Evening star., 1951-04-01
Parties Unified
On Beer Issue
In Montgomery
Leaders of 6. o.P.,
Democrats Favor
Retaining Monopoly
By ]. B. Zotmon


The explosive question whether
Montgomery County shall con-
tinue its beer monopoly has united
county Democratic and Republi.
can leaders against q move to
repeal the 10-year-old law.
In addition, the repeal propos-
al Of Democratic State Controller
j. Millard Tawes probably has
created more discussion in the
county since the voters scrapped
their commissioner setup in favor
of a charter form Of government
three years ago.
Lined up in favor of keeping
the wholesaling of beer under the
Liquor Control Board are the Re.
publican-controlled County Coun-
Gil, the Democratic State Central
Committee. county Civic Fedora
ton, Allied Civic Group of Silver
Spring, the Silver Spring Board
of Trade and the county's all
Republican legislative delegation
No Official G. o. p. Stand.
While the Republican State
Central Committee has taken nc
official stand, it's members have
indicated they favor continuation
of the present system. according
to Chairman Walter w. Dawson
Monopoly supporters argue Cd
the county would lose an esti-
mated $150,000 annually in beer
profits if private interests take
over, and t2) such a move would
open the way for racketeering.
Those for Mr.. Tawes' plan in
clude the County License Bever-
age Association. comprising about
SO of the approximately $50
holders of retail beer licenses;
Eugene j. c. Raney, former Mont
gomery beer wholesaler who does
thriving wholesale beer business
in Prince Georges County and
Roy Coffman, Silver Spring real
estate man who manages Mr.
Raney's properties in Montgomery
County.
Private Enterprise Cited.
They denounce the monopoly
as interfering with private enter
prise and accuse the Liquor
Board of padding its beer profits
by charging most of its expenses
against the liquor division.
Also, they agree with Mr..
Tawes that elimination Of the
monopoly would increase beer
sales and add about $50, 900 a year
to State revenues. Mr.. Tawes says
this would enable the county to
get back more under the Sherbow
plan of distributing State funds
to the counties than Montgomery
would lose if the monopoly is de-
stroyed.
Under the present law. passed
at the 1941 session Of the General
Assembly. the Liquor Board buys
beer directly from breweries and
sells it to retailers. Private whole
salers are prohibited from selling
any beer in the county except to
q county liquor dispensary. o1
which there are seven. Actually
the county does not buy any beel
from wholesalers
The dispensaries also sell beel
retail, usually for less than the
price charged by other beer license
holders in the county.
This practice is deefnded by
James F. Erwin, general manager
Of the dispensary system, on the
ground the dispensary beer car
be sold only on a pickup basi:
in case lots and is not cold.
Points to Deliveries.
He contended the retailers are
entitled to a higher price for theil
beer because many make delivery
and all can sell smaller quantities
This difference in price between
the dispensaries and the private
retailers is one of the principa.
complaints of the License Bev.
erage Association, headed BY
Henry j. Dietle. Mr.. Dietle is par
owner Of a tavern in Montgomery
Hills.
The county's beer monopoly
dates back to a. 1888 law. which
was thrown out as a result of 8
1889 Circuit Court decision.
The 1888 law gave the Liquor
Board sole authority to issue beel
wholesale licenses and required
wholesalers to buy from tn,
board. The board also could lew
up to cents on each case of bee
and a maximum of SO cents s
barrel.
In 1889. the Legislature passe,
q bill permitting the State con
troller's Office, to which Mr.. Tawe
had just been elected, to issu,
wholesale beer licenses. Mr.. Raney
incidentally, was Montgomer,
County campaign manager TO
MIR. Tawes in the 1888 campaign
Limitation Removed.
Another bill passed at the 1913!
session removed the limitations OF
the boards beer levy. AS a result
the board doubled them. This &C.
ton resulted in a suit by Mr.
Raney to prohibit the board from
collecting any beer tax. The court
ruled in October, 1899, that tn,
act involving the issuance o1
licenses by the controllers offlc,
had, in effect, repealed the beel
tax measure along with one o.
its provisions that the wholesaler.
still be required to buy from tn,
Liquor Board.
This meant the wholesaler.
could buy from anyone they de.
sired and sell to all county retail
ers, without going through tht
board.
This by-passing of the boarc
and elimination of its monopoly
existed for two years, until the
law establishing the county's pres
ent wholesale beer monopoly was
passed.
The current argument over thf