The Daily Alaska empire., 1940-08-29
FOR By J. p. ANDERSON

4fI ks
 The criticism that the referendum is vague and indefinite is not well taken The control of the liquor traffic through state stores is a well established method now in ef- feet in 13 states and in partial use by several others. A favorable vote in the referendum would be a mandate to the Legislature to cease treating the liquor traffic as a business proposition and treat it as a social question. It adds nothing to the power of the Legis- lature. They now have power to deal with the traffic as they see fit. They could pass a prohibition law if they SO wished The refer endum simply directs them to iol- low a certain policy.
 The sale of alcoholic beverages has not been considered in the same class as other lines of legltl- mate business. No other business would or could stand for the re- strictions put upon it. The high taxes and restrictions that are placed upon it stamp 1t as an out law in it's very nature. l believe the traffic should be handled pri- marily from the standpoint of so- cial welfare rather than as a busl- ness proposition.
 Washington Example
 As the State of Washington IS considered a good example ol those handling liquor through state stores we will use it as an example in comparing that system with the one in use in Alaska.
 Ten years ago Washington had a population of l,513,396 while Alaska had 5s.278. That is, Washington had more than 25 people to one person in Alaska. Both have since increased but there is no reason to believe the ratio has greatly changed. AL aska now has nearly 73,000 popu- lation. The consumption of liquor in the two regions seems to nave been fairly steady for several years past. Statistics given here are taken from the report of the Wash ineton State Liquor Control Board for the year ending September 30, 1889. and the U. s. Customs and Territorial Treasurer's records for 1889.
 Reports show that customers paid the state stores and agencies m Washington $l5,770,488H for liquor last year. This includes the 10 per- cent sales tax that is part of the selling price. In addition to this there weya receipts from the Li- censing and Endorsement Division of $l ,504, ,70838, or grand total of $17,7l2,330.18. On this the net revenue to the state was S6, 6,314, ,366 = GA or more than one-third of the total receipts.
 Alaska Consumption
 "A pcloOll dttlNCiy OPPoohiS SAiS referendum recently stated that $4,- 5OO,000 was annually spent in Ai- aska for alcoholic beverages I his is only an estimate but it is prob ably not much too high as the Customs show that there were inn ported into the Territory last year l0.34 gallons of malt liqour, mostly beer, 2.22 gallons of distilled hq- uor, mostly whiskey, and Is gal Ions of wine for every man, woman and child in the Territory. Distilled liquor constituted over 62 percent of the value of imports of alcoholic beverages into the Territory. Thus we may conclude that $2,700,000 ol S2,800,0o0 is paid by Alaskans fol hard liquor annually.
 By comparing these figures i may readily be seen that had Al aska had as much revenue for tn, amount of liquor sold as Washing ton had, the Territorial Treasur. would have benefited by more thai one million dollars last year instead of the S268, ,032.53 actually received
 The most damaging indictmen of our present system is that Al askans spend nearly five times al