UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT LOS ANGELES 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 MAY TREAT MORRISON 
 
 IN MEMORY OF 
 
 ALEXANDER F MORRISON
 
 
 
 
 etc c c « t 

 
 THE LIQUOR PROBLEM 
 
 IN ITS 
 
 LEGISLATIVE ASPECTS 
 
 BY 
 
 FREDERIC H. WINES AND JOHN KOREN 
 
 AN INVESTIGATION MADE 
 UNDER THE DIRECTION OF 
 
 CHARLES W. ELIOT, SETH LOW 
 AND JAMES C. CARTER 
 
 SUB-COMMITTKB OF THE COMMITTEE OF FIFTY TO 
 
 INVESTIGATE THE LIQUOR 
 
 PROBLEM 
 
 SECOND EDITION 
 
 m 
 
 BOSTON AND NEW YORK 
 HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY 
 
 1898
 
 Copyright, 1897 and 1898, 
 By CHARLES W. ELIOT, SETH LOW, AND JAAIES C. CARTER. 
 
 All rights reserved. 
 
 t •. ,L „ 
 
 , <^ « I I C • /< C * 
 
 , «.' < r. t .' t ci 
 
 • •• 
 
 . . < ' ' ' '•' '..*'' ' ••' «.' 
 
 The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Mass., U. S. A. 
 Electrotyped and Printed by H. O. Houghton & Co.
 
 t^Y 
 
 NOTE TO SECOND EDITION. 
 
 When the first edition of this work was published, the 
 Raines law in New York had been for a short time in 
 operation, but amendments were pending. Sufficient time 
 has elapsed since the revision of the law to justify a full 
 examination of its working, and accordingly a new chapter 
 has been added in this second edition, with the title, " The 
 Operation of the New York Liquor Tax Law." The op- 
 portunity offered by a reissue has been taken also to bring 
 down to date the observations on the South Carolina Dis- 
 pensary System, Massachusetts Liquor Legislation, and 
 Pennsylvania Liquor Legislation. Brief additions there- 
 fore will be found on pp. 180a, 180^*, 230, and 291. 
 
 Boston, August 2, 1898. 

 
 PREFACE. 
 
 For several years beginning in 1889, a group of fifteen 
 gentlemen, who came to be known as the Sociological 
 Group, prepared papers on subjects in sociology, which were 
 published in "The Century Magazine " and " The Forum." 
 These articles were written by single members of the group, 
 but were criticised before their publication by other mem- 
 bers. Among the subjects dealt with were : A Programme 
 for Labor Keform, by Professor Richard T. Ely ; The 
 Social Problem of Church Unity, by the Eev. Dr. Charles 
 W. Shields ; Pensions and Socialism, by Professor William 
 M. Sloane ; Government of Cities in the United States, 
 by President Seth Low. 
 
 Meetings of the group were held from time to time in 
 New York city, at which there was a useful interchange of 
 opinion on various social topics. In 1893 these gentlemen 
 decided to enlarge the number of the group to fifty, and to 
 concentrate their attention on the liquor problem in the 
 United States. The selection of the new members was 
 made chiefly from Eastern cities, in order that it might be 
 possible to procure large meetings of the committee in New 
 York city twice a year ; but there were, nevertheless, a few 
 members from distant places, like Milwaukee and St. Louis. 
 The members of the committee bore their own traveling ex- 
 penses ; but a few thousand dollars were raised by private 
 subscription, mostly in New York and Boston, to defray 
 the expenses of their investigations. 
 
 The present members of the Committee of Fifty are 
 Dr. Felix Adler, Bishop E. G. Andrews, Dr. J. S. Billings, 
 Professor C. A. Briggs, Dr. G. Alder Blumer, Z. R. 
 Brockway, Esq., James C. Carter, Esq., William Bayard
 
 VI PEEFACE. 
 
 Cutting, Esq., William E. Dodge, Esq., Eev. Father A. P. 
 Doyle, Rev. Father Walter Elliot, Dr. E. K L. Gould, Eev. 
 Dr. W. E. Huntington, President Seth Low, Et. Eev. H. C. 
 Potter, Eev. Dr. W. I. Eainsford, Jacob H. Schiflf, Esq., of 
 New York ; Professor H. P. Bowditch, J. G. Brooks, Esq., 
 Eev. Dr. Thomas Conaty, Eev. Dr. S. W. Dike, President 
 Charles W. Eliot, Dr. Edward M. Hartwell, Professor F. 
 G. Peabody, Gen. Francis A. Walker,^ of Massachusetts; 
 Professor W. 0. Atwater, Professor E. H. Chittenden, Pro- 
 fessor Henry W. Farnam, Jacob L. Greene, Esq., Professor 
 J. J. McCook, Eev. Dr. T. T. Hunger, Charles Dudley 
 Warner, Esq., Hon. David A. Wells, of Connecticut ; Pro- 
 fessor C. W. Shields, Professor W. M. Sloane, of New 
 Jersey ; President James MacAlister, Eobert C. Ogden, 
 Esq., of Pennsylvania ; C. J. Bonaparte, Esq., President 
 D. C. Gilman, Dr. William H. Welch, of Maryland ; Eev. 
 Dr. Alexander Mackay-Smith, Hon. Carroll D. Wright, of 
 Washington, D. C. ; Eev. Dr. Washington Gladden, Pro- 
 fessor J, F. Jones, of Ohio; Frederic H. Wines, Esq., of 
 Illinois ; Professor E. T. Ely, of Wisconsin ; Hon. Henry 
 Hitchcock, of Missouri ; Et. Eev. T. F. Gailor, of Tennes- 
 see ; President William Preston Johnston, of Louisiana, 
 
 This committee, meeting in New York city on October 20, 
 1893, appointed four sub-committees on different aspects of 
 the drink problem : one on the physiological aspects, one 
 on the legislative aspects, one on the economic aspects, and 
 one on the ethical aspects. The sub-committee on the 
 physiological aspects of the problem began work almost at 
 once by setting on foot several series of investigations con- 
 cerning the effects of alcohol on the animal economy. The 
 sub-committee on the ethical aspects of the problem thought 
 it expedient to delay their work till the other sub-committees 
 had made some progress in their respective fields. The 
 sub-committee on the economic aspects waited until it should 
 1 Died Januarj' 5, 1897.
 
 PREFACE. VU 
 
 be determined what parts of numerous desirable investiga- 
 tions should be undertaken by the National Bureau of 
 Labor at Washington. The fields to be occupied by the 
 National Bureau having been determined toward the close 
 of the year 1895, the sub-committee on the economic aspects 
 of the drink problem then began the prosecution of several 
 inquiries. 
 
 The first Eeport of the Sub-Committee on the Legislative 
 Aspects of the Liquor Problem is presented in this volume ; 
 and it is published under the authority of the whole Com- 
 mittee of Fifty, as explained in the following prefatory note 
 by the Secretary, Dr. Francis G. Peabody : — 
 
 " This Committee, made up of persons representing dif- 
 ferent communities, occupations, and opinions, is engaged 
 in the study of the Liquor Problem in the hope of secur- 
 ing a body of facts which may serve as a basis for intel- 
 ligent public and private action. It is the purpose of the 
 Committee to collect and collate impartially all accessible 
 facts which bear upon the problem, and it is their hope to 
 secure for the evidence thus accumulated a measure of con- 
 fidence on the part of the community which is not accorded 
 to partisan statements. 
 
 " The investigations of the Committee are carried on 
 under the direction of four Sub-Committees, which deal 
 respectively with the Physiological, Legislative, Ethical, 
 and Economical aspects of the question. 
 
 " By vote of the Committee of Fifty, January 10, 1896, 
 reports made by its Sub-Committees to the whole body may 
 be published, by authority of the Executive Committee, as 
 contributions to the general inquiry ; but to all such pub- 
 lications is to be prefixed a statement that reports of Sub- 
 Committees are to be regarded as preliminary in their 
 nature, and only contributory of facts upon which the 
 general discussion may in the future be undertaken by the 
 Committee as a whole."
 
 viii PREFACE. 
 
 In order to bring the present volume within a suitable 
 compass it has been necessary to condense somewhat the 
 reports of Messrs. Wines and Koren. This condensation 
 has caused the omission in some instances of the detailed 
 evidence on which general statements are based ; but no- 
 thing has been added to their reports, and no expression of 
 their opinions has been even in the slightest degree modified. 
 This inevitable reduction, however, diminishes in some in- 
 stances their responsibility for the form in which the facts 
 are presented.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction 1 
 
 Prohibition in Maine and its Results ... 22 
 
 The History of Prohibition in Iowa ... 96 
 
 The South Carolina Dispensary System . . 141 
 
 The Restrictive System in Massachusetts, 1875-1894 181 
 
 The Liquor Laws of Pennsylvania . . . 231 
 
 The Ohio Liquor Tax 292 
 
 Liquor Laws in Indiana, since 1851 . . . 306 
 
 The Missouri Local Option Law .... 319 
 
 The Operation of the New York Liquor Tax Law 338 
 
 Index 421
 
 * ■> 1 > . 
 
 THE LIQUOR PROBLEM. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The Sub-committee on the Legislative Aspects of the 
 Drink Problem received from the Committee of Fifty 
 appropriations of sixty-five hundred dollars. In April, 
 1894, the sub-committee engaged Dr. Frederic H. Wines, 
 of Springfield, Illinois, and Mr. John Koren, of Boston, 
 Massachusetts, to investigate the Avorking of the liquor 
 legislation in several States of the Union in which that 
 legislation, or its history, has been characteristic or espe- 
 cially instructive. 
 
 Mr. Koren began work on the first day of May, 1894, in 
 the State of Maine, where prohibitory legislation has existed 
 since 1851. He spent three months in Maine, and then 
 studied for three months the working of the local-option 
 law in Massachusetts, — chiefly in Boston and North 
 Adams, the latter place being a large town with a con- 
 siderable proportion of operatives in its population. From 
 Massachusetts he proceeded to Pennsylvania, and gave 
 three months to a study of the working of the Pennsyl- 
 vania License Law, — chiefly in Philadelphia. Next, he 
 studied the working of the Dispensary Law in South Caro- 
 lina during February, March, and April, 1895. He then 
 gave three months to a careful revision of his four reports. 
 Mr. Koren, therefore, worked continuously for the sub- 
 committee from IVIay 1, 1894, to August 1, 1895. Lastly, 
 he devoted six weeks in September and October, 1895, to
 
 2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 an extension of his field work in Pennsylvania, particularly 
 in Pittsbuigh, Wilke.s BjTi'e, and Reading. 
 
 Dr. "\\'ines began his studies for the sub-committee about 
 the fir&t of August, 1894: and: his first work was an elab- 
 orate investigation of the working of the Missouri law in 
 the city of St. Louis. He then studied the history and 
 operation of the Iowa legislation, and in April, 1895, pre- 
 sented to the sub-committee a careful report on that 
 remarkable legislation. He next went to Ohio, and inves- 
 tigated the Avorking of the so-called Mulct Law, under 
 which no licenses are issued, but a tax is levied on every 
 liquor-seller. Finally, in the summer of 1895, he pre- 
 pared a report on the working of the liquor legislation in 
 Indiana. He gave to these investigations nine months of 
 his time between August 1, 1894, and September 1, 1895. 
 
 These investigations cover eight different kinds of liquor 
 legislation. They are not complete statistical inquiries, for 
 the reason that it is impossible, with any resources at the 
 command of the Committee of Fifty, to obtain satisfactory 
 statistics on this subject for any State of the Union. It 
 would require the authority of the general government and 
 an immense expenditure to make an exhaustive statistical 
 inquiry on the subject of the consumption of alcoholic 
 drinks ; and it is very doubtful if even the national govern- 
 ment could obtain all the important facts on this most dif- 
 ficult topic. The considerable consumption of alcohol for 
 medicinal and industrial purposes masks the consumption 
 for drinking purposes. The amount of alcohol produced in 
 the country gives, of course, no clew to the amount con- 
 sumed as drink in any single State. The internal revenue 
 laws of the United States and the freedom of interstate 
 commerce complicate the Avhole situation. Neither have 
 the researches of Dr. Wines and ]\Ir. Koren resulted in 
 complete statistical statements of the number of arrests for 
 drunkenness, or for drunkenness and disorderly conduct, or
 
 SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION. 3 
 
 of the number of crimes attributable to alcohol. Indeed, 
 one of the results of their investigations is that no secure 
 conclusions can be based on any such statistics now in exist- 
 ence, so much are the accessible statistics affected by tem- 
 porary, local, and shifting conditions. Nevertheless, these 
 reports give a trustvvortliy account of the legislation in each 
 State dealt with, and of the efforts made in the several 
 States to enforce the laws enacted ; and they give some 
 indications of the success or non-success in promoting tem- 
 perance of the various kinds of legislation described. They 
 inevitably deal, also, with the social and political effects of 
 the various sorts of liquor legislation. Within these limits, 
 they are believed by the sub-committee to be accurate and 
 impartial. 
 
 The reports relate to communities which differ widely in 
 character. Some relate to compact and some to scattered 
 populations ; some to people most of whom are native-born, 
 and some to communities in which there is a large admix- 
 ture of foreign-born persons. The principal occupations in 
 the States examined differ widely. Boston, Philadelphia, 
 and St. Louis contain chiefly a manufacturing and trading 
 population, while the population of South Carolina and 
 Iowa is in the main agricultural. 
 
 The difficulties in the way of researches of this kind are 
 enormous. In matters which affect private character, truth- 
 ful reports are proverbially hard to obtain. The accessible 
 statistics are incomplete or inaccurate, or both. The effects 
 of intemperance in promoting vice and crime are often 
 mixed with the effects of many other causes, such as 
 unhealthy occupations, bad lodgings, poor food, and inher- 
 ited disabilities ; and it is very difficult to disentangle 
 intemperance as a cause from other causes of vice, crime, 
 and pauperism. At every point connected with these in- 
 Testigations the studious observer encounters an intense
 
 4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 partisansliip; which blinds the eyes of witnesses, and ob- 
 scures the judgment of writers and speakers on the subject. 
 The reports deal with some communities in which the 
 local sentiment has been in favor of the enforcement of 
 restrictive laws, and Avith others in which the sentiment has 
 been adverse to such enforcement. On the whole, they 
 embrace a sufficient variety of legislative enactments, and a 
 sufficient variety of experience with these enactments, in 
 communities of various quality, to make the conclusions to 
 be drawn from them widely interesting and instructive. 
 Taken together, they certainly present a vivid picture of 
 the difficulties of such inquiries, and give effective warning 
 against the easy acceptance of partial or partisan statements 
 on the subject. 
 
 From the eight reports thus obtained, the sub-committee 
 derive the following statement of results and inferences, 
 which omit all reference to similar legislation and experi- 
 ence in other States, and make no pretension to any ex- 
 haustive or universal character. It is evident that methods 
 which succeed in one place do not necessarily succeed in 
 another. Moreover, none of the eight reports deals with 
 the question under European or cosmopolitan conditions. 
 
 The results of the investigation and the inferences from 
 it which the sub-committee laid before the Committee of 
 Fifty include a consideration of prohibition, its successes, its 
 failures, its concomitant evils, and its disputed effects ; local 
 option ; the systems of licenses ; licensing authorities ; re- 
 strictions on the sale of liquors ; druggists' licenses ; and 
 the effect of liquor legislation on politics. 
 
 PROHIBITION. 
 
 Prohibitory legislation has succeeded in abolishing and 
 preventing the manufacture on a large scale of distilled and 
 malt liquors within the areas covered by it. In districts
 
 PROHIBITION. 5 
 
 where public sentiment has been strongly in its favor it has 
 made it hard to obtain intoxicants, thereby removing temp- 
 tation from the young and from persons disposed to alco- 
 holic excesses. In pursuing its main object, — which is to 
 make the manufacture and sale of intoxicants, first, im- 
 possible, or, secondly, disreputable if possible, — it has 
 incidentally promoted the invention and adoption of many 
 useful restrictions on the liquor traffic. 
 
 But prohibitory legislation has failed to exclude intoxi- 
 cants completely even from districts where public sentiment 
 has been favorable. In districts where public sentiment 
 has been adverse or strongly divided, the traffic in alcoholic 
 beverages has been sometimes repressed or harassed, but 
 never exterminated or rendered unprofitable. In Maine 
 and Iowa there have always been counties and munici- 
 palities in complete and successful rebellion against the 
 law. The incidental difficulties created by the United 
 States revenue laws, the industrial and medicinal demand 
 for alcohol, and the freedom of interstate commerce have 
 never been overcome. Prohibition has, of course, failed to 
 subdue the drinking passion, which will forever prompt 
 resistance to all restrictive legislation. 
 
