The Sidney herald., 1957-02-28

Helena - Efforts of Montana
liquor dealers to obtain price con
cessions and in other ways Il
bring about modification of the
state liquor control system have
become manifest in every Mon,
tana legislative session. Up to now
failure has attended all attempts
to disturb in any major degree
the basic laws under which the
state monopoly has operated since
soon after repeal of prohibition.
The effort - this time a direct
one - TO remove the state gov
eminent from the retail liquor
business, as expressed in Substi-
tute House Bill 233, vas indeed
diligent in the 1857 assembly, but
the result was no different than
in the past. In a showdown roll
call, the measure got only 80 votes,
with SO against it. Those proposing
legislation of this kind in Mon
tana should realize by now that
the odds are against them. The
opposition does not all come from
church groups and others who
frown on liquor.
Having in mind that most of us
are motivated by personal interest,
liquor dealers r hardly to be
censured for trying to better their
business opportunities. Their ar
gument that the state should not
invade the realm of private n
terprise has some appeal, but
many of the champions of free
enterprise exclude the liquor in
dustry. Regarding Substitute lib
233, proponents claimed operation
under such a law would be more
efficient, would result in better
enforcement and would save mon
ey for the state. This might or
might not be true. But whether
true or not, the fact is that the
people of Montana generally have
confidence in the state monopoly
system, feel that in the main it
is working satisfactorily and are
apprehensive about any change,
especially where they suspect that
the monopoly might be weakened
or destroyed.
l reported the legislative ses-
sion in 1888 which passed the
liquor control act and the beer
act. For several years, or until
an appointive board was created,
the state liquor control board con-
sisted of the same personnel as
the state board of examiners -
The governor, attorney general and
secretary of state. Until the as
;embling of all these activities I'M
Ter the ~appointive board, the beer
let was administered by the state
,oard of equalization.
Il is my vivid recollection that
When the legalizing of liquor was
proposed in 1888, those urging this
ction disclaimed any design, or ]
the thought, of sale of hard &
Iquor by the drink or otherwise /
y private retailers. These folks
rofessed horror of the idea that '
he saloon of former days should c
yer return. What these people :
aid they wanted was legaliZed {
ale under a strict state monopoly. c
seer was considered a somewhat &
Lifferent matter. Sale of beer by
averns was authorized. /
Undoubtedly some of those urg- :
1g the relegalization of the liquor v
-affic were impelled by the pros S
ect of getting into that business, a
ut the handspring of relegalizing n
quor in Montana was prevail
lg public opinion in revulsion II
gainst the asserted failure of u
rohibition. 1t seemed to me that +
he great majority of Montana n
tizens, regardless of their indi- o
idual ideas on liquor, wanted the !,
attic under strict control of the o
ate and definitely opposed a
eturn to conditions such as exist Z
! prior to prohibition. .
La practice, prevention of sale Q
{ liquor by the drink was unreal q
tic. Hence, it was not long until Q
he legislature provided for the [
censing of bars. A quota system r
itended to limit the number of
1ese bars in relation to areas of =
was set up. That is :
hat we have today, and much of '
he trouble we have with en- +
orcement is because of the quo 6
/ system, which, because of in S
expectations by the courts, de- !
rives the state liquor control {
GARD of control it should be en- 6
owered to exercise in the public v
lterest. L
In the preprohibition era, we 2
ad good saloons and bad saloons, c
Though there were then and are n
ow persons who deny that any
aloon is good. Likewise, today we q
ave tavern operators who con- ;
uct their business as it should be Ii
0nducted and we have some who s
0 not. Perhaps many of these c
liter might be classed as fringe N
perators, fellows who are on the il
aged edge and in an effort to il
ct by, are not as scrupulous as Il
ley should be in conforming to g
he laws. 1t is here that much of S
he problem concerning sale of
quor and beer to minors is -
,und. y.
1t would be grossly unjust to t.
" that the majority of the retail r,
quor and beer licensees in Mon o.
ma are not reputable or do not h
)nduct their business legitimate 50,