The Waterbury Democrat., 1945-03-23
Drys Drop National Prohibition To Concentrate On Local Option
 Wor Yeors See Slight Number of Liquors Communities
By S. BURTON HEATH NEA Stan Correspondent


 Washington, March 23-Anti-li- quor organizations that won adop- ton of a prohibition amendment during World War I are not even trying to repeat that performance this time, so far as a careful can- vass here would indicate. On the contrary. they profess to be very well satisfied with the 2lst (RepeaD amendment. They say that if its Section had been in the constitu- tion in 1913-17, the nation never would have suffered the 18th amendment.
 Section 2 forbids transportation of intoxicants into any state, for use, in violation of its laws. This, in theory, puts the full power of the United States behind the effort of any state to make and keep itself dry. And that, leading pro- hibitionists say, is all they ask of the United tSates government. FEDERAL PROTECTION
 Edward B. Dunford, attorney for the Anti-Saloon League, explained the new program of leading dry forces thus:
 We think this approach has vast possibilities. We realize that the law can go only as far as pulp lie education and opinion will support. The new policy puts major emphasis back in the states. There are some groups that want another prohibition amendment. But we feel that Section 2 of the 21st amendment gives Us almost exactly what we tried to get before World War l when, for lack of federal protec- tion for states that wanted to be dry, We had to go after a national prohibition amendment"
 Under this policy the drys are working everywhere for more re- strictive features in liquor con- trol, for better administration of liquor laws, and for extension of local option prohibition.
 Some opponents of prohibition are disturbed by fear that local option bans are spreading at a dangerous pace, similar to that which preceded adoption of the 18th amendment. Study of local option tabulations made by the Distilled Spirits Institute does not warrant such fear.
 There was a relatively wide I {oHo iv,1y Jtof fa1yy ffay repeal, when few places were really dry. This was followed by a gradual return to normalcy, with ordinarily dry communities ban ming liquor and wet communities accepting it. By the fall of 1888 things had been shaken pretty well into place.
 Between October of 1888 and the end of 1944 (these dates being taken because the Institute has compiled local option tabulations for them the percentage of the American people living in pro- hibition communities rose from 17.8 to 19.3
 Some state showed almost | SpcCtdCuAdI BdlIlS 1OI AOCdl OptIOll prohibition. In Arkansas, for ex- ample, the population living in dry areas almost tripled, from 12.6 per cent to 3i3 per cent In Illinois it rose from A to 126 per cent; in Kentucky from 258 to 52.7 per cent; in Virginia from 4.9 to 8.4 per cent; in Wisconsin from AS to 10.4 per cent.
 PUNCTUATION SMALL
 But in most states the fluctuation was small, and in nine there actu- ally was decrease in the propor- tion of population living in dry ter ritory. Spokesmen for prohibition groups concede that even where To- cal prohibition has spread, often 1t has been matter of zoning rath- CT than of reform. A locality often will vote dry to keep a liquor store or saloon from opening next door,