 There have been concomitant evils of prohibitory legis- 
 lation. The efforts to enforce it during forty years past 
 have had some unlooked-for effects on public respect for 
 courts, judicial procedure, oaths, and law in general, and 
 for officers of the law, legislators, and public servants. The 
 public have seen law defied, a whole generation of habitual 
 law-breakers schooled in evasion and shamelessness, courts 
 ineffective through fluctuations of policy, delays, perjuries, 
 negligences, and other miscarriages of justice, officers of the 
 law double-faced and mercenary, legislators timid and insin- 
 cere, candidates for office hypocritical and truckling, and 
 office-holders unfaithful to pledges and to reasonable pub- 
 lic expectation. Through an agitation which has always
 
 6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 had a moral end, these immoralities have been developed 
 and made conspicuous. The liquor traffic, being very profit- 
 able, has been able, when attacked by prohibitory legisla- 
 tion, to pay fines, bribes, hush-money, and assessments for 
 political purposes to large amounts. This money has tended 
 to corrupt the lower courts, the police administration, politi- 
 cal organizations, and even the electorate itself. Wherever 
 the voting force of the liquor traffic and its allies is consid- 
 erable, candidates for office and office-holders are tempted to 
 serve a dangerous trade interest, which is often in antagonism 
 to the public interest. Frequent yielding to this temptation 
 causes general degeneration in public life, breeds contempt 
 for the public service, and of course makes the service less 
 desirable for upright men. Again, the sight of justices, 
 constables, and informers enforcing a prohibitory law far 
 enough to get from it the fines and fees which profit them, 
 but not far enough to extinguish the traffic and so cut off the 
 source of their profits, is demoralizing to society at large. 
 All legislation intended to put restrictions on the liquor traf- 
 fic, except perhaps the simple tax, is more or less liable to 
 these objections ; but the prohibitory legislation is the worst 
 of all in these respects, because it stimxalates to the utmost 
 the resistance of the liquor-dealers and their supporters. 
 
 Of course there are disputed effects of efforts at prohibi- 
 tion. Whether it has or has not reduced the consumption 
 of intoxicants and diminished drunkenness is a matter of 
 opinion, and opinions differ widely. No demonstration on 
 either of these points has been reached, or is now attainable, 
 after more than forty years of observation and experience. 
 
 LOCAL OPTION. 
 
 Experience with prohibitory legislation has brought into 
 clear relief the fact that sumptuary legislation which is not 
 supported by local public sentiment is apt to prove locally 
 impotent, or worse. On this fact are based the numerous
 
 LOCAL OPTION. 7 
 
 kinds of liquor legislation which may b€s grouped under the 
 name of local option. 
 
 In the legislation of the eight States studied, five forms 
 of local option occur : In Massachusetts, a vote is taken 
 every year at the regular election in every city and town on 
 the question, Shall licenses be granted ? and the determi- 
 nation by the majority of voters lasts one year. In Mis- 
 souri, a vote may be taken at any time (but not within 
 six^ days of any state or municipal election) on demand of 
 one tenth of the qualified electors, town or city voters hav- 
 ing no county vote and vice versa, and the vote being 
 taken not of tener than once in four years ; but in counties 
 or municipalities which have voted for license, no saloon 
 can be licensed unless the majority of the property-holders 
 in the block or square in which the saloon is to be situated 
 sign a petition that the license be issued. In South Caro- 
 lina, every application for the position of county dispenser 
 must be accompanied by a petition in favor of the applicant 
 signed by a majority of the freeholders of the incorporated 
 place in which the dispensary is to be situated ; and more 
 than one dispensary may be established for each county, 
 but not against a majority vote (operative for two years) in 
 the township in which the dispensary is to be placed. In 
 Ohio, local prohibition is permitted, the vote being taken 
 at a special election on the demand of one fourth of the 
 qualified electors in any township. In Indiana (law of 
 1895), a majority of the legal voters in any township or 
 ward of a city may remonstrate against licensing a specified 
 applicant, and the remonstrance voids any license which 
 may be issued to him within ten years. 
 
 The main advantage of local option is that the same pub- 
 lic opinion Avhich determines the question of license or no- 
 license is at the back of all the local officials who administer 
 the system decided on. The Missouri provisions seem to 
 be the completest and jnstest of all. One year being too
 
 8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 short a period for a fair trial of either license or no-license, 
 Massachusetts towns and cities have to guard themselves 
 against a fickleness from which the law might protect them. 
 Under local option, many persons who are not prohihition- 
 ists habitually vote for no-license in the place where they 
 live, or where their business is carried on. Persons who 
 object to public bars, although they use alcoholic drinks 
 themselves, may also support a local no-license system. By 
 forethought, such persons can get their own supplies from 
 neighboring places where license prevails. If their supplies 
 should be cut off, they might vote differently. There has 
 been no spread of the no-license policy in Massachusetts 
 cities and towns since 1881, except by the votes of towns 
 and cities in the immediate vicinity of license towns and 
 cities. 
 
 LICENSES. 
 
 The facts about licenses and the methods of granting them 
 are among the most important parts of the results of this 
 study. There is general agreement that licenses should not 
 be granted for more than one year. The Massachusetts 
 limitation of the number of licenses by the population (1 
 license to 1,000 inhabitants, except in Boston 1 to 500) has 
 worked well, by reducing the number of saloons, and mak- 
 ing the keepers more law-abiding ; but the evidence does 
 not justify the statement that it would work well every- 
 where. The Missouri restriction — no license within 500 
 feet of a public park — and the Massachusetts restriction — 
 no license within 400 feet of a schoolhouse — are both com- 
 mendable. Another Massachusetts provision, to the effect 
 that the holder of a license to sell liquors to be drunk on 
 the premises must also hold a license as an innholder or 
 victualer, is well conceived ; but the means of executing it 
 have not been thoroughly worked out. Pennsylvania, out- 
 side of Philadelphia, licenses only taverns and restaurants 
 to sell intoxicants for consumption on the premises.
 
 LICENSES. y 
 
 County courts have been, and still are, common licensing 
 authorities in the States reported on. Officials elected for 
 short terms, like the mayor and aldermen of cities, make 
 bad licensing authorities ; for the reason that the liquor 
 question thereby becomes a frequently recurring issue in 
 municipal politics. A Massachusetts law of recent date 
 provides for the appointment by the mayor of any city of 
 three license commissioners, each to serve six years, one 
 commissioner retiring every second year. This arrange- 
 ment provides a tolerably stable and independent board, 
 without violating the principle of local self-government. 
 
 Every licensing authority should have power to revoke a 
 license promptly, and should always have discretion to with- 
 hold a license, no matter how complete may be the compli- 
 ance of the applicant with all preliminary conditions. 
 
 The objections to using courts as licensing authorities 
 are grave. In cities, licenses are large money-prizes, and 
 whoever awards many of them year after year is more liable 
 to the suspicion of yielding to improper influences than 
 judges ordinarily are in the discharge of strictly judicial 
 duties. Wherever the judgeships are elective offices, it is 
 difficult for candidates to avoid the suspicion that they have 
 given pledges to the liquor interest. Since judicial purity 
 and reputation for purity are much more important than 
 discreet and fair licensing, it would be wiser not to use 
 courts as licensing authorities. 
 
 There are also grave inherent objections to the whole 
 license system, when resting on the discretion of commis- 
 sioners, which the experience of these eight States cannot 
 be said to remove. No other element connected with a 
 license does so much to throw the liquor traffic into politics. 
 It compels the traffic to be in politics for self-protection. 
 It makes of every licensing board a powerful political en- 
 gine. A tax law avoids this result, and is so far an im- 
 provement. The Ohio law is a case in point.
 
 10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Bonds are generally required of licensees. Experience has 
 proved that wholesale dealers get control of the retailers by 
 signing numerous bonds for them. This practice can be, 
 and has been, prevented by legislation of various sorts, — 
 as, for example, by enacting (Iowa, 1894) that no person 
 shall sign more than one bond, or (Pennsylvania) that 
 bondsmen shall not be engaged in the manufacture of spir- 
 ituous or malt liquors. The appearance of office-holders 
 and politicians on numerous bonds, as in Philadelphia, 
 might be prevented by a law declaring that holders of elec- 
 tive offices shall not be accepted as bondsmen for licensees. 
 
 Before a license for a saloon can be issued, Massachusetts 
 requires the consent of the owner of the building in which 
 the saloon is to be, and the consent of the owners of prop- 
 erty within twenty-five feet of the premises to be occupied 
 by the saloon. Iowa requires the consent of all property- 
 holders within lifty feet of saloon premises. The Missouri 
 provision is a thorough one, and can be evaded only at con- 
 siderable cost and risk. Known methods of evasion are 
 building and selling tenements so as to increase the num- 
 ber of voters in the block, and dividing ordinary lots into 
 many small lots held by different persons. 
 
 It has been a common practice to require every applicant 
 for a license to file a certificate, signed by twelve or more 
 respectable citizens, testifying to the applicant's citizenship 
 and good character. This certificate is of some value to a 
 careful licensing authority, but it may conceal the careless- 
 ness of an unconscientious authority. In connection with 
 a tax law it might work well. In 1872-73, at a time 
 when the Supreme Court of Iowa had declared local option 
 unconstitutional, Iowa demanded that this certificate should 
 be signed by the majority of the voters in the township, 
 city, or ward for which the license was asked, — thus se- 
 curing a kind of local option. 
 
 As a rule, the upper limit of license fees in cities and
 
 RESTEICTIONS ON THE SALE. H 
 
 large towns has by no means been reached. The examples 
 of Missouri and St. Louis (combined fee), North Adams in 
 Massachusetts, and Boston prove that the traffic can be 
 made to yield much more revenue than has been supposed. 
 In 1888 the principal fees were doubled in Boston without 
 diminishing the number of applications. They were raised 
 again in 1888. In St. Louis the traffic pays a state tax, a 
 county tax, an ad valorem tax on all liquors received, and 
 a municipal tax whicli sometime reaches $300 a month for a 
 single saloon. When a license attaches to a place, and not 
 to a person, the owner of the shop fixes the rent, not by the 
 value of the building for any business, but by the special 
 value of the license. That is a profit which the munici- 
 pality might absorb in the license fee. 
 
 RESTRICTIONS ON THE SALE. 
 
 The most important question with regard to any form of 
 liquor legislation is this : Is it adapted to secure the en- 
 forcement of the restrictions on the sale of intoxicants 
 which experience has shown to be desirable, assuming that 
 only those restrictions can be enforced which commend 
 themselves to an enlightened and effective public sentiment ? 
 The restrictions which the experience of many years and 
 many places has proved to be desirable are chiefly these : — 
 
 There should be no selling to minors, intoxicated persons, 
 or habitual drunkards. 
 
 Tliere should be no selling on Sundays, election days, or 
 legal holidays in general, such as Christmas Day, Memorial 
 Day, and the Fourth of July. Where, however, such a 
 restriction is openly disregarded, as in St. Louis, it is inju- 
 rious to have it in the law. 
 
 Saloons should not be allowed to become places of enter- 
 tainment, and to this end they should not be allowed to 
 provide musical instruments, billiard or pool tables, bowling 
 alleys, cards, or dice.
 
 12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Saloons should not be licensed in theatres or concert 
 halls ; and no boxing, wrestling, cock-fighting, or other 
 exhibition should be allowed in saloons. 
 
 Every saloon should be wide open to public inspection 
 from the highway, no screens or partitions being permitted. 
 
 There should be a limit to the hours of selling, and the 
 shorter the hours the better. In the different States sa- 
 loons close at various hours. Thus, in Maine cities in 
 which saloons are openly maintained, the hour for closing 
 is ten p. M., and in Massachusetts it is eleven p. m. ; but 
 the county dispensaries of South Carolina close at six p. m. 
 
 It has been found necessary to prevent by police regu- 
 lation the display of obscene pictures in saloons, and the 
 employment of women as bar-tenders, waitresses, singers, 
 or actresses. 
 
 Most of the above restrictions can be executed in any 
 place where there is a reasonably good police force, provided 
 that public opinion accepts such restrictions as desirable. 
 If public sentiment does not support them, they will be 
 disregarded or evaded, as they are in St. Louis, although 
 the Missoviri law is a good one in respect to restrictions on 
 licensees. The prohibition of Sunday selling is an old re- 
 striction in the United States (Indiana, 1816), and the more 
 Sunday is converted into a public holiday the more impor- 
 tant this restriction becomes, if public sentiment will sus- 
 tain it. 
 
 All restrictions on the licensed saloons have a tendency to 
 develop illicit selling ; but much experience has proved that 
 illicit selling cannot get a large development by the side of 
 licensed selling, if the police administration be at all efl"ec- 
 tive. It is only in regions where prohibition prevails that 
 illicit selling assumes large proportions. In license cities, 
 where the regulations forbid sales after ten or eleven o'clock 
 on Saturday evening and sales on Sundays, the illicit traffic 
 is most developed after hours on Saturday and on Sunday.
 
 druggists' licenses. 13 
 
 druggists' licenses. 
 
 The selling of intoxicants by druggists has been a seri- 
 ous difficulty in the way of enforcing prohibitory laws. In 
 Iowa, when the law of 1886 closed large numbers of saloons, 
 the druggists were almost compelled to sell liquors, — at 
 least to their own acquaintances and regular customers. In 
 Maine, the sale by druggists has always been a favorite 
 mode of evading the law. States which have insisted on a 
 proper educatioh of pharmacists, and maintained a state 
 registry for pharmacists, have had an advantage, when the 
 closing of saloons has brought a pressure on drug-stores to 
 supply intoxicants ; for the supervision of the State secures 
 a higher class of men in the pharmacy business. 
 
 The checks on the selling of liquor by druggists are chiefly 
 these : first, none but a registered pharmacist shall be in- 
 trusted with a license ; secondly, no druggist shall sell in 
 small quantities without a written prescription by a physi- 
 cian, and this physician must not be the druggist himself or 
 one interested in the drug-store. The sale of liquor by 
 druggists cannot be perfectly controlled, however, by either 
 or both of these regulations. 
 
 LIQUOR CASES IN THE COURTS. 
 
 Under all sorts of liquor laws great diificulty has been 
 found in getting the courts to deal effectively and promptly 
 with liquor cases. Alike under the license law in Massa- 
 chusetts and under the prohibition law in Maine, this diffi- 
 culty has presented itself. In Maine, after more than 
 forty years' experience, and after frequent amendment of 
 the law of 1851 with the object of preventing delay in 
 dealing with liquor cases, it is still easy to obtain a year's 
 delay between the commission of a liquor offense and sen- 
 tence therefor. In Massachusetts, so many cases were 
 placed on file and nol pros'd that, in 1885, a law was
 
 14 INTEODUCTION. 
 
 passed against the improper canceling of cases. This law 
 checked the evil. In 1884, 78 per cent, of all the liquor 
 cases were placed on file or nol pros' d ; in 1885, 34 per cent., 
 and in 1893 only 3.41 per cent. Wherever district attor- 
 neys and judges are elected by the people, this trouble is 
 likely to be all the more serious. One consequence of the 
 delays and miscarriages in liquor cases is that the legal pro- 
 ceedings in enforcing a liquor law become very costly in 
 proportion to the number of sentences imposed. 
 
 Experience in various States has shown that the penalty 
 of imprisonment prevents obtaining convictions in liquor 
 cases. This penalty has been tried over and over again by 
 ardent legislators, but in practice has never succeeded, — 
 at least for first offenses. Fines have seemed to ordinary 
 judges and juries sufficient penalties for liquor offenses. 
 Laws with severe penalties have often been passed, and 
 courts have often been deprived of all choice between fine 
 and imprisonment ; but in practice such enactments have 
 proved less effective than milder ones. 
 
 A wise discrimination is made in some States between 
 the fines for selling liquors in counties or municipalities 
 which have voted for no-license and the fines for selling 
 without a license in counties or municipalities which have 
 voted for license. The first offense requires the heavier 
 fine. In Missouri, for an offense of the first sort the fine 
 is from $300 to $1,000; for an offense of the second sort, 
 from $40 to $200. In States where a license system 
 prevails throughout, the fine for selling without a license 
 needs to be high. Thus, in Pennsylvania, the fine for this 
 offense is from $500 to $5,000. It is, of course, important 
 that the fine for selling without a license should be decid- 
 edly higher than the annual cost of a license. 
 
 It has been thought necessary to stimulate the enforce- 
 ment of liquor laws by offering large rewards to informers. 
 Thus, in Ohio, half the fine imposed goes to the informer.
 
 TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR. 15 
 
 whenever a house of ill-fame is convicted of selling liquor. 
 In South Carolina, twenty cents on every gallon of con- 
 fiscated liquor is paid to the informer, and any sheriff or 
 trial justice who seizes contraband liquors is paid half their 
 value. Laws like these excite intense animosities, and ne- 
 cessitate other laws for the protection of informers. They 
 have been effective, however, in some instances. 
 
 TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR. 
 
