The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1944-03-24
Where Do We Go?


its original The final result easily be that the
public will demand its repeal
clear point the present past situation
the administration of the state liquor monopoly We have
always commended that the only which liquor traffic
in the could kept under control proper regulation
was by the state monopoly system as intended and provided
under the state liquor control act This patterned after
the Alberta law where has been successfully administered
for than rs years. and for much longer period similar
state CONTROL in New Zealand and in Sweden The law with
administration has been amply be good law
Here in Montana almost from the beginning instead of
being efficiently and honestly administered in the
of the public has been used instrument with which
tive investigation the past vehicle for graft These
circumstances obviously do not reflect odum the law
ITSELF the total fault lies in its administration by officials of
the state
Occurrences within the last year would clearly
that the officials charged with the administration of the law
have far out of the of the intent and
the act to cater to the wishes of comparatively small
of the retail liquor dealers of the state to the
demen of the majority of the dealers and the general pub
lie One deal by the state liquor control board
and this small of Dealers validated by majority
of the members of state court opinion which
still left It's legality open to question: and the maorys opn-
ion challenged by strongly worded dissenting opinion
by Justices Adair and Left Erickson
Recently the The Voice informed
another by the been and prob
ably still is in of being arranged and the purpose of
the dealers organization as announced to complete it. and
if the Liquor Control willing cooperate take
the matter to the courts evidently believing that the organza
TONS program will again be favorably dealt with.
We do not challenge the right of retail liquor or
other of citizens to organize for their mutual bene
fit and protection of their legitimate interests We
dealers or any other group owe duty to society which they
should realize ranscends the Importance of their private
teress Paramount of all their interests the of
all other groups should be respect for and observance of the
and purposes of constituted law When they ignore
responsibility citizens then they place themselves
side entitled the protection which gives
to those who live up to and support its provisions
Perhaps of the members of this association
have consideration the implications their
tiles in seeking personal gain at the of notifications
the purposes of the state liquor
Perhaps most of them have given this consideration Per
haps most of them would that this presentation is
demic.
To all of Them we will say that their actions indicate poor
Judgment that the pubs tolerance of hghhanded action
is rapidly approaching end that when they seek of
they operate then the opinion of the public they pac
ing themselves in the position of booeggers criminals And
they will find themselves without any business at all when
disguised public repeats the law under which they stab
lished and supposedly operating
Let make position clear. We do not want to be
cased touts for the consumption of liquor whether eg
maey purchased from the state from dealers Nor do
believe in the practicabity of prohibition We believe that
the state monopoly control of the sale of liquors is the most
feasible and efficient of handling the traffic in liquor
We believe that the state liquor control act passed the
interests of the general public and that this should be the
consideration of the administration of the act.
let look at the present situation and its a
threats the present state control it administered We
emphasize again. that not oung for consumption
liquor making available in the state stores We
make these observations to of the dangers inherent
maladminstration of the act. T
has been charged and not denied by the state liquor
administration that 65 per better of the avail
able LIQUOR supply is aocated to retail dealers leaving 35 per
purchase by individuals in the state stores We
that the state liquor control board is not carrying out
purposes of the act alotng what they
call the supply 1t manifest that there greater
supply available than purchased and placed the shelves
for sale to individuals because the retail
dealers association its members have located and pur
quantities of liquor which the state could well have
purchased This lends weight to the suspicion growing in
the citizens rightly otherwise that the board and
the cooperating to give to comparatively
small of retailers virtual monopoly in the sale of
liquor. ii
city of Helena for instance for only about
day the week for the past three weeks has nv
ual purchase the rationed pint of whkey But Il
the individual could bar in the city and purchase
whkey the liquor control board carrying out the intent II
and purposes the law when this condition prevails not only
in Helena generally throughout the ate The question
itself IN
housekeeping and make the state liquor tC
troll act Or do want prohibition?
tany believe that the people of the state want the
old saloon system back.