz
tually unchanged. On the other hand,
there is evidence indicating that the
Sunday bootlegging of State store
spirits increased approximately 80
per cent.
In Norfolk consumption of distilled
spirits increased over four per cent,
or about twice the States percent
age of increase. But March arrests,
which are normally 20 per cent over
February's, increased only 20 per cent
over February's of this year. Nor
folk violations of the A. B. c. Act
declined after the ban, but Richmond
violations increased sharply.
This illustrates the inability Of the
Board to interpret intelligently its
most factual material, or to do more
than say that the statistical material
can be used to show slightly good eff
fects or slightly bad effects. In short
the desired beneficial results have not
ACCOMPANIED the ban, and the prohibi-