 The subject of the transportation of liquor into or within 
 a State has been a very difficult one for legislators in every 
 State which has tried the policy of prohibition, or of local 
 no-license, or of state monopoly. Maine has struggled for 
 more than forty years with the problem of preventing the 
 transportation of liquor intended for sale, but with very 
 limited success. That State, however, presents peculiar 
 difficulties ; for it has a much-indented coast and several 
 navigable rivers, so that many of its principal toAvns and 
 cities are accessible by water as well as by rail. The most 
 minute and painstaking legislation has failed to attain the 
 object of the prohibitionists. In South Carolina the legis- 
 lature has been more successful in defending the state 
 monopoly. The lines of transportation are comparatively 
 few. Severe penalties have been enacted against the trans- 
 portation of contraband liquor ; arbitrary and vexatious 
 powers have been given to sheriffs, constables, and police- 
 men ; and the activity of the local police has been stimulated 
 by a provision that negligent municipalities may be deprived 
 of their share of the profits of the state dispensary. Legis- 
 lation of this sort intensifies political dissensions, incites to 
 social strife, and abridges the public sense of self-respecting 
 liberty. In States where local option prevails, transporta- 
 tion by express between license communities and no-license 
 communities is practically unimpeded.
 
 16 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS. 
 
 Dr. Wines and Mr. Koren both dwell at various points 
 on the great difficulty of drawing useful inferences from 
 tables of arrests for drunkenness during a series of years. 
 The statistics are often imperfect ; or the tables have been 
 constructed on diflerent principles in different years ; or the 
 police administration in the same city has changed its 
 methods during the period of tabulation ; or the drunk 
 law has been altered ; or the policy of liquor-sellers in re- 
 gard to protecting intoxicated persons from arrest has been 
 different at different periods. In spite of these difficulties, 
 the statistics of arrests for drunkenness may sometimes 
 afford satisfactory evidence concerning the working of the 
 prevailing liquor legislation, although the precise cause of 
 the increase or decrease of arrests may remain in doubt. 
 Thus, in South Carolina, diminution of the number of ar- 
 rests was an undoubted effect of the Dispensary Law ; but 
 it is not sure whether the diminution of public drunken- 
 ness was due to the early hour of closing (six p. m.), or 
 to the fact that no drinking on the premises was allowed 
 in the state dispensaries, or to the great reduction in the 
 total number of liquor-shops in the State. In Massachu- 
 setts, an important change in the drunk law made in 1891 
 caused an increase of arrests, but a decrease of the number 
 held for trial. In Philadelphia, the percentage of arrests 
 for intoxication and vagrancy to all arrests declined after 
 the enactment of the so-called " High-License Law ; " but 
 the probable explanation was that the keepers both of 
 licensed saloons and of illicit shops protected drunken 
 people. Another possible explanation was the inadequacy 
 of the police force of Philadelphia. In St. Louis, wlaere 
 the saloons are numerous and unrestrained, public order is 
 excellent, and arrests for drunkenness are relatively few; 
 but this good condition is perhaps due as much to the
 
 DIFFICULTIES OF LEGISLATION. 17 
 
 quality of the population as to the wisdom of the liquor 
 legislation. The fact suggests the doubt whether the amount 
 of drunkenness is anywhere proportionate to the number 
 of saloons. 
 
 BEHOVING THE MOTIVE OF PRIVATE PROFIT. 
 
 Iowa endeavored to carry out the philanthropic idea of 
 removing from the liquor traffic the motive of private 
 profit, so long ago as 1854, by legislation which appointed 
 salaried county agents for the sale of liquor, the specific 
 reason given for this legislation being that no private person 
 might be pecuniarily interested in the sale of liquor. No 
 State has thus far succeeded in carrying out this idea. The 
 Dispensary Law of South Carolina proposed to create a 
 complete state monopoly, with no private licensed traffic 
 and no illicit traffic, and with all the profits of the business 
 going to the public treasury. This law, if successfully 
 carried into execution, would, it should seem, remove from 
 the traffic the motive of private gain. The law has not 
 been entirely successful in this respect, because the salaries 
 of dispensers are made to depend on the amount of business 
 done in their respective dispensaries ; and it therefore be- 
 comes the private interest of the dispenser to enlarge his 
 business as much as possible. There is at })resent no 
 American legislation efiective to this desirable end. 
 
 THEORETICAL DIFFICULTIES OF LIQUOR LEGISLATION. 
 
 The South Carolina Dispensary Law well illustrates the 
 theoretical difficulties which beset liquor legislation. It 
 proposes to maintain a highly profitable state monopoly of 
 the sale of intoxicants. The revenue purpose is extremely 
 offensive to prohibitionists ; yet this motive appears plainly 
 in the practical administration of the law, as well as in its 
 theoretical purpose. Thus, for example, the state dis- 
 pensers sell the cheapest kinds of distilled liquor, because
 
 18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 it is more profitable to sell that liquor than any other, the 
 tastes and capacities of their customers being considered. 
 Again, the law does not prohibit the manufacture of dis- 
 tilled, malt, or vinous liquors ; but, on the contrary, in 
 some respects encourages those manufactures within the 
 State. The fundamental conception in the law is distinctly 
 antagonistic to the theory that liquor-selling is sinful or 
 unholy ; for the State itself assumes the whole of that 
 business and takes its profits. Although supported by 
 prohibitionists at the time of its enactment, it flies in the 
 face of all logical prohibitory theory. It has been en- 
 forced with a remarkable degree of success, but at great 
 cost of political and social antagonisms. 
 
 The theory of the Ohio legislation is interesting in itself, 
 and also because it suggested the present Iowa legislation. 
 In Ohio, licensing is prohibited by the Constitution ; but 
 when a person is found selling liquor, he is required to pay 
 a tax of $250, and to give a bond to observe certain re- 
 strictions on selling. The tax is far too low, particularly 
 for city saloons ; and the restrictions are not sufficiently 
 numerous, and in many places are not enforced. Under 
 the law as practically administered, saloons are much too 
 numerous. On the other hand, this law prevents in some 
 measure the evil effects of liquor legislation on politics. 
 There are no licensing authorities, no political offices for 
 conducting or supervising the liquor business, and only a 
 moderate amount of liquor litigation. These are weighty 
 recommendations of the law. 
 
 Although the Iowa legislation was originally suggested 
 by the Ohio law, it has a very different theoretical basis. 
 In Iowa, prohibition is the rule ; but by paying a fee or 
 tax, and submitting to numerous well-devised restrictions, 
 a liquor-seller may procure exemption from the operation 
 of the prohibitory law. Neither the Ohio theory nor the 
 Iowa theory is satisfactory from the point of view of the
 
 LIQUOR LAWS IN POLITICS. 19 
 
 prohibitionists, any more than the theory of the South 
 Carolina Dispensary Law. In the present state of legisla- 
 tion, different laws must be judged by their practical effects, 
 and not by the ethical theory on which they rest. 
 
 PROMOTION OF TEMPERANCE BY LAW. 
 
 It cannot be positively affirmed that any one kind of 
 liquor legislation has been more successful than another 
 in promoting real temperance. Legislation as a cause of 
 improvement can rarely be separated from other possible 
 causes. The influences of race or nationality are appar- 
 ently more important than legislation. That law is best 
 which is best administered. Even when external improve- 
 ments have undoubtedly been effected by new legislation, it 
 often remains doubtful, or at least not demonstrable, whether 
 or not the visible improvements have been accompanied by 
 a diminution in the amount of drinking. Thus, a reduction 
 in the number of saloons in proportion to the population 
 undoubtedly promotes order, quiet, and outward decency ; 
 but it is not certain that the surviving saloons sell less 
 liquor in total than the previous more numerous saloons. 
 Again, it is often said that restrictions on drinking at 
 public bars tend to increase drinking at home or in private, 
 and there is probably truth in this allegation ; but com- 
 parative statistics of public and private consumption are not 
 attainable, so that it is impossible to hold a well-grounded 
 opinion on this point. The wise course for the community 
 at large is to strive after all external, visible improvements, 
 even if it be impossible to prove that internal, fundamental 
 improvement accompanies them. 
 
 LIQUOR LAWS IN POLITICS. 
 
 Almost every sort of liquor legislation creates some spe- 
 cific evil in politics. The evils which result from prohibi- 
 tory legislation have been already mentioned. Under a
 
 20 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 license system, there is great liability that the process of 
 issuing licenses will breed some sort of political corruption. 
 Whenever high-paid otfices are created by liquor legisla- 
 tion, those offices become the objects of political contention. 
 When a multitude of offices are created in the execution of 
 liquor laws, they furnish the means of putting together a 
 strong political machine. Just this has happened under 
 the dispensary system in South Carolina, where a machine 
 of great capacity for political purposes has been created in 
 a short time, with the governor of the State as its engi- 
 neer. The creation of this machine has intensified the 
 bitter political divisions which caused the adoption of the 
 Dispensary Law and made possible its enforcement. The 
 activity of liquor-dealers' associations in municipal politics 
 all over the United States is in one sense an effect of the 
 numerous experiments in liquor legislation which have been 
 in progress during the last thirty years. The traffic, being 
 attacked by legislation, tries to protect itself by controlling 
 municipal and state legislators. 
 
 The commonest issue over which contentions about local 
 self-government have arisen has been the liquor issue. 
 The prohibitionists early discovered that local police will 
 not enforce a prohibitory law in places where public senti- 
 ment is opposed to the law. They therefore demanded 
 that a state constabulary should be charged with the execu- 
 tion of that law. This issue has arisen in States whose 
 legislation stops far short of prohibition. Thus, in Mis- 
 souri, the governor appoints the excise commissioner who 
 is the licensing authority in St. Louis ; and in Massachu- 
 setts, where local option and high license prevail, the 
 police commissioners of Boston are appointed by the gov- 
 ernor. So far as enforcement of the laws goes, state-ap- 
 pointed officers or commissions have often brought about 
 great improvernents. In South Carolina, the Dispensary 
 Act could not have been enforced had it not been that the
 
 LIQUOR LAWS IN POLITICS. 21 
 
 governor was empowered to appoint an unlimited number 
 of constables to execute that one law. He was also em- 
 powered to organize at any moment a metropolitan police 
 for any city in which the local officers neglected their 
 duties in regard to the enforcement of the Dispensary Act. 
 Nevertheless, violations of the principle of local self-gov- 
 ernment are always to be deplored, unless a municipality 
 has exhibited an absolute incapacity to govern itself, or 
 unless the violations are plainly based on another valuable 
 principle, namely, that of voluntary cooperation for com- 
 mon ends whose scope transcends the limits of single 
 municipalities. 
 
 There are, of course, other promising directions for 
 efforts to promote temperance, such as the removal of the 
 motive of private gain in stimulating the liquor traffic, the 
 substitution of non-alcoholic drinks for intoxicants as 
 refreshments or means of ready hospitality, and the giving 
 of a preference in certain employments to total abstainers 
 or to persons who never drink while on duty, particularly 
 in those employments which have to do with the care 
 or supervision of human beings, animals, and machines, or 
 with transportation by land or sea ; but since these interest- 
 ing topics do not strictly belong to the present legislative 
 aspects of the drink problem, the sub-committee do not 
 dwell on them. 
 
 Charles W. Eliot, 
 Seth Low, 
 James C. Carter, 
 
 Suh-committee.
 
 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 During the first decades of the century, drinkmg was 
 general among all classes of men in Maine, as elsewhere in 
 New England. Workmen in the fields, in the woods, and 
 in the towns were supplied with daily rations of spirits, — 
 a half gill of rura-and-water at eleven o'clock in the fore- 
 noon, and again at four in the afternoon. No gathering 
 of men or social function took place unaccompanied by 
 more or less drinking. Every well-to-do family kept a 
 stock of rum, gin, and brandy. Etiquette demanded that 
 every visitor or traveler to be honored should be offered 
 the social glass. Supplies of liquor could be obtained from 
 any general trader, as well as from innholders. 
 
 The first temperance movement started somewhat sud- 
 denly, during the winter of 1826-27, in the small town of 
 East Machias. This has been described as '' unique and 
 original, — a serious undertaking, by thoughtful, patriotic, 
 and moral men, to arrest the ravages of intemperance." 
 They worked " without a model or known exemplar." 
 The movement was essentially religious in its origin. In 
 East Machias it followed close upon a strong religious 
 revival. A temperance society was formed, the primary 
 article of its constitution being a pledge of total abstinence 
 from distilled spirits as a beverage. Heavy malt liquors 
 were at that time unknown ; wine was a rare luxury, and its 
 sacramental use removed it from the category of intoxi- 
 cants, while its use at every " proper wedding " gave it 
 almost an equal sanctity. The new asceticism in drink 
 became a universal enthusiasm. Almost all respectable
 
 EARLY TEMPERANCE MOVEMENTS, 23 
 
 persons took the pledge. Members of tlie church were ex 
 officio members of the temperance society. To declare 
 against the reform was equivalent to breaking with the 
 church. The movement spread from place to place with 
 the same results, chiefly through the agency of the churches. 
 A radical change in the habits of the people followed. 
 "Treating" ceased. Total abstinence became more the 
 rule than the exception, and was even in places made a 
 conditio sine qua non of social consideration. The daily 
 ration of rum to laboring men was stopped. The early 
 reformers did not hold the sellers of liquor alone responsi- 
 ble for the consequences resulting to the buyer and con- 
 sumer. " The scorn of scorns was launched against the 
 moderate drinker and sober men who opposed the reform." 
 
 The climax of this primitive temperance movement was 
 reached, perhaps, before 1838. The " Maine Register " 
 for 1831 (the official year-book of the State), in summa- 
 rizing its eff"ects, said that " the quantity of ardent spirits 
 consumed in INIaine has been reduced two thirds within 
 three years." It declared, too, that the change in the 
 moral aspect of society where temperance reformation had 
 prevailed was " ample encouragement to the friends of 
 human happiness to become the firm friends of temper- 
 ance ; " and it quoted and approved the opinion of a good 
 observer, that " a complete change has taken place, not 
 only in sentiment and feeling, but in action also." 
 
 Naturally such a powerful upheaval in society left some 
 impress on legislation, although such a thing as prohibition 
 had apparently not yet entered the minds of the reformers. 
 What may be termed a rudimentary local-option law, which 
 required a yea vote at the annual town meeting before 
 license to retail dealers for consumption on the premises 
 could be granted, was enacted in 1829. But the year 1834 
 marks a return to an ordinary license law. This year a 
 petition signed by 140 women of the town of Brunswick
 
 24 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS KESULTS. • 
 
 urged legislative action in the matter of " regulating or 
 forbidding altogether " the sale of intoxicants. Yet not 
 even the leaders of the so-called Washingtonian movement, 
 which superseded the primitive one and reached Maine in 
 1840, were advocates of prohibition. In an address before 
 the Washington Temperance Society in 1841, John T. 
 Walton said : " Washingtonians are ' firm believers in the 
 efficacy and power of moral suasion ; this they believe to 
 be the main lever ; they hold that doctrine to be unsound 
 which includes the principle of coercion, and therefore they 
 cannot go hand in hand with those who cry out, ' Give 
 us the strong arm of the law,' " 
 
 The question of prohibition by law, first proposed by 
 General Appleton, was agitated after the famous political 
 campaign of the Log Cabin and Hard Cider, when a back- 
 ward step had been taken, and moderate tippling again 
 became common in circles where it had been unknown. 
 During the decade of 1840-50 it grew little by little into 
 the dignity of a political issue, and such it has remained 
 ever since. The first prohibitory law was enacted in 1846. 
 This, however, did not touch manufacture. It empowered 
 selectmen of towns to license a limited number of places 
 (1 to 1,000 inhabitants, 2 to 3,000, and so on) to sell 
 wines and strong liquors for medicinal and mechanical 
 purposes only, and prohibited all other sale. There is no 
 evidence to show that this law was ever rigidly enforced. 
 
 Meanwhile the prohilntion issue had assumed important 
 proportions, finding its main support not, hov/ever, among 
 the Democrats. In 1849 the Democratic State Convention 
 determined to kill off temperance and the opposing party 
 at one stroke by ridicule. Accordingly the committee on 
 resolutions inserted a plank in the platform calling for the 
 absolute prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors. 
 Of 600 members of the convention, all but two voted for 
 it. At the next election the Democrats carried the State,
 
 THE MAINE LAW OF 1851. 25 
 
 electing Hubbard governor ; and a Democratic legislature 
 passed what has since become widely known as the Maine 
 Law. This measure was drafted by General Neal Dow, 
 and signed by Governor Hubbard June 2, 1851. It pro- 
 hibited the manufacture of intoxicants, and their sale except 
 by agents authorized by towns to sell for medicinal and 
 mechanical purposes only ; provided for the punishment of 
 first offenses by fines, subsequent offenses by fines and 
 imprisonment ; made clerks, servants, and agents equally 
 guilty with their principals ; and made it the duty of se- 
 lectmen of towns and mayors or aldermen of cities to pros- 
 ecute violation of the law upon the information of compe- 
 tent persons. 
 
