Montana labor news., 1944-01-13

and the administrator, involving the
purchase of a distillery and a vast guam
tity of liquor. This proposed deal met
with the d%isapproval Of Governor Ford,
and the members Of the old board re-
signed.
While discussion of these occurrences
was rife, stories were circulated that
truckloads of liquor had been delivered
and stored in the First National Bank
building in Helena. These stories were
verified to the editor of The Peoples
Voice by reputable and responsible citi-
zens, n of whom offered a~ffidavits to
support his statement. Here wa an
other puzzle. This raised such ques-
tons as:
Why has liquor in such quantities been
stored in this bank building?
Where was it purchased if not through
the state liquor control board which is
the only legal wholesale selling agency
for liquor in the state?
on what assumed authority did the
state liquor control board sell such large
quantities to a bank or any other con-
liquor?
We can't answer these questions, but
we demand answers to them from the
present state liquor control board as a
matter of public policy. The states in
terests are involved and the state is its
people as a whole.
In addition to answering the questions
above so that the people of the state
may know, we, as taxpayers demand
from the liquor control board, asnwers
to these questions.
Why is it that very seldom, if ever,
an individual can go into a state liquor
store and find any known brands of
liquors on shelves, and can go to almost
any bar in the same town or city and
find bottles Of practically every old, well
known brand on display and presumably
for sale by the drink on its back bar?
BY virtue Of what right and by what
authority, has the liquor control board
allocated about go per cent of the avail
able supply of liquor to the retail dealers
and the remainder to the public when
supplies are as limited as they are re-
puted to be?
Why has so many state liquor stores
been closed on the claim that they were
not profitable?
Wasn't it the purpose of the establish
ment Of the state liquor stores to con-
troll distribution and to render this serv-
ice to all of the people of the state? If
so, why we're stores closed when they
didn't show profits and compel the peo-
pie in those communities to go to the
retail stores and pay the additional
profits demanded by the retailers2 Are
not other services rendered by the state
to its people which do not return a
profit to the state funds.
On the basis of what tests Of being
as h|ealthfully potable as liquor al ever
be, has the state liquor control board
purchased from the d|istilleries or brokers
the quantities of unknown, previously
unheard brands Of liquors?
Has the state liquor control board
made certain, that the liquor purchased
under those strange brand names, was
good liquor or inferior products put out
under new brands names at compare
lively high prices in order to avoid the
ceiling prices established by the Office
Of Price Administration on the former
brands of low priced and inferior
blends?
A statement of policy is due from the
new appointees on the state liquor con-
troll board. 1t should not be necessary,
inasmuch as the law under which it
functions is specific enough to show its
intent. But the departures from the
plain, explicit provisions of the law and
its intent appear to have been made and
Qualification of those actions must be
made and justified in the public's mind
to eradicate present suspicious that the
states liquor monopoly business is not
being conducted as it should be.
Monopoly control Of liquor by the state
has been found to be an effective meth
cd wherever tried and honestly and
efficiently and impartially administered
other countries have had it in effect for
years. Among those may be mentioned
Sweden and New Zealand where it has
been conducted for more than 30 years
with satisfactory results. Alberta has
had it in effect for more than 20 years
and the Montana law was largely copied
from its law. We saw fit, by legislative
action, to permit retail selling, but re-
tanning monopoly control. without en-
tering into a discussion Of the wisdom
of permitting retail selling, we believe
that the state liquor control board
should give first consideration to the
demands Of the public, and let the retail
dealers take what is left. Any other
policy will create dissatisfaction with
the liquor monopoly.
Related to some degree perhaps to
this entire muddle appears to be an oc-
currence which took place in Helena this
week. It is not a pleasant thing to re-
late, as it must reflect, if not on the
character, certainly upon the judgment
Of the participants Of what ethical citi-
zenship requires.
The county attorney of Lewis and
Clark county has filed abatement pro-
ceedings against the Mint Bar and Cafe
based on allegations of gambling being
carried on in the establishment. This
week, a delegation called upon the
county attorney, and plainly suggested
to him that these charges should be
withdrawn or quashed. 1t is stated that
the delegation did not demand with