The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1944-03-31
The Liquor Monopoly


There many nexpicable things occurring the state
liquor administration up present
opinion of majority of the state supreme court which
effect held that this state monopoly private business
has not fit to make public statement of its policy
1t apparently takes the attitude that conduct of the state
liquor monopoly is not any of the public's business.
The Voice has several times challenged the authority of
the liquor board to any liquor
aers until the demands of individual liquor purchase permit
holders have been has been estimated that than
SIS per cent of what the board says available supplies
been allotted to retail dealers These estimates have not been
denied by the board and therefore be assumed that
the estimate right Up to this me the board has made
statement what legal grounds it is making these aot
mens to the retail rade in effect compelling 65 cent of
the individual permit holders to go to the bars to purchase
liquor if they feel that they want it.
Just how this works out, apparent this week in
Helena The Helena state store at II o'clock the
forenoon had been stated that whiskey would be obtain
able this week the Helena Before the opened
there people lined up for half block with more ar
irving all of the time An hour after the store opened
the stock was exhausted was reported but despite that
retail dealer and carried out of whkey
We have emphasized before and stress again. that do
not wish to be considered as fighting for the whskey trade
We do intend fight for the preservation of the state
oily of liquor traffic We contend that the law passed Great
ing this monopov is a good law We know that there has
been racketeeng going the past in the states handling
of liquor We suspect that there has been and be
racketeerng going We suspect that there be
effort to make of the state liquor monopoly football for
in the campaign this We appeal to the people of
the state to take hand in this.
We know that the administrator has authorized private
dealers to purchase liquor which they might find available to
be bought And such liquor has been found and bought by
individuals the state these purchases
would get its markup but why did not the state buy this
liquor and place the shelves of its state stores for
chase by individual purchase permit holders the law in
tended?
The actions of the state administrator either author
lied by the board in which the responsibility rests on
the board and if is acting in conformity with the letter
spirit of the law under which operates then is time
changes of the of the board If the admins
is acting independently of the board and his actions are
approved then the administrator should be fired Can
citizen arrive other conclusion? We would
like to know
AS appears now the liquor control board and the adj
mnsrator to be handing the liquor business to
the retail dealers 1t has, to large extent acted to give them
monopoly Are the responsible officials doing this to
mote their political standing?
If this private business the state liquor monopoly not
being conducted in that the public should be advised
the State Liquor Board feels that doesn't expana
ton believe that the the responsible head
should either demand of the board make himself and
then compel the board perform believe he would
wish it to act.
We do wish to be understood to be wagng campaign
against retail dealers The great majority of the dealers in
state have not been and apparently not trying to
the intent and purposes of the state law Many of
hese dealers feel that group of the larger and fnan
tally able retail dealers in the state trying to get
lopoy strangehod liquor supplies The majority of the
have not joined the apparent efforts of the Retail
Association with its Bombastes Furoso secretary to
the law Many of Them have indeed repudated
he association
Our campaign and is going to be for adj
inration of the State Liquor Control Act we'll other
laws for the rights of the individual citizen to all
md equal privileges under these laws.