 The legal machinery which had been created for the 
 enforcement of the law not proving equal to the task, in 
 1853 further legislation was enacted, dealing principally 
 with the form of procedure in case of violation, and elabo- 
 rating the search, seizure, and forfeiture clauses ; providing, 
 among other things, for the issue of warrants to search 
 for, seize, and destroy liquor upon the complaint of three 
 persons. 
 
 This was the year of the celebrated " rum riot " in Port- 
 land. Political capital was made of the turbulent scenes 
 following upon attempts to enforce the law, and the agita- 
 tion culminated in 1856 in its repeal. Only the year 
 previous the law had been entirely reenacted, its various 
 provisions — especially the search, seizure, and forfeiture 
 features — strengthened, in the hope of meeting every emer- 
 gency. But the public mind was more concerned with the 
 question whether it ought to remain on the statute book 
 than with measures for its enforcement. It had now be- 
 come a political football, as is shown by the election returns 
 during this period. Of the whole vote cast for governor 
 in 1852 (94,707), the anti- Maine Law candidate received 
 21,774. In 1853 the Democrats were victorious, the Maine
 
 26 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 Law candidate having only 11,027 out of 83,627 votes cast. 
 But in the following year the prohibitory candidate, who 
 represented the Know-nothings also, was elected. His 
 declaration, however, that the people favored the prohibi- 
 tory law, does not appear to have been vindicated, for in 
 1856, as has been stated, it was repealed, and a limited 
 license law substituted, which remained in force until 1858. 
 
 The question of reviving the prohibitory law was then 
 submitted to popular vote and carried. The new measure 
 adopted was even more elaborate than those preceding it. 
 The various penalties for violations were nearly all in- 
 creased. All houses used for illegal traffic were declared 
 to be common nuisances, and the penalty for keeping such 
 houses was fixed at a maximum fine of $1,000 or imprison- 
 ment for one year ; while the lease of the seller, if a tenant, 
 was made void. New forms of procedure for prosecution 
 were also established. 
 
 Of the difficulties attending the attempts at enforce- 
 ment, perhaps no more incontestable evidence can be found 
 than the very amendments which it has been thought neces- 
 sary to add from year to year. From prohibitionist ranks 
 has come a continual cry for more law. Of the nearly 
 fifty amendments enacted since 1858, we shall note briefly 
 the most important. 
 
 During the Civil War, graver issues than the mending of 
 liquor laws demanding the attention of the State, the ques- 
 tion of enforcement fell into abeyance. One important 
 act, however, was passed in 1862. This created the office of 
 state liquor commissioner, appointed by the governor, with 
 the duty of furnishing the various city and town agencies 
 with pure unadulterated liquors, for sale for medicinal and 
 mechanical purposes only. All liquor agents were obliged 
 to purchase their stores from this official, and he was al- 
 lowed a seven per cent, commission on sales. By an act of 
 1864, all malt beverages were classed under the head of
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY LEGISLATION". 27 
 
 intoxicating liquors. The difficulty in securing honest and 
 active local officials who could be implicitly trusted to exe- 
 cute the law early arose. Accordingly, in 18G7, state con- 
 stabulary were created. These officials were required, upon 
 the application of ten or more voters in a district, to ap- 
 point deputies to execute the law, not more than ten in any 
 county, or thirty for the whole State. They were to act 
 only in case of failure or inability of the local officials to 
 secure enforcement. In the same year the penalties for 
 illegal selling were increased by imposing imprisonment, in 
 addition to the fine, for from thirty days to three months 
 on the first conviction, according to the offense. But the 
 law had advanced farther than public sentiment, and it was 
 deemed necessary in 1868 to modify the imprisonment 
 clause, making the imposition of this penalty discretionary 
 with the courts, and to repeal the act of the previous year 
 providing for a state police in certain cases. By an act of 
 1870 it was provided that a search and seizure warrant 
 might be taken out on the sworn complaint of only one 
 instead of three persons as formerly required. Municipal 
 officers were also required to institute proceedings against 
 offenders upon a written notice of any violation of the law, 
 under a penalty of from $20 to $50. The same year a 
 measure was passed forbidding traveling agents to sell 
 liquors and solicit orders. An act of 1872 provided for 
 the appointment of liquor agents, at the option of any city 
 or town, to sell for medicinal and mechanical purposes only, 
 and derive no profit from the sales. Again a distrust of 
 the efficiency of local officials manifested itself in an act of 
 this year, which enjoined upon the sheriffs and their dep- 
 uties to inquire with particular diligence into violations 
 of the liquor laws by prompt entering of complaints, execu- 
 tion of warrants, or by furnishing the county attorney with 
 the names of alleged offenders and of witnesses. In 1873 
 the term " nuisance " was made applicable to any house,
 
 28 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 shop, or place where intoxicating liquors were sold for tip- 
 pling purposes. In 1874 an act provided that no offense 
 against the liquor laws should be barred by any period of 
 time less than six years after the commission thereof. 
 
 In 1875 it was first sought to guard against the transpor- 
 tation of liquors into or from place to place within the 
 State, with intent to sell the same in violation of the law, a 
 penalty of $50 being fixed for each off"ense, with the liability 
 of having the liquors seized while in transit. In 1877 
 the sale of liquor manufactured within the State was made 
 punishable by a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment for two 
 months. Cider, which had hitherto been exempt, was now 
 classed with intoxicating liquors when kept for sale or for 
 tippling purposes. The numerous amendments enacted from 
 1880 to 1884 seem to indicate an active opposition to the law 
 and a lax public opinion, no less than a determined effort 
 on the part of its advocates to enforce it. The fine for ille- 
 gal selling was now raised to $100, and in default of pay- 
 ment the offender was to suffer imprisonment at hard labor 
 for three months, and, for a subsequent conviction, six 
 months at hard labor and a fine. But this act evidently, 
 by its very severity, overshot the mark, for in 1883 the 
 penalty was again reduced to a fine of $30 or sixty days' 
 imprisonment ; for subsequent offenses imprisonment in ad- 
 dition to fine being imposed. Common sellers were more 
 severely dealt with. 
 
 The difficulty in securing efficient service from local of- 
 ficers was again encountered, and accordingly the governor 
 was authorized to appoint, on the petition of thirty or more 
 tax-payers in any county, two or more constables to enforce 
 the laws, when shown that the county or local officers neg- 
 lected their duty. The governor was further empowered 
 to remove county attorneys for not attending promptly to 
 liquor cases. The same year the sale of cider was further 
 restricted. Once more it was deemed necessary to pre-
 
 THE PROHIBITORY AMENDMENT. 29 
 
 scribe anew the methods to be employed in executing search 
 warrants, and it was further provided that all liquor con- 
 fiscated should be destroyed. 
 
 Thus far, by persistent effort, the prohibitionists had 
 succeeded in fortifying the prohibitory law. The Repub- 
 lican party, pledged in a measure to its support, was not 
 unwilling to accede to the demands for new legislative 
 enactments, at least up to a certain point, in return for 
 political favors. The strongest adherents of the law vir- 
 tually formed already a third party holding the balance 
 of power. But, not content with their achievements, they 
 now advocated an amendment to the Constitution prohibit- 
 inc forever the manufacture as well as the sale of intoxi- 
 eating liquors, except the sale for medicinal and mechanical 
 purposes, and the sale of cider under certain restrictions. 
 
 THE PROHIBITORY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OF 
 
 1884. 
 
 The question of the amendment was submitted to popu- 
 lar vote in 1884. The vote was surprisingly small, and it 
 is open to doubt how far it represented the sober judgment 
 of the people ; but the amendment received a large major- 
 ity. Many Republicans had declared their opposition to 
 the measure, yet it was a party measure, and as such they 
 submitted to it, but with reluctance. The secret ballot was 
 at that time unknown in Maine. The opportunity was 
 therefore open to those patrolling the polling-places to in- 
 fluence the voters by every device known to electioneers, 
 and they were not slow in grasping it. And, lastly, the 
 country was on the eve of a presidential election. The 
 Democrats spared no effort to make it appear that the 
 Republican candidate for the presidency favored constitu- 
 tional prohibition, in the hope of drawing votes from him, 
 especially in Western States with a large German population. 
 
 Setting aside the question as to how far the amendment
 
 30 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 expressed the honest conviction of the people, it is certain 
 that it did not help materially to suppress the liquor traffic. 
 In the very year that it went into effect, further legisla- 
 tive enactments were called for. The maximum penalty for 
 carrying on the business of a traveling liquor peddler or 
 salesman was increased from $100 to $500 and costs for 
 each offer to take an order, and for each order or sale so 
 taken or made. The penalties for illegal sales were again 
 changed, the second and subsequent offenses being more 
 severely dealt with than before. Elaborate modes of pro- 
 cedure in case of searches and seizures were again provided. 
 Advertising the sale of liquor was made punishable. The 
 clerks of court were required to make public the disposition 
 of all appealed liquor cases and indictments within thirty 
 days after the adjournment of any superior court. 
 
 At the next session of the legislature (1887) an impor- 
 tant section was added to the law, which, for reasons later 
 apparent, is here given in full : — 
 
 " The payment of the United States special tax as a liquor- 
 seller, or notice of any kind in any place of resort indicating 
 that intoxicating liquors are there kept, sold, or given away, 
 shall be held to he prima facie evidence that the person or per- 
 sons paying such tax, and the party or parties displaying such 
 notice, are common sellers of intoxicating liquors, and the 
 premises kept by tliem common nuisances." 
 
 A change in the office of the state liquor commissioner 
 was also made during this year. This official was placed 
 on a salary, compelled to furnish bonds in the sum of 
 $10,000, and authorized to charge a commission of six per 
 cent, above cost on sales, to be paid over to the state treas- 
 urer. A fine was prescribed in case he should be found 
 guilty of selling impure liquors. For removal of liquor 
 from railroad cars at any but the established stations a fine 
 of $50 was imposed. 
 
 In 1890 the question of repealing the prohibitory amend-
 
 THE PKOHIBITORY AMENDMENT. 31 
 
 ment was voted upon, and an emphatic majority declared 
 against repeal, A repeal would have been equivalent to 
 declaring the failure of Republican policy in the State, — a 
 step which the leaders of the dominant party naturally 
 avoided. 
 
 During 1892-93 more noteworthy changes in the law 
 were effected. The penalties for selling were increased by 
 imposing imjirisonment in addition to the fine. The diffi- 
 culty in obtaining conviction, with the discretionary power 
 of the courts taken away, soon became evident, and it was 
 enhanced by the prevalent opinion of the judiciary that the 
 punishments were incommensurate with the crime. Chiefly 
 through the influence of the landlords' association, a clause 
 was incorporated into the laws making it discretionary with 
 the courts to impose either fine or imprisonment, or both 
 where both are prescribed. It should be said, however, 
 that the consideration of this clause did not come under 
 the head of liquor laws, and the legislators generally were 
 not aware of its true purport until it had passed the House. 
 
 A summary of the law as now in force follows : it pro- 
 hibits, — 
 
 1, Selling intoxicating liquors (except for medicinal and 
 mechanical purposes by city and town agents) under a penalty 
 of f .50 and thirty days' imprisonment ; for subsequent convic- 
 tions, a fine of $200 and six months' imprisonment. 
 
 2, Being a common seller (that is, a person known to liave 
 effected three or more sales of liquor), under a penalty of $100 
 and thirty days' imprisonment ; on subsequent convictions, a 
 fine of $200 and sixty days' imprisonment, 
 
 3, Keeping a drinking-house and tippling-shop, under a pen- 
 alty of $100 and sixty days' imprisonment, 
 
 4, Depositing or having in possession liquor with intent to 
 sell in violation of law, or with intent that any other jierson 
 shall sell, or to aid any person in such sale, under a penalty of 
 $100 and sixty days' imprisonment, 
 
 5, Traveling from place to place, carrying or offering for 
 sale, or obtaining or offering to obtain, orders for the sale or
 
 32 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 delivery of liquor, under a penalty of from $20 to $500, and, in 
 default of payment, imprisonment of from two to six months. 
 
 6. Knowingly bringing into the State, or transporting from 
 place to place in the State, liquor with intent to sell, or with 
 intent that any other person shall sell, under a penalty of $200 
 and costs for each offense. 
 
 7. Manufacturing for sale any intoxicating liquors, with the 
 exception of cider, under a penalty of $1,000 and imprisonment 
 of two months. 
 
 8. Maintaining a nuisance, which is thus defined : all places 
 used for the sale or depositing of intoxicating liquors, or where 
 intoxicating liquors are sold for tippling purposes, and all 
 places of resort where intoxicating liquors are kept, sold, 
 given away, drunk, or dispensed in any manner not provided 
 by law ; the penalty being a fine not exceeding $1,000 or im- 
 prisonment for one year. 
 
 Further provisions are : 
 
 The payment of the United States special tax by any person 
 as a liquor-dealer, or the displaying of such a tax on his prem- 
 ises, to be prima facie evidence that he is a common seller. 
 
 Any judge of a municijial court or trial justice to issue a 
 search warrant upon the sworn complaint of a person compe- 
 tent to be sworn as a witness in a civil suit that he believes 
 intoxicating liquors are unlawfully kept in any place and 
 intended for sale ; liquors found to be seized and immediate 
 return to be made on the warrant. 
 
 Persons suspected of selling from their j^ockets to be searched 
 in the same manner as above. The penalty for these offenses, 
 a fine of $100 and costs and imprisonment for sixty days ; in 
 default of payment, sixty days additional. 
 
 The provisions of the law apply to the sale of intoxicating 
 liquors imported in original packages. 
 
 The Drunk Law in Maine has undergone several changes 
 since 1859. In that year the law prescribed as the penalty 
 for intoxication and disturbing of the peace a maximum 
 fine of five dollars ; and for a second offense a maximum 
 fine of ten dollars, or imprisonment for not exceeding sixty 
 days. The punishment could be remitted, however, in 
 whole or in part, at the discretion of the court. In 1880 
 the penalty was made imprisonment at labor instead of a
 
 THE PROHIBITOKY AMENDMENT. 33 
 
 fine, extending to ninety days for a second offense. The 
 sentence could not be remitted unless the prisoner, under 
 oath, gave information from whom and where he had ob- 
 tained liquor. Three years later, drunkenness was again 
 made punishable by a maximum fine of ten dollars, or thirty 
 days' imprisonment ; and, for a second offense, by a maxi- 
 mum fine of twenty dollars, or ninety days' imprisonment. 
 In 1885 the fines were abolished, and imprisonment alone 
 imposed. In 1887 a first offense was once more made 
 finable, but for a subsequent conviction thirty days' im- 
 prisonment was made the penalty. At the present time, 
 the punishment for intoxication is a fine not exceeding ten 
 dollars, or imprisonment for not more than thirty days ; 
 on a subsequent conviction, imprisonment alone for thirty 
 days. The discretionary power of the court has been 
 restored without requiring information from the prisoner 
 as to the manner in which he became drunk. 
 
 It will be observed that the prohibitionists in Maine 
 direct their efforts solely to crush the liquar-sellers. The 
 deliberate and voluntary buyer of drink is in no wise 
 touched by the law. The explanation ottered of this fact, 
 which is somewhat singular in view of the other fact that 
 the sale of intoxicants is regarded as a crime per se, is 
 that any piece of legislation aimed at the drink-buyer 
 would certainly fail to pass. The most ardent supporters 
 of the law yet complain loudly of its inadequacy. The 
 new measures urgently needed, they say, are enactments 
 depriving the courts of all discretionary power in punishing 
 offenders, prescribing one penalty of the severest kind for 
 every infringement of the law and changing the forms of 
 procedure, in order that there may be less delay in the 
 final adjudication of liquor cases. 
 
 The ruling party is chary in its concessions to the prohi- 
 bitionists, evincing no disposition to legislate further than 
 party advantage dictates, and to hold the prohibitionists'
 
 34 PKOHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS KESULTS. 
 
 support. It is between two fires, — on one side, the pro- 
 hibitionists, backed by a powerful lobby, depending mainly 
 upon moral influence and the ballot-box ; on the other, the 
 liquor element, wielding a telling money influence as well 
 as commanding a large vote. That many of the acts relat- 
 ing to the prohibitory law have been passed through party 
 exigencies, and not through moral conviction, has long since 
 been accepted as a fact by those who have observed the 
 tactics of the legislatures. 
 
 THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW IN PORTLAND. 
 
 It has been authoritatively stated that the many amend- 
 ments to the liquor laws were enacted primarily for the 
 purpose of meeting the needs of the city of Portland. 
 However this may be, in no other city have such strenuous 
 efforts been made to suppress the liquor trafiic as here. 
 The prohibitionists have long recognized that success in 
 Portland — the commercial, political, and intellectual capi- 
 tal of the State — would insure success elsewhere. 
 
 The city is not afflicted with a vicious floating popula- 
 tion, its inhabitants are chiefly of native stock ; there are 
 no extensive manufacturing interests drawing together large 
 numbers of operatives of the same class ; indeed, the condi- 
 tions for a fair test of the prohibitory law have been and 
 are as good there as in any seaport of its size in the coun- 
 try. The facilities for obtaining illicit supplies through 
 the proximity of Boston do not count for much, consid- 
 ering the means of communication existing almost every- 
 where at the present day. It should be remembered also 
 that Portland, as the home of some of the most determined 
 and influential promoters of prohibition, — notably General 
 Neal Dow, — has never been without an anti-saloon senti- 
 ment of the strongest nature. Yet how far short of en- 
 forcement the law lias fallen will now appear : — 
 
 With the prohibitory attempts previous to 1858 we need
 
 ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW IN PORTLAND. 35 
 
 not concern ourselves, since there was a license interregnum 
 for two years (1856-58) after the passage of the first 
 Maine Law.^ In 1860 it is estimated that liquor was sold 
 at 266 places. This would seem to be much exaggerated 
 but for the records kept by wholesale liquor-dealers from 
 that period. The great national questions of the time natu- 
 rally overshadowed local issues. It is a matter of record 
 that men grew wealthy in the liquor trade during the Civil 
 War. In these years and until 1868 the enforcement of 
 the law lay entirely in the hands of the local author- 
 ities. The police were not slow to discover that the 
 presence of liquor-sellers might be turned to their own 
 advantage in a twofold manner, — first, by exacting from 
 them fees for protection, and, secondly, by holding them to 
 certain political promises. That blackmail was regularly 
 levied by the police as early as in the sixties is unquestion- 
 ably true. The advocates of the Maine Law had already 
 become convinced in 1867, principally we believe on ac- 
 count of conditions in Portland, that the local authorities 
 could not be trusted to execute it rigidly, since in that 
 year the act creating state constables was passed. The 
 work of these officials in Portland was a conspicuous fail- 
 ure. According to the statements of persons who had 
 direct dealings with them, their practices were no better 
 than those of the police. The " Sheriff Law " of 1872 — 
 passed, it is said, under the promise that it should not 
 become effective — made it the duty of the county sheriff 
 and his deputies to annihilate the liquor traffic, and, so far 
 as Portland is concerned, the prohibitionists have ever 
 since placed their main dependence upon these officials. 
 
 1 Of the total population of Portland, 36,425 (censiis of 1890), 7,825 are 
 foreign-born, and 8,730 of fort'ltrn parents. The foreign-born with respect 
 to country of nativitv are : Ireland, 3,140; Canada and Newfoundland, 
 2,923; England, 544; Scotland, 190; Denmark, 198; Sweden, 175; Russia, 
 170; Germany, 152; Norway, 134; other countries, 239. Those coming 
 from the Provinces are nearly all of the Anglo-Saxon race. Most of the 
 nationalities represented are well advanced toward Americanization.
 
 36 PEOHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 Under the regime of the first sheriff, the law was hon- 
 estly and impartially enforced, so far as it lay in his power 
 to enforce it, but the support given him by other officials 
 was not such as to check the sale of liquor permanently. 
 As a matter of fact, for more than a decade after the pas- 
 sage of the sheriff law, '' respectable saloons where gentle- 
 men could go " flourished in the city. Until the adoption 
 of the constitutional amendment in 1884, the officials gen- 
 erally contented themselves with compelling the saloon- 
 keepers to close their shops at ten o'clock at night and on 
 Sundays. An attempt in 1885 at enforcement was only 
 partially successful, as may be judged from the fact that in 
 the year following at least 158 liquor-shops were known to 
 exist in the city. Open violation of the law was the rule 
 until the election of the sheriff in 1891. 
 
 That the cause of temperance had made considerable and 
 lasting gains, especially in the twenty years preceding the 
 adoption of the constitutional amendment, is unquestionably 
 true, but it is difficult to trace in these gains the direct 
 effects of prohibitory law. Thus it is not observable that 
 the attitude of the more representative citizens on the drink 
 question was any different from the attitude of the same 
 class of men in other States. Men who abstained, abstained 
 voluntarily, not because of the law. While the public temp- 
 tation had in some degree diminished by the abolition of 
 " gilt-edge " saloons, there lurked a greater danger in the 
 many clubs which had sprung up, chiefly for drinking pur- 
 poses. No distilleries or breweries were suffered to exist in 
 the city. Yet neither the supply nor the price of liquors 
 was lessened, but the quality was worse. While the traffic at 
 open bars had from time to time been to some extent driven 
 away from the principal streets, still open bars existed in 
 large numbers. Furthermore, to those who shunned the 
 open bars the apotliecary shops supplied liquor by the bottle 
 as frequently as desired.
 
 ENFOKCEMENT OF THE LAW IN PORTLAND. 37 
 
 Since enforcement has rested with the county sheriff and 
 his deputies, the local political contests between the sup- 
 porters and the opponents of the law centre on the election 
 of this otficial. The prohibitionists in Cumberland County 
 are too hopelessly in the minority to elect a sheriff not 
 affiliated with one of the leading parties. In fact, under 
 ordinary circumstances, only a Republican may with much 
 confidence aspire to the shrievalty. When, therefore, in 
 1890, violations in Portland had become too flagrant for 
 endurance by even the most patient, a mighty effort was 
 made to secure a Republican candidate for sheriff who 
 could bring out the full prohibitory vote. Such a man was 
 found, and every energy was bent to secure his election. 
 Leading prohibitionists made a " schoolhouse " canvass for 
 him. They carried the day. Immediately the new sheriff 
 began war upon the liquor-dealers. The period of the 
 strictest enforcement known perhaps in the history of Port- 
 land ensued. Even the hotels, for a while at least, abstained 
 from selling. The ordinary saloons were closed. But a new 
 vocation sprang up. There arose " pocket peddlers," most 
 of whom were young men who loiter about the streets and 
 wharves in the lower quarters of the city, and supply 
 customers from the bottle. They serve a drink known 
 as " split," a concoction consisting of the cheapest kind 
 of alcohol — sometimes wood alcohol — mixed Avith water, 
 with a dash of rum for flavor, and some coloring matter, 
 which produces a violent and dangerous form of intoxica- 
 tion. In 1892 the number of pocket peddlers was esti- 
 mated at nearly 200. It was not possible to suppress their 
 business. Furthermore, the apothecary shops continued 
 selling, though less openly than before. But the worst 
 " leak " was at the city agency, at that time in Democratic 
 hands, and evidently not in sympathy with the law. The 
 sales at the agency took a sudden upward leap. Mr. E. L. 
 Fanshaw, an Englishman, who made a study of the effects 
 
 434452
 
 38 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 of prohibition in Portland at this time, speaks of the agency 
 in these words : " As a matter of fact, in Portland the 
 question ' Medicine ? ' and the answer ' Yes,' seem to be 
 held sufficient, and a small throng is commonly seen in the 
 agency of persons waiting their turn for a flask of whiskey 
 as ' medicine.' " ('' Liquor Legislation in the United 
 States and Canada," p. 107.) 
 
 The vigorous measures adopted by the sheriff did, beyond 
 doubt, result in driving some dealers out of the business. 
 A number were put in jail ; others were financially crippled 
 by the heavy fines imposed. But the severe regime was 
 evidently not appreciated by a large portion of the popula- 
 tion, for the sheriff came within forty-four votes of being 
 defeated for a second term. Yet many Democrats ab- 
 stained from voting, the issue being enforcement of the 
 prohibitory law. The slierifF's defeat would have been cer- 
 tain but for the support received in the rural districts of the 
 county. 
 
 How far the latest efforts to suppress the liquor traffic 
 have failed may be inferred from the fact that in 1893 no 
 less than 161 persons paid United States special liquor 
 taxes in Portland. 
 
 Later the officers of the law gradually relaxed their 
 vigilance. It was generally supposed that political exigen- 
 cies were at the bottom of this change of affairs. With a 
 county election pending, the dominant party was fearful of 
 offending too openly an element of the population which 
 under certain circumstances might find it profitable to turn 
 upon its tormentors. Motives also of even a more sordid 
 character kept officers from stamping out the liquor traffic. 
 
 The exact volume of the liquor trade in Portland can- 
 not be determined. A fairly correct estimate, however, 
 may be gained by ascertaining the number of places where 
 liquor is sold for tippling purposes. Such places may 
 be designated under the following heads : The ordinary
 
 ENFOKCEMENT OF THE LAW IN PORTLAND. 39 
 
 " protected " bars, including the so-called eating-houses ; 
 the kitchen bars ; the pocket peddlers ; the hotel bars ; the 
 apothecary shops ; the bottling establishments and jobbing 
 houses ; the express companies ; the clubs ; and the city 
 liquor agency. 
 
 The majority of the ordinary bars, that is, places where 
 liquor only is sold, are situated on Centre, Commercial, and 
 Fore streets, in the vicinity of the Grand Trunk station. 
 Within a stone's-throw of the station about a dozen 
 saloons are clustered. There is little evidence on the out- 
 side of these places to betray the nature of the business 
 done within. But generally even the uninitiated would 
 discern something of a suspicious nature about them, even 
 if his nostrils did not detect the fumes of liquor. One or 
 two sentinels patrol the immediate vicinity to give word of 
 any impending danger. At present the fear is not so much 
 of officers of the law as of private " spotters." Usually 
 an anteroom, containing generally a show-case of cigars and 
 confectionery, separates the bar from the street, but occa- 
 sionally one need only push open a screen door to reach it. 
 Although the usual drinking paraphernalia are ranged on 
 a shelf behind a counter, the liquor is generally kept in 
 cellars or in the back yards, where intricate devices are 
 resorted to for the purpose of concealment. This is often 
 an unnecessary precaution, and in some cases it is utterly 
 disregarded, since " protection " is so fully enjoyed. 
 
 In the score or so of saloons of this class visited by the 
 writer, from six to twenty persons were found who were 
 there to drink, most of them young men, some of them 
 boys between twelve and sixteen years of age. Occasion- 
 ally small girls would come in to have "growlers" filled. 
 Sometimes older girls appeared, to drink and to talk with 
 the men. The customers lounged about, smoking and 
 drinking, with an apparent sense of freedom and security. 
 The fact that many of the proprietors had served sentences
 
 40 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS llESULTS. 
 
 in jail was referred to as a matter of pride. Several who 
 had but recently returned from imprisonment (one the day 
 previous) were already back at their old trade. Their 
 relations with the oihcers of the law were spoken of with 
 the utmost freedom. Drunkenness in its various stages 
 was visible, especially in the places of the lowest grade. 
 Other bars were conducted by men who both by dress and 
 speech betrayed more refinement and intelligence than the 
 ordinary saloon-keeper, and their customers were, in some 
 cases, of a class one would not expect to find in such 
 resorts. In addition to the profits from the sale of liquors, 
 many of the proprietors obtain considerable revenue from 
 policy-dealing. Policy slips were seen in nearly all the 
 saloons inspected. 
 
 The question arises, How is it possible for so many men 
 to conduct a traffic on public streets in open violation of 
 the law ? The answer is easy. In order to sell liquor 
 profitably, it is necessary for the dealer to obtain supplies 
 with regularity, and to sell with comparative immunity. 
 Both these conditions are met in Portland. Nearly all the 
 liquor brought into the city comes over the Boston and 
 Maine Railroad, and is liable to seizure while in transit. 
 It is thus necessary to secure the services of a person con- 
 nected with that road who. has power to shift and turn back 
 cars loaded with liquor, whenever it is necessary to do so 
 to elude the vigilance of liquor officers. In case of neces- 
 sity a whole freight train must be sent across the Ligonia 
 railroad bridge, out of city limits and out of the reach of 
 officers, — at least compelling them to make a circuit of 
 many miles to reach it. On almost any evening a person 
 walking along Commercial Street, near the railroad freight 
 yards, may see one or several " beer teams " delivering 
 large kegs of beer and ale, sometimes under the very noses 
 of police officers. There appears to be little or no attempt 
 at concealment. Thus at the very outset bribery is re- 
 sorted to.
 
 ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW IN PORTLAND. 41 
 
 Permission to run a saloon is a question of belonging to 
 the " ring." Nearly all dealers can obtain this privilege 
 by the payment of from $40 to $60 per month • " hush- 
 money," according to the business done. Previous to open- 
 ing shop, a '' trade " must be made with the officers. The 
 " hush-money," concerning the amount of which the testi- 
 mony of a dozen dealers who were questioned agrees, is 
 paid, they say, to the police officers and sheriffs deputies. 
 The presence of numerous saloons plying a brisk trade 
 almost in the heart of the city cannot be explained on any 
 other ground than that they pay for the immunity enjoyed. 
 The suggestion that the officers grossly neglect their duties 
 and violate their oath, out of disinterested sympathy with 
 the dealers, is absurd. No more can it be believed that 
 they are blind to a condition of things patent to every 
 observing citizen. It is notorious that there is a keen 
 competition between policemen for " rum beats." Both 
 from the men immediately concerned and their friends the 
 writer has heard complaints of unfairness i-n the distribu- 
 tion of beats, for the single reason that some Avere pre- 
 vented from enjoying the spoils of a " rum beat." 
 
 Only by systematized bribery and corruption are the bar- 
 keepers of Portland so successful in evading the law. But 
 it must be added that the dealers are required to observe 
 certain rules ; as, for example, that they close their shops 
 at ten o'clock in the evening, that they abstain from selling 
 on Sundays, and that they prevent disturbances on their 
 premises. But if, for certain reasons, police visits are paid 
 them, they usually receive a timely warning, so that when 
 the officials arrive the premises are found temporarily 
 vacated ; two or three bottles of beer which, perhaps, have 
 been left handy, are seized, and return is made on the war- 
 rant, " Owner unknown." 
 
 The number of " kitchen bars " varies considerably from 
 time to time, being at the time of the writer's investigation
 
 42 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 about eighty. They are found in the alleys, tenements, 
 and tumble-down houses in the poorer sections of the city. 
 They are not extensively " protected," and the owners must 
 therefore resort to various devices to cover up their tracks. 
 This is effectually done by an elaborate system of piping, 
 or by traps of different kinds ; the dark alleyways, crooked 
 passageways, and general character of the houses aiding 
 concealment. In these bars little but distilled liquor is 
 sold, chiefly on Saturday evenings and Sundays. They are 
 well patronized, especially by older men, who prefer the 
 comparative quiet and seclusion which they afford. Liquor 
 raids are mostly directed against kitchen bars not in the 
 " ring," though these are often simply pro forma. The 
 drinking at these bars is especially productive of intoxica- 
 tion, both because of the quality of the liquor sold and of 
 the opportunity of uninterrupted indulgence. A kitchen 
 bar is not easily found by a stranger, since only a few of 
 them have outside sentinels ; but it is well known that 
 they infest whole blocks in different parts of the city. 
 
 The pocket peddlers multiply with amazing rapidity dur- 
 ing a period of strict enforcement, and most of them disap- 
 pear as suddenly in "wet times." At the time of the 
 present investigation, not a few were found on the wharves 
 and along the water front after dark, especially on Sundays. 
 They supply " split," at the rate of thirty cents a pint for 
 the cheapest grade. Boys of fifteen and upwards were 
 found as venders of " split." The pocket peddler secures 
 many victims on incoming fishing - vessels and coasting 
 schooners, which he boards at the first opportunity. 
 
 At least five of the principal hotels sell liquor at bars, or 
 it may be ordered in the rooms or at table. The hotel 
 bars are not of higher order than the common saloons, and 
 cater perhaps more to outsiders than to real guests. Since 
 it is supposed that hotel-keepers are best able to pay, they 
 are mulcted as high as $100 per month. The kind of im-
 
 ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW IN PORTLAND. 43 
 
 munity enjoyed by them is well illustrated by the follow- 
 ing incident which came under the observation of the 
 writer. At one of the principal hotels this message came 
 over the telephone at two o'clock one Saturday afternoon : 
 "They are coming at three o'clock." "They" were offi- 
 cials from the sheriff's office, who thus gave a timely warn- 
 ing of their intention to pay an official visit. Naturally, 
 the necessary preparation was made for their reception, and 
 the search resulted in nothing. But in the evening, for 
 some reason, presumably on the complaint of some out- 
 sider, two police officers paid a call at the bar, which had 
 reopened so soon as the sheriff's officers had left. The 
 throng about it — standing four deep — was particularly 
 noisy. After having watched the proceedings for a few 
 moments, the officers showed their badges, closed the bar, 
 and arrested one of the attendants. Although there was 
 a plenty of direct evidence at hand, the case was settled 
 in the municipal court the following Monday without the 
 formality of a trial, the proprietor simply paying a fine of 
 $100 and costs. At five o'clock that same Monday morn- 
 ing the hotel bar was open for business again. Although 
 the newspapers refrained from making any reference to the 
 incident, this raid created quite a sensation, not because the 
 violation of the law was in the nature of a surprise, but be- 
 cause it was thought that the hotels enjoyed perfect protec- 
 tion. They are usually the last places to be raided, although 
 they are among the most active distributers of drink. 
 
 At certain oyster houses on the principal street of the 
 city, beer is sold in large quantities. These houses enjoy a 
 somewhat exclusive patronage. 
 
 The drug - stores have ever been a fruitful source of 
 drunkenness in Portland. There are no less than forty-five 
 of these shops in the city, or one to about eight hundred in- 
 habitants. This fact alone would suffice to show that all of 
 them could not possibly subsist were their trade exclusively
 
 44 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 in apothecary's wares. Indeed, from their very situation it 
 is evident that they do not exist for the purpose of supply- 
 ing drugs. Thus at the upper end of Congress Street, away 
 from the most populous part of the city, three drug-stores 
 are in close proximity to one another. On Middle Street, 
 in a neighborhood equally unpropitious for the druggist's 
 trade, they are remarkably numerous. Within a radius of 
 a quarter of a mile or a trifle more from Monument Square, 
 which may be designated as the heart of the city, one finds 
 about thirty drug-stores. Others again are found in the 
 most impossible places for legitimate business. To place 
 all the drug-stores in Portland in the same category would, 
 of course, be most unfair. Yet the fact remains that all 
 but two, or at most three, when this investigation was 
 made, had paid the United States special tax, which is 
 prima facie evidence of violation of the liquor laws. But 
 this does not necessarily mean that all having paid United 
 States special taxes sell liquor for tippling purposes. So 
 far as the wholesale druggists are concerned, the writer has 
 it on the authority of one engaged in the business that a 
 wholesale druggist who should refuse to fill orders for 
 liquor from village druggists and physicians would be un- 
 able to retain his trade. Of the druggists doing a retail 
 business only, some doubtless sell liquor only for medicinal 
 purposes, but this also is a violation of the law. It is a 
 conservative statement to say that about twenty drug-stores 
 in Portland exist simply for the purpose of selling liquor. 
 
 It is commonly said that a number of druggists pay for 
 protection, but to what extent this practice obtains is not 
 known. The fact that some druggists are only liquor-sell- 
 ers in disguise is a matter that has frequently been proved 
 in the courts. Lastly, it should be remarked that liquor is 
 sold at the apothecary shops on Sundays. 
 
 From the books of the collector of internal revenue it is 
 found that five United States wholesale licenses were taken
 
 ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW IN PORTLAND. 45 
 
 out by residents of Portland in 1893, four for the sale of 
 malt liquors and one for distilled liquors. There is good 
 reason for the belief that others have embarked in the busi- 
 ness since that date, for it must be remembered that 1893 
 is reckoned as a " dry " year. The wholesale dealers sup- 
 ply much of the family trade in Portland, and do a jobbing 
 business in the small towns as well as sell to retailers in 
 the city. At least one of them serves liquor (chiefly beer) 
 by the glass. Certain bottling establishments, where large 
 quantities of mineral waters are put up, derive perhaps an 
 equally large revenue from the sale of liquor. The process 
 of bottling the liquor (beer and ale) is in some instances 
 carried on without any semblance of secrecy, and may be 
 viewed from the sidewalks. The liberal display of brew- 
 ers' advertisements is also sufficiently indicative of the 
 business done. The delivery of beer to private houses is 
 effected Avith impunity, although a certain amount of cir- 
 cumspection is deemed prudent. 
 
 Persons who wish to obtain liquor less openly may re- 
 sort to a number of express companies wjiicli are ready to 
 place orders for their customers with wholesale dealers in 
 Boston and other cities. While this method is as unlawful 
 as any, the difficulty of detection is obvious. The transac- 
 tion between the taker of the order and the giver can easily 
 be kept secret ; when the liquor arrives, the express officials 
 may declare ignorance of the contents of the packages, which 
 are addressed to the individual consumer. The carrying of 
 liquor packages ordered directly by the consumer himself is 
 recognized as legitimate. This is usually done by the large 
 express companies. Only the local expresses go into the 
 order-business proper. But the latter do not always con- 
 fine themselves to order-taking. Prom evidence produced 
 in the courts, it is plain that they operate, in a quiet wa}', 
 as jobbers, large quantities of liquor having been seized at 
 their storage rooms. Conviction in such cases is not easily
 
 46 PKOHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 obtained, for the packages may be labeled with fictitious 
 names, and the defendant may swear that he is not aware 
 that the liquor is intended for sale, or that he does not 
 know the persons who will eventually call for it. It is in 
 the nature of the case that not even an approximate esti- 
 mate of the liquor brought into the city by expresses can be 
 made. By well-informed persons the quantity is consid- 
 ered great and growing. 
 
 Drinking clubs, while by no means so numerous as they 
 were ten years ago, still flourish. At other clubs, which 
 exist for legitimate purposes, members have private lockers 
 in which liquor is kept. This is of course not a violation 
 of the law. 
 
 On the occasion of the writer's first visit to the Portland 
 Liquor Agency, he was greeted with these words by one of 
 the attendants : " This is nothing but a legalized rumshop, 
 — that's all." The statistics abundantly vindicate this 
 assertion. It was explained that certain formalities are 
 observed. Thus the name and address of each purchaser are 
 recorded. " Of qpurse," the informant went on, " there 
 are some we don't sell to and won't sell to (for instance, in- 
 toxicated persons and habitual drunkards), but if a respec- 
 table person comes in we don't ask questions." An in- 
 stance was given of a well-known citizen who had just laid 
 in supplies for a month, — not for medicinal purposes, as he 
 expressly stated. The volume of trade at the agency de- 
 pends upon the extent to which the law is enforced, and 
 thus may be regarded as a barometer indicating "wet" and 
 " dry " times in the city. On this point one of the attend- 
 ants remarked, "Trade is not very lively now that the bars 
 run openly." The agency is open from 9 A. m. to 1 p. m. 
 and again from 1.30 to G p. m. on weekdays. A full 
 line of goods is carried, from alcohol to champagne. It 
 is a common complaint that tlie goods are not of a first-rate 
 quality and are expensive. Yet, until lately, the profits
 
 ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW IN PORTLAND. 47 
 
 to the city from the sales were exceedingly small, if any. 
 Recently, while the agency was in the hands of the Demo- 
 crats, the net profits to the city reached $20,000. The 
 principal liquors ordered from the state commissioner are 
 whiskey and rum. Neither article is used for mechanical 
 purposes, and the latter is certainly not generally ordered 
 as medicine, or used in compounding prescriptions. The 
 ease with which liquor may be obtained at the agency oper- 
 ates in the nature of a temptation for those who want liquor 
 and yet would not patronize the law-breaking venders. The 
 transactions of the agency vary greatly, — from $6,500 in 
 1876-77 to $18,000 the next year; from $12,000 in 1879- 
 80 to $26,850 the year after ; from $20,000 in 1884-85 
 to $28,000 in 1885-86. In 1891-92 the receipts were 
 $57,000, and in 1892-93 they were $76,000. 
 
 The high figure reached by the sales in 1885 and in 1891 
 to 1894 shows how they are augmented in a period of en- 
 forcement. Evidently, then, the agency has degenerated 
 into an officially protected bottle-shop and a source of intem- 
 perance. 
 
 For the sake of greater clearness, the number of places in 
 Portland where liquor is at present sold for tippling pur- 
 poses is given in a summarized form : — 
 
 Ordinary bars, including eating-houses and bottling 
 
 establishments ........ 54 
 
 Hotel bars 5 
 
 Kitchen bars 80 
 
 Apothecary shops 42 
 
 Liquor Agency 1 
 
 Total 182 
 
 In this list no account has been taken of pocket peddlers, 
 houses of ill-fame, express companies, clubs, and certain 
 oyster restaurants. Hence the statement is extremely con- 
 servative. It is well known that only a few of the kitchen 
 barkeepers pay the United States special tax. Bearing in
 
 48 PEOHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 mind that 161 United States special liquor taxes were paid 
 by so many residents of Portland in 1893, — a year in which 
 the law was enforced to some extent, — and allowing that of 
 the kitchen bars one half, or 40, pay the special taxes, which 
 would be an unusually large proportion, we still have 19 of 
 these bars left to account for. While the present investi- 
 gation was in progress, several new bars were opened. It 
 therefore remains a low estimate to say that, reckoning the 
 population of Portland at about 40,000 and the number 
 of drinking places at 182, there is one such place to 219 
 inhabitants. No higher authority can be found than the 
 high sheriff of Cumberland County, upon whom the en- 
 forcement of the laws depends. This official, in 1894, put 
 the following question : " If a landlord cannot restrain one 
 tenant, how can four deputies deal with 400 rumsellers in 
 this city ? " 
 
 Nearly all the persons who may properly be designated 
 as barkeepers belong to the Irish or Irish- American popula- 
 tion. Occasionally men of other nationalities (Russian 
 Hebrews or Germans) are found as owners of saloons. The 
 liquor-sellers of native stock are found chiefly among the 
 druggists, although not a few of the drug-store keepers are 
 of foreign descent. The brunt of the battle against the 
 liquor law is borne by those engaged in no other business 
 than that of selling liquor. They are adepts at their work, 
 and shun no means, fair or foul, of gaining their ends. A 
 whole generation has grown up trained from early infancy 
 in the belief that the law is their natural enemy, and that 
 their special province is to connect themselves directly or 
 indirectly with an occupation which exists in defiance of 
 the very Constitution of the State. It is a part of common 
 speech in Portland to designate certain wards of the city as 
 the " liquor wards." It is one of the peculiarities of the 
 liquor traffic in prohibition cities that an unusual number 
 of persons is required to conduct it. In the first place,
 
 ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW IN PORTLAND. 49 
 
 there is the proprietor, and prohal)ly the members of his 
 family. But in case he is an old offender, and has reason 
 to dread interference, he ceases, at least at times, to be the 
 active proprietor. One or two men are engaged to tend 
 bar, with the understanding that they are to act as own- 
 ers if brought into court, and take the punishment (if im- 
 prisonment) that the law deals out. Two individuals are 
 needed as sentinels to give alarm in case of an approaching 
 raid. 
 
 By no means are all the persons classed as liquor-dealers 
 proper on the lowest round of the social ladder. Some, 
 especially of the second generation, have even attained po- 
 litical preferment and been members of the city government. 
 But, however "high " their social standing may be, they are 
 hand in glove with their brethren below them ; they live by 
 the same means, and profit by the same tactics. While there 
 are understood to be two '' gangs " of liquor-dealers, no 
 enmity exists between the protected and unprotected sellers. 
 The former fear to '' crowd " the latter, lest public com- 
 plaints should follow. Furthermore, the kitchen barkeeper 
 often serves as a scapegoat who takes the punishment of the 
 law when raids are in order. His risk is the greater. The 
 liquor-sellers belong by inheritance to the Democratic party, 
 and formerly remained loyal to it. But in the course of 
 time it was discovered to be not always advantageous for the 
 habitual violator of the law to remain a strict partisan. They 
 have learned to change their party clothes as often as policy 
 dictates. Of only one liquor-dealer has it been said that he 
 refused both to buy immunity and to change his political 
 creed. He fought the law openly, and Avas crushed, after 
 twenty-five years, by the men he had helped into office. 
 When the city is Democratic, the dealers are Democrats so 
 far as expedient, and vice versa. Their political action de- 
 pends, perhaps, more on county than on city politics, so long 
 as sheriffs are elected on the liquor issue. Neither party
 
 50 PKOHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 can safely ignore the liquor vote, and consequently both 
 " play " to it more or less openly. Since 1872 the pro- 
 hibitionists have placed their main reliance on the county 
 sheriff and his deputies. While it was not intended to re- 
 lieve the police department of its obvious duties, the enact- 
 ment of the sheriff law has practically had this result, oc- 
 casioning no little confusion. Statistics indicate that the 
 activity of the police ceased largely, so far as the execution 
 of the liquor laws was concerned, during the seventies, to be 
 revived again later in an intermittent way, but never with 
 the hoped-for results. A comparison between the work 
 done by the police and the total number of cases of search 
 and seizure, during the latest time of enforcement, gives 
 further evidence on this point. 
 
 In his report for 1889-90, the city marshal, speaking of 
 the prohibitory legislation, called it " this rock upon which 
 so many city marshals have been wrecked and literally 
 ground to powder in years gone by." The neglect of the 
 police to enforce the law may in part be accounted for on 
 political grounds ; thus it is known that a Eepublican po- 
 lice force has thwarted the efforts of a Democratic mayor 
 to put down the liquor-sellers. But at the present time 
 there are three reasons for the failure of the police, — the 
 commonly accepted theory that it is not their province to 
 enforce these laAvs, except when specially called upon to do 
 so ; lack of sympathy with the laws, which is quite openly 
 expressed ; the influence of the money of the liquor-sellers. 
 The last perhaps sufficiently explains the friendly feeling 
 and the spirit of camaraderie prevailing between the guar- 
 dians of the law and the offenders against the law, which 
 the writer had frequent opportunity to observe. 
 
 The law compels magistrates to issue a warrant against 
 persons suspected of violating the liquor laws on the com- 
 plaint of any one competent to be sworn in a civil suit. It 
 does not appear, however, that voluntary complaints pro-
 
 ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW IN PORTLAND. 51 
 
 • 
 
 ceeding from citizens are at all frequent. The contrary is 
 apparently the fact, and this indicates the general apathy of 
 the public. The warrants to search for liquor, and seize it 
 if found, are generally sworn out at the will of the police 
 and deputy sheriffs, and therefore need not be directed 
 against their friends. The fact that the magistrates are 
 deprived of all discretion in issuing warrants has given rise 
 to a flood of what are technically known as " dummy war- 
 rants," that is, warrants taken out and returned with the 
 seizure of half a pint or so of liquor of some kind, or taken 
 out and returned without any seizure having been made. 
 To save trouble, an officer may thus swear out half a dozen 
 ■warrants at once, put them in his coat pocket, and serve 
 them only when he feels like it. Yet the law prescribes 
 that immediate returns shall be made on such warrants. 
 
 From 1874 to 1881 the police did very little to prevent 
 liquor-selling, enforcement of the law, such as it was, ema- 
 nating from the sheriff's office. In 1881, however, they 
 began to shoAV a greater activity, which apparently culmi- 
 nated in 1886. From that time on, the number of arrests 
 decreased perceptibly. Yet the statistics of searches and 
 seizures would indicate that they bestirred themselves in 
 later years, notably in 1887 and 1891. 
 
 The remarks about " dummy warrants " are abundantly 
 substantiated by statistics drawn from the annual reports of 
 the city marshals. The swearing out of 7,793 warrants in 
 one year (1886) was of itself absurd, and resulted in only 
 a few more actual seizures, and not as many arrests, as 
 resulted from one third the number of warrants in the year 
 following. It is a remarkable circumstance that, while in 
 1891 liquor was found and seized on 425 warrants, only 
 2,939 gallons were taken, and that, in 1888, 7,564 gallons 
 were seized on 353 warrants. However, this may be 
 accounted for on the ground that the police frequently 
 seize only a sufficient quantity of liquor '' to make a show,"
 
 52 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 and leave the rest, presumably in order that the dealer 
 may be able to continue his business. The statistics afford 
 conclusive evidence on two points, — the lack of honest 
 enforcement on the part of the police, and the extent of 
 liquor-selling in the city. The number of " dummy " war- 
 rants taken out, while always considerable, reached as- 
 tounding proportions in 1885, when in six months 4,172 
 were issued. They were taken out at the rate of 534 per 
 day, and one official in that year personally made oath to 
 4,535. Nothing can illustrate more forcibly the vicious- 
 ness of a system which deprives magistrates of all discre- 
 tion in making out warrants. The cost to the county of 
 each seizure ranged from $5.65 in 1883 to $18.38 in 1881, 
 and the cost of each case brought before court from $17 to 
 $182. It is difficult to imagine that these differences can 
 be accounted for satisfactorily. During six months in 
 1885, $5,243.44 were paid for warrants upon which no 
 seizures were made. The total cost of liquor warrants for 
 the same time, including the per diem pay of deputies and 
 printing, reached $9,571.97, or about $62 for each case 
 brought before court. 
 
 The cost to the county of Cumberland, in which Portland 
 is situated, for the attempted suppression of the liquor 
 traffic, not including officers' fees, but only the per diem of 
 deputies, was, in 1886, $2,205.74 ; in 1887, $2,280.50 ; 
 in 1888, $2,336.65; in 1889, $2,651.17; in 1890, 
 $2,254.67 ; in 1891, $5,621.54 ; in 1892, $6,242.66 ; in 
 1893, $5,093.61. 
 
 No published returns exist of the work done by the 
 deputy sheriffs towards suppressing sales, except such as 
 may be extracted laboriously from the court records. Their 
 methods are naturally the same as those pursued by the 
 police. There is no reason to believe that they have been 
 more faithful than the police to their duties. The widest 
 publicity has been repeatedly given to this grave charge,
 
 ENFORCExMENT Of THE LAW IN PORTLAND. 53 
 
 and that by persons from whom it would least be ex- 
 pected. ^ 
 
 1 The following quotation is from an article published in the Portland 
 Express, Juue 21, 1894. The Express is a Republican organ, and, the 
 county and city oflScials being of the same political party, the charges 
 are brought against its own party associates. That the disclosure was 
 made with some political object in view does not concern us at present. 
 "It is generally believed that permission to carry on liquor-selling is 
 secured b}' a regular system of payments to those who have it in their 
 power to practically annihilate the tratiic if thej' are so disposed. The 
 nature and extent of the 'protection' said to be arranged and paid for 
 differs in different cases. Sometimes it is understood that regular pay- 
 ments must also be made 'to the court; ' sometimes that they shall not be 
 troubled save when ' outside complaint ' is made, of which ample notice 
 must be given, so that the resulting search may do no harm; sometimes 
 that 'fines' will be exacted onh' when 'the court is short,' to use the 
 technical parlance in such cases; sometimes that, when a public or political 
 exigency requires a seizure, onl}' enough shall be taken to 'make out a 
 case,' the balance of the stock being left undisturbed, and the owner 
 politely advised to 'step round to the court to-morrow and pay ^100.' 
 Sometimes this protection, it is said, is afforded for a certain time of busi- 
 ness, beyond wbieh the protected individual is not permitted to go, as that 
 would interfere by way of competition with some other person, who is 
 also said to be paying for 'protection,' and demands it from competition 
 as well as from the penalties of the law. 
 
 "The regular exaction for 'protection' is said to range from $5200 a 
 month down, according to the nature, locality, and extent of the business 
 carried on. Nor is this all. The victims of this system are expected to 
 assist the candidates of their extortioners and blackmailers politically, in 
 caucuses and otherwise, and thus aid in perpetiuiting the power which 
 oppresses them. They make these regular payments, respond to many 
 irregular demands for money besides, and render other incidental service, 
 because they do not dare to do otherwise. 
 
 " Some liquor-dealers complain that their profits are cut down by the 
 competition of shops allowed to exist in the vicinity of their own places 
 of business, that the regular collection of protection money may also be 
 made from them. 
 
 " These demands are in some instances also said to be so excessive that 
 the dealers say they swallow up the lion's share of the profits, and some- 
 times actually force them to run more disreputable places than they other- 
 wise would, in order to get in money enough to be able to respond to the 
 perpetual si|Ucozing. 
 
 "The iilacknuiilcrs . . . calculate to leave the liquor-sellers profit enough 
 to induce them to continue the business, and to keep quiet as to these ex- 
 tortions. But these latter are given to understand that failure to respond 
 to denuuids for money or for assistance in caucuses and otherwise, or anv 
 'squealing' about this blackmailing, will be followed l)y such vigorous 
 prosecution as to drive them from business. They are also wickedly made
 
 54 PROHIBITION IN MAINE A'ND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 Yet a large number of persons are annually brought 
 before the courts, and many of them are sentenced. Jurors, 
 when drawn from the rural districts, are perhaps more in- 
 clined to convict than those from the city. The unblush- 
 ing manner in which defendants and their witnesses resort 
 to perjury helps to perplex matters. It is freely alleged 
 that a number of " professional " witnesses exist in Port- 
 land who are ready " to swear to anything for the sake of 
 the fee of $1.62." More cases were tried from 1891 to 
 1894 than from 1887 to 1890, but this fact does not prove 
 that less liquor was sold during the latter period, any more 
 than it proves that the traffic was exterminated in the 
 former. The difference lies in this, that in 1891 a period 
 of enforcement began. Kor must the inference be drawn 
 that the number of persons tried represents so many in- 
 dividuals. The same individual may be tried on several 
 counts, and appear in court year after year. " It is one of 
 the most discouraging features of the liquor question in 
 Portland," an ex-county attorney has remarked, " that the 
 same faces are seen before the courts from year to year." 
 It is a safe conclusion, however, that the courts would not 
 be kept so busy unless the traffic were extensive. Taking 
 the year 1893, for instance, we find that there was one 
 
 to believe in many instances by these alleged extortioners that officers who 
 have no interest in this ' protection money ' are knowing to and authoriz- 
 ing this bleeding process. 
 
 "Within certain circles, the names of the men who are said to demand 
 the amounts it is alleged they regularly receive by levy of blackmail and 
 bribes, the days on which it is said that they make the collection, the 
 person from whom it is claimed they collect, are as freely mentioned as 
 any fact of common notoriety." 
 
 That the foregoing disclosures led within a few weeks to the discharge 
 of certain officials proves that they are not empty accusations manufac- 
 tured for a purpose. However, to throw the whole blame on the officials 
 is scarcely just; for it is evident that they have not only lacked the sym- 
 pathetic support of the public, but there seems reason to believe that the 
 assistance promised them from the Prohibitionists was not forthcoming. 
 That tlie tinancial aid of the latter should be counted on is a peculiar 
 phase of the situation, in view of the large sums annually spent by the 
 county for the suppression of tlie liquor traffic.
 
 ENFOKCEMENT OF THE LAW IN PORTLAND. 55 
 
 seizure made to about twenty-two inhabitants, notwith- 
 standing that the law was said to be enforced. 
 
 Of 275 cases tried in 1891 on search and seizure com- 
 plaints, 179 resulted in convictions, or 65 per cent. ; 33 
 per cent. Avere discharged ; and 1.45 per cent, continued. 
 Of those convicted, 76 per cent, appealed ; 5 per cent, 
 were committed on an appeal ; 5 were committed ; 8 per 
 cent, paid fines and costs ; and 5 per cent, had the sentences 
 suspended. Of the 1,550 seizures that year, 17 per cent, 
 resulted in trials. 
 
 In 1893, 9 per cent, of the seizures (1,789) resulted in 
 trials. Of the 156 tried, 99, or 63 per cent., were convicted, 
 and 57, or 36 per cent., discharged. Of those convicted, 75 
 per cent, appealed ; 10 per cent, were committed on an ap- 
 peal ; 4 per cent, were committed ; 2 per cent, paid the 
 fines ; and 8 per cent, had the sentence suspended. 
 
 In 1894 the number of seizures was surprisingly large, 
 and the proportion of convictions surprisingly small. There 
 is no evidence to the effect that sentences are unduly sus- 
 pended or discharges improperly made. A surprising num- 
 ber of the latter are noted, however, among the nuisance 
 cases in 1887. The large percentage of appeals attracts 
 attention. 
 
 Whatever may have been accomplished by way of prose- 
 cution of sellers of liquor, which is not a great deal, their 
 source of supplies has never been effectually stopped. The 
 cases of illegal transportation have diminished in number 
 rapidly since 1887. In 1892 only two such cases were tried. 
 When the law in 1891 imposed a penalty of $500 and one 
 year's imprisonment, prosecution for this offense virtually 
 ceased. In a single case only has the full penalty been 
 imposed. Neither judges nor juries deemed the sentence 
 required on a conviction to be just. Why the number of 
 transportation cases has not multiplied since the passage of 
 the act of 1893, reducing the penalty to $200 without impris-
 
 56 PEOHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 onraent, has not been explained, and can only be inferred in a 
 general way. Yet it is easily demonstrable that, so long as 
 supplies from outside the State are available, liquor-selling 
 is a tempting business and will flourish. It appears that 
 even in times of enforcement the efi'orts to cut off the sup- 
 plies are languid. 
 
 The financial ability of liquor-sellers generally to carry 
 their cases to the higher courts can be explained on the sole 
 ground of their profits from the illegal traffic. Many of 
 them would be unable to do so but for the existence of 
 professional bondsmen who are said to derive considerable 
 revenue from their peculiar services. The regular charge 
 for furnishing bonds in a liquor case is assumed to be $50. 
 The risk is great, so that only persons in some manner 
 intimately associated with the liquor element can enga<7e 
 in it. 
 
 The strength as Avell as the vitiating power of the liquor 
 element in politics is perhaps as manifest in Portland as in 
 any other city. The attitude of the dominant parties on 
 the drink question has already been generally defined, but 
 it ought to be distinctly stated in a concise form. The Ke- 
 publicans profess a belief in prohibition, — many of them, no 
 doubt, from sincere conviction, — but will not as a party en- 
 force the laws at any political loss. The Democrats favor 
 a re-submission of the prohibitory amendment, and may prop- 
 erly be classed as opponents of the existing laws. The two 
 leading parties are so evenly matched in Portland that neither 
 can aff'ord to ignore the strength of the liquor vote. This 
 vote is simply concerned with this one question, " Which 
 party will afford the better protection ? " As the strength 
 of the Prohibitionists is not in the city but in the country, 
 the matter of enforcement does not become the principal 
 issue in the election of city officials. In fact, it M'ould be 
 next to impossible to choose men pledged to enforcement. 
 The Prohibitionists having long ceased to place their trust
 
 ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW IN PORTLAND, 57 
 
 in city officials, and the duty of enforcement having virtu- 
 ally been transferred to the sheriff and his deputies, it is in 
 country rather than in city politics that we can best trace 
 the influence of the liquor question.^ 
 
 The epithets " rum-ruled " and " rum-ridden " applied to 
 Portland by the Prohibitionists themselves, and their calling 
 upon all electors to " unite in one grand and gigantic effort 
 to redeem our county " (county convention call, 1894), do 
 not point to a remarkable condition of sobriety. However, 
 men are not wanting who assert that prohibition has checked 
 drunkenness even in Portland, saying that its effects are 
 chiefly to be noticed among the " middle class." Those 
 forming the topmost stratum of society are, of course, not, 
 as a rule, frequenters of bars of any description. In the 
 clubs they are as much accustomed to the use of stimulants 
 as the same class in other parts of New England. The con- 
 sensus of opinion points to an increasing use of alcoholic 
 beverages by this class during the last decade. The habit 
 of using wines and malt beverages at table is also said to 
 have grown more common. It is not to this class, however, 
 that the Prohibitionists look for moral support, or the liquor- 
 dealers for money. Those at the opposite social extreme 
 fill the dock of the municipal court, and are the mainstays 
 of pocket peddlers, certain kitchen bars, and the lowest 
 " dives." Still their number is not legion. If we add to 
 it the artisan class, the hired " help " of various kinds, and 
 a large part of the floating population, we may have ac- 
 counted for the majority of saloon frequenters, but not for 
 the patrons of drug-stores and those who help to support 
 the bottling establishments. Assuming, as we must, that 
 the latter represent those between the two social extremes, 
 we shall have the " middle class." That it is among those 
 occupying the middle social position that the strongest tem- 
 
 1 Votes cast for mayor in 1893: For Republican candidate, 3,871; for 
 Democratic candidate, 3,498; for Prohibitionist candidate, 53.
 
 58 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 perance sentiment prevails, is well known. Still the aggre- 
 gate of total abstainers is increased not a little from the 
 ranks below as well as from above. To account for the sale 
 of liquor on the theory of a large floating population alone, 
 or by asserting that drinking is mainly confined to one par- 
 ticular class, is impossible. 
 
 The absence of liquor advertisements in the shape of 
 " gilt-edged " saloons with attractive show-windows, and the 
 fact that the traffic has been driven into semi-obscurity, are 
 referred to as indicating that prohibition has diminished 
 temptation, and made it less reputable to visit liquor shops. 
 This is doubtless true to some extent. But the bars are 
 within easy reach of the best streets, if not established on 
 them, as the hotel bars are, for instance, and they ofi"er a 
 dangerous seclusion for the customer who is once inside. 
 Again, the apothecary shops hold out perhaps the most peril- 
 ous kind of temptation, inasmuch as the drink-buyer is here 
 free from observation, and is indviced to purchase a larger 
 quantity than is desired for immediate use. 
 
 Labor leaders, and others in position to know the habits 
 of wage-earners, incline generally to the opinion that among 
 this class drinking is on the increase. As a cause of 
 intemperance, especially among young men, was mentioned 
 the dearth of good pleasure resorts and public amusements. 
 As one who for fourteen years has been a labor leader in 
 Portland remarked : " They [the Prohibitionists] try to 
 take the barrooms away from the boys, and give them 
 nothing instead except the churches." The saloon is still 
 a social centre in Portland, for which no permanent substi- 
 tutes have been oflfered to the large numbers of young 
 men, abounding in every city, who cannot in any sense be 
 said to have homes. 
 
 The " hard " liquor sold in prohibitory cities is of an 
 inferior quality, producing the quicker and more violent 
 forms of intemperance. The stricter the enforcement the
 
 ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW IN PORTLAND. 59 
 
 poorer the liquor, whicli is often nothing but alcohol pur- 
 chased from druggists and sold, after dilution, under the 
 name of " split." Of this article "hard drinkers cannot 
 stand half as much as they usually drink." During periods 
 of enforcement, also, the quality of the '• hard " liquor not 
 only deteriorates, but it may become difficult, on account 
 of their bulk, to obtain the ale and beer whicli under 
 ordinary circumstances are much more commonly drunk 
 than distilled spirits. In Portland there has never been 
 a time when " split " and distilled spirits generally were 
 not obtainable, but malt liquors have sometimes been ex- 
 cluded with results other than those intended. Persons 
 friendly to prohibition, and themselves total abstainers, 
 attest the truth of this. 
 
 The manner in which the " drunk law " is enforced by 
 the police deserves special consideration. The law is un- 
 derstood to require that intoxicated persons disturbing the 
 peace and in a helpless condition, when not cared for by 
 any one, shall be arrested. There are two special tempta- 
 tions for the police to deal leniently with the intoxicated. 
 In the first place, an officer who has a preference for 
 " rum beats " finds it to his disadvantage to increase the 
 number of arrests, lest he be discredited among the men 
 with whom he has dealings, and strengthen the cry for 
 stricter enforcement ; secondly, there is a danger of push- 
 ing men, who might inform against him, too hard. The 
 frequency of public drunkenness, and the indifference of 
 the police to it, may be illustrated by the following en- 
 tries from the writer's note-book : — 
 
 " May 18, 1894. Twenty intoxicated persons, some of them 
 in a helpless couditiou, were encountered in the course of less 
 than an hour's walk. 
 
 " May 20. Five boys were discovered sleeping off a debauch 
 on a wharf. Policemen took no notice, although attention was 
 called. Boys apparently between 1.5 and 20. 
 
 " May 26. While standing outside the Hotel, between
 
 60 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 11.30 p. M. and 12 m., forty drunken men were counted, several 
 unable to take care of themselves, and tacking aimlessly about. 
 Policemen saw them ; and one, who had his attention called to 
 it, returned a curt ' Mind your own business.' " 
 
 The following incident was related to the writer by a 
 clergyman, a prominent Prohibitionist and the leader of 
 a temperance mission : On a Sunday evening, while walk- 
 ing uptown from the Boston steamboat wharf, a distance 
 of three fourths of a mile, he counted nineteen drunken 
 men ; two were stretched out on the sidewalk, so that he 
 had to step over them in walking by. Two policemen 
 were appealed to, but their only answer was a sneer. He 
 waited in vain for a while to see if the patrol wagon would 
 be called. The incident was published in a newspaper. 
 At a meeting of ministers it was referred to, and the 
 mayor, who was present, was called upon to explain. He 
 said that the article was only one of those too common 
 unsubstantiated newspaper flings. Whereupon the author 
 of the article arose and expressed his willingness to tes- 
 tify against the officers involved. 
 
 Statistics of arrests for drunkenness between the years 
 1872 and 1894 show remarkable fluctuations, and illustrate 
 how misleading such statistics are when unaccompanied by 
 explanations of every modifying cii'cumstance. For in- 
 stance, a decline in arrests per 1,000 inhabitants since 1873 
 is observed, and simultaneously an increase in the number 
 of common drunkards confined, which is in direct contra- 
 diction. Equally mysterious appears the fact that, while 
 the number of arrests for drunkenness only has on the 
 whole fallen ofl", the number for drunkenness and disturb- 
 ance shows surprising growth. The explanations are found 
 in the manner of the interpretation of the drunk law. 
 The city marshals have enjoyed much latitude in this re- 
 spect, and have pursued, apparently, whichever policy suited 
 them best.
 
 ENFOKCEMENT OF THE LAW IN PORTLAND. 61 
 
 Persons arrested for drunkenness alone are, as a rule, 
 not fined. Persons arrested three times for intoxication 
 are supposed to be classed as common drunkards. Yet it 
 is found that when the number of arrests reached its highest 
 figure, — 74 per 1,000 inhabitants in 1873, — not a single 
 person was confined for being a common drunkard. We 
 cannot conceive of this as purely accidental. No more can 
 the rapid increase of common drunkards, shown since 1886 
 (1886, 81 ; 1887, 136 ; 1888, 174 ; 1889, 136 ; 1890, 154 ; 
 1891, 87 ; 1892, 68 ; 1893, 170 ; 1894, 183), be taken as 
 evidence that their numbers actually swelled to such ex- 
 tent, or that intemperance grew with such strides. A gen- 
 tleman who for years has had much official experience with 
 drunkards says that the police frequently mark particu- 
 larly obnoxious or unruly persons as common drunkards, 
 not necessarily in a vindictive spirit, but to subject them to 
 the severer punishment. 
 
 The safest explanation of the remarkable fluctuations 
 shown by the statistics is found in the changes in the office 
 of city marshal. The great increase of arrests in 1873 (total, 
 2,400), as compared with the preceding year (925), must be 
 attributed to the advent of a new official, who held office 
 until 1876. During his term the percentage of arrests did 
 not vary greatly, and was the highest known for Portland. 
 Under his successor, from 1876 to 1882 inclusive, there 
 was no noteworthy change in the number of arrests either 
 for better or worse. From 1883 to 1886, each year saw a 
 change in the marshalship, the person elected in the latter 
 year holding office till the end of 1888. The next official 
 remained in office two years, and appears to have dealt 
 rather leniently with the drunkards. In 1891 and 1892 
 there was a falling off in the number of arrests. It would 
 be pleasant to attribute this to the period of enforcement 
 which began in the former year, but the figures for 1893 
 and 1894 flatly contradict such an assumption. We are
 
 62 PKOHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 thus compelled to attribute it to lax police methods. In 
 the report for 1890, the city marshal, in speaking of the 
 arrests for violations of the liquor law, said : " The rum- 
 sellers have been driven from one form of selling to another 
 more secret, but none the less productive of drunkenness in 
 our streets." What was true of that year is generally 
 true, that periodic enforcements do not tend to diminish 
 the number of arrests in large cities. " The results of pro- 
 hibition in Portland cannot be argued from any statistics of 
 arrests, because there never has been a time when liquor 
 could not be obtained." 
 
 The conclusion must be, that it is impossible to state 
 from the statistics adduced just how far they reflect greater 
 or less public inebriety. The general impression is, that 
 drunkenness is as prevalent now as ever before the consti- 
 tutional amendment went into effect, if not more so. 
 
 The toleration of an open defiance of the laws and the 
 Constitution indicates, not merely a widespread lack of 
 sympathy with prohibitory measures, but a callousness of 
 public sentiment which of itself is grave. Citizens have 
 become so accustomed to this defiance that little attention is 
 paid to the continuance of violation of the liquor statutes, 
 or to the contempt for law and order generally which is an 
 inevitable consequence. Day by day and year by year tlie 
 same items of searches and seizures, and arrests for offenses 
 against the liquor laws, appear with tolerable regularity in 
 the newspapers. The public has ceased to take special 
 note of them. A local judge, in speaking of conditions 
 under a prohibitory law not enforced, has said : " The 
 value of the oath has been reduced fifty per cent, in this 
 State. Perjury (for which the maximum penalty is im- 
 prisonment for life) is so common that it no longer attracts 
 attention. And it is not confined only to the liquor ele- 
 ment ; the effect of it is far-reaching and growing. People 
 talk of it openly without a blush."
 
 THE LAW IN A TYPICAL VILLAGE. 63 
 
 Members of the Supreme Judicial Court have said sul> 
 stantially the same thing, and prosecutions for perjury 
 committed during the trial of liquor cases are not frequent. 
 Closely akin to perjury is the hypocrisy engendered when 
 people are called upon to support a law that they do not 
 believe in. The support of prohibition at the polls and in 
 party platforms, while it is so ill enforced, can be explained 
 only on the ground that men have become hypocrites. A 
 judge of the Supreme Court, as quoted in public news- 
 papers, referring to conditions in Cumberland County, said : 
 " It is a question whether the prohibitory law makes more 
 hypocrites or more drunkards." It would perhaps have 
 been more just to say : '* It is a question whether more 
 men have become drunkards or hypocrites under the pro- 
 hibitory law." Of course the rank and file of the third- 
 party men do honestly believe in the law, and fervently 
 work for its full execution. 
 
 THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW IN A TYPICAL VILLAGE. 
 
 In semi-rural districts — villages free from numbers of 
 factory operatives, and removed from the influence of com- 
 mercial and industrial centres, with a nearly homogeneous 
 population of native stock — prohibition should yield its 
 best results. 
 
 Farmington, the shire town of Oxford County, about 
 four hours by railway from Lewiston, was spoken of by 
 well-informed Prohibitionists as a place where the law 
 worked under the most favorable conditions. The town 
 had in 1890 a population of 3,207, including all the inhab- 
 itants of the town, which covers an area of 23,000 acres 
 and contains three other villages, — West Farmington, Far- 
 mington Falls, and Fairbanks. Farmington proper has 
 about 1,700 inhabitants. Here dwell the greater number 
 of the 107 people of foreign birth. They are nearly all 
 French Canadians, generally esteemed for their thrift and
 
 64 PKOHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS KESULTS. 
 
 exemplary habits. With these few exceptions the inhabit- 
 ants are of pure American stock, brought up, both in school 
 and in church, to practice total abstinence. As a shire 
 town, and the largest in the county, Farmington has at- 
 tracted a number of professional men, who, together with 
 those engaged in mercantile pursuits, constitute the larger 
 portion of the population. There are a small box-factory 
 and a lumber mill or two. The town has always given 
 public expression to a strong prohibitory sentiment. Yet 
 public opinion has not been strong enough to extirpate 
 liquor-selling. Five United States special liquor taxes 
 were paid for by residents in 1894. At two of the hotels 
 both malt and distilled liquors are supplied to guests in 
 their rooms, and not infrequently to others who drop in ; 
 but there are no bars. At one of the three drug-stores, at 
 least, liquor can be bought by any trusted customer. Fur- 
 thermore, it is said by old residents that illicit sales are 
 carried on periodically at from one to three other places, 
 but their identity is not easily revealed. An official, whose 
 duty it is to enforce prohibition, is quoted as saying that 
 *' from one to six packages of liquor arrive by express 
 every day." Persons soliciting orders for liquors pay occa- 
 sional visits to the village. One " wet grocery " drummer, 
 met by the writer, spoke of his trade as " brisk." Three 
 cider mills supply " applejack," which is consumed in con- 
 siderable quantities. To the town officers, if not to the 
 public generally, the sale of liquor at the hotels and drug- 
 stores or other shops is well known. That all should be 
 oblivious to the existence of United States licenses is hardly 
 credible. Still the presence of a liquor agency would be 
 regarded as a blot on the community. 
 
 Since the letter of the prohibitory law is not obeyed, we 
 miist expect to find the question of enforcement a frequent 
 issue in local politics. No man can hope for election as 
 sheriff who exliilnts open hostility to the law, but the
 
 THE LAW IN A TYPICAL VILLAGE. 65 
 
 uncompromising Prohibitionist is equally sure of formidable 
 opposition. It is not said that any officer personally profits 
 by the protection of liquor-sellers, but the evidence shows 
 that they do not make a strong fight against the violation 
 of law, — whether from lack of sympathy with it, or because 
 they do not wish to expose men who are their friends. In 
 a small village friendship plays an important part. 
 
 As to the actual state of sobriety in the town, the statis- 
 tics of arrests cannot be accepted as trustworthy evidence. 
 While they indicate on the whole a falling off in the 
 number since 1886, the fluctuations are almost abnormal, 
 and on the whole there is a lack of conformity between the 
 number made for drunkenness and those made for viola- 
 tions of the liquor law. Thus, in 1888, only five liquor 
 cases came up before the municipal court, but ten persons 
 were arrested for drunkenness ; in the next year, only four ; 
 and yet no less than twenty-eight searches and seizures 
 were made, and seven persons were indicted for selling 
 liquor on other warrants. Habitual drunkards are still 
 found, but one may confidently believe that there is less 
 inebriety than there was, say, ten years ago. While an 
 institute for the treatment of drunkenness was open in the 
 village, about forty patients from Farmington and vicinity 
 were treated ; and occasionally one meets persons under the 
 influence of patent-medicine preparations. 
 
 When to the number of places where liquor-selling goes 
 on undisturbed is added the number of arrests for ofi'enses 
 against the law, it appears how far short the efforts fall to 
 stamp out the traffic. Thirty-five liquor cases in one year 
 (as in 1889) is an excessive number in a population of 
 3,207 in a largely agricultural community. 
 
 It is believed that Farmington may fairly be regarded as 
 typical of the towns in Maine where the prohibition law is 
 most nearly observed or enforced. Of course there are sin- 
 gle villages where its enforcement is more rigid and others 
 where it is more lax.
 
 66 PEOHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS EESULTS. 
 
 The effects of prohibition in the State at large are best 
 shown by a review of its working in the counties, with par- 
 ticular comment on communities specially studied. This 
 study is the more natural, since the liquor traffic is dealt 
 with by counties, and their methods are not uniform. The 
 history of the enforcement is not minutely related. The 
 present condition is typical of the past and sums it up. 
 
 CUMBERLAND COUNTY, 
 
 The efforts to suppress the traffic in Portland naturally 
 extend to other parts of the county, with some success in 
 the rural communities of the western portion. But this 
 does not mean that consumption has been stopped in the 
 same measure. In the absence of local dealers, supplies 
 may be obtained from Portland on a few hours' notice, and 
 agents frequently appear to solicit orders. Some kitchen 
 bars in a few of the western villages are said to sell with- 
 out a United States license, but their operations must be 
 insignificant. In small places in the populous counties 
 would-be liquor-sellers have a wholesome fear of United 
 States marshals, who are much more dreaded than local offi- 
 cials. The cities of Deering and Westbrook may be regarded 
 as suburbs of Portland, closely connected with that city 
 by rail and electric cars. Nevertheless liquor taxes are 
 paid in both places. The prevalence of drunkenness among 
 young men in Westbrook lately occasioned much talk there. 
 Cape Elizabeth, a large town with seven post-offices, is just 
 across the upper harbor from Portland, and is inhabited by a 
 fishing and farming population. Notwithstanding the fact 
 that perhaps one half of tlie inhabitants have easy access 
 to the Portland saloons, five persons on the Cape pay the 
 special tax. Cushing's and Peak's islands belong to Port- 
 land ; it is not known that liquor is sold on them except 
 in the summer time. 
 
 The only city in the county removed some distance from
 
 ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY. 67 
 
 Portland is Brunswick, the home of Bowdoin College. The 
 many French Canadian residents here maintain an extensive 
 kitchen-bar trade. The number of places at which liquor 
 is sold must thus be placed higher than indicated by 
 the number of taxes paid (nine in 1894-95). The traffic 
 has never been stopped under the prohibitory law. It 
 is alleged that the business is protected in a mild way. 
 Remembering tliat Brunswick is under the same officials 
 as Portland, this does not seem improbable. The 154 
 places in the county where liquor is sold, as shown by the 
 payment of the United States tax, contain 69,598 of the 
 90,949 inhabitants of the county. 
 
 ANDROSCOGGI>r COUNTY. 
 
 Androscoggin County, although one of the smallest in 
 area, ranks sixth in population (48,968), of which consider- 
 ably more than one half is found in the cities of Auburn 
 and Lewiston. The question of enforcement of the law 
 for the whole county, therefore, involves its enforcement in 
 these cities. A manufacturing community witli a foreign 
 population of 8,563 out of a total of 21,701 in 1890, 
 Lewiston is not favorable to a prohibitory law. The in- 
 habitants of foreign birth, mostly French Canadians, gener- 
 ally oppose it. It is not known that there has ever been 
 a protracted period of strict enforcement. The many at- 
 tempts have failed, partly because sympathy with the law 
 has been lacking, and partly because the temptation to 
 protect the traffic for private profit has proved too strong. 
 Not even an offer of premiums to officials elected to stop it 
 has had the desired effect. One official, on retiring from 
 office, is said to have remarked, witli reference to such an 
 offer, " One might as well try to turn back the current of 
 the Androscoggin Kiver as to stop rumselling in Lewiston." 
 
 No resident having a personal acquaintance with the 
 liquor element puts the number of places where liquor is
 
 68 PKOHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS KESULTS. 
 
 sold in Lewiston lower than 200. A liquor-dealer who 
 visits the city periodically says that there are 150, includ- 
 ing hotel bars, drug-stores, common saloons, and kitchen bars. 
 It is difficult to locate the kitchen bars, which appear in the 
 most unexpected places, — in the rear of barber-shops, fish 
 markets, fruit-stands, — and are commonly carried on by 
 French Canadians, who sell to their own people and are 
 very reticent. At the hotel bars and in the ordinary saloons 
 liquor is dispensed openly. Many saloons are found on 
 the principal street (Lisbon) within hailing distance of the 
 City Hall. Signs of the business done within are plainly 
 visible from without. At the perfectly equipped bars, 
 liquor is kept in sight, even large casks of ale being rolled 
 about without a show of fear. The city supports no less 
 than 30 " drug-stores," 19 of which are on Lisbon Street 
 within a space of little more than half a mile. At nearly 
 all, if not at all of them, liquor is sold by the bottle or 
 the glass. In many instances the shops are merely dis- 
 guised as drug-stores ; the various receptacles are filled with 
 colored water, a few cheap articles are exposed for sale, but 
 in the rear are regular bars with a full line of drinks, and 
 malt liquors on draught. In a recent report the State 
 Commission of Pharmacy quotes from a letter by a " well- 
 known resident : " " There are thirty drug-stores in Lewis- 
 ton, and half of them are run by men not registered." The 
 Commission does not refute this charge, but apparently in- 
 dorses it. That these " dummy drug-stores," as they are 
 called, are allowed to exist shows to what extent the law 
 is unenforced. In addition to the bars of various kinds, 
 Lewiston has six " drinking clubs." 
 
 The liquor-dealers themselves allege that they have to 
 pay for the immunity they enjoy in selling, and outsiders 
 say openly that of course the barkeepers have their friends 
 who protect them. The police apparently restrict their 
 efforts to seizures of liquor in transit, but seizures are often
 
 ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY. 
 
 69 
 
 evaded by having the goods shipped to Farmington and 
 returned to Lewiston. Nevertheless, the interference of 
 the officers cannot be said to check the trade. ^ Most of the 
 raids by the police are directed against the kitchen bars. 
 
 SALES OF THE LEWISTON LIQUOR AGENCY. 
 Tears. Amount. Years. Amount. 
 
 1880 $5,.5-25.84 1S87 .^0,202.40 
 
 1881 5,625.47 1888 10,:30().49 
 
 1882 ..... 0,822.49 1889 9,766.35 
 
 1883 5,943.66 1890 15,105.46 
 
 1884 7,542.64 1891 10,575.13 
 
 1885 10,164.64 1892 11,710.63 
 
 1886 8,255.67 
 
 The statistics of arrests are of little or no value as de- 
 termining the sobriety in the city. It is not improbable 
 that intemperance is more common now than it was ten 
 years ago, but not to the extent that the statistics of arrest 
 would seem to show. The number of arrests was 53 in 
 1882 and 2G5 in 1892, or 2.7 and 12.4 respectively per 
 1,000 inhabitants. The largest number of arrests in a 
 single year during a period of thirteen years was 469 in 
 1890, or 21.6 per 1,000 inhabitants. In 1883 no less than 
 14 persons out of a total of 65 arrested were classed as 
 common drunkards. In 1892, with over four times as 
 many arrests (265), not a single individual was reckoned a 
 common drunkard. The ratio of seizures during the period 
 1880-92 did not increase in proportion to the arrests for 
 drunkenness. So far as could be observed, the police are 
 lenient with intoxicated persons. But it should be said 
 
 1 Under date of July 8, 1895, a prominent citiz(>n of Lewiston •writes: 
 "The liquor traflic is simply run in the interest of the Republican party 
 here, and under their administration no notice whatever is taken of it, 
 other than the occasional raiding of some old woman's kitchen or the 
 spasmodic seizure of a wagon load of beer. While there are sixty-three 
 liquor-dealers paying special tax (as retailers), there are more than three 
 times that number of sellers who make no attempt at concealment of the 
 same. These things are so well known that it is scarcely a matter of 
 comment."
 
 70 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 that the force is too small to cover the city properly. 
 Probably the fluctuations in sales at the city liquor agency 
 do not indicate strict enforcement, since there is no reason 
 to believe that liquor has ever been sold with greater free- 
 dom than now, and still the sales at the agency maintain 
 very high figures. The common supposition that it is sim- 
 ply another " legalized rumshop " seems to have foundation. 
 Auburn enjoys the singular distinction of being tlie only 
 city in Maine in which no liquor is sold for tippling pur- 
 poses, unless at the agency. Its proximity to Lewiston 
 accounts for this condition — only a short bridge interven- 
 ing between them. 
 
 AROOSTOOK COUNTY, 
 
 Until recent years the vast region included in Aroostook 
 County has been regarded as a wilderness, and the greater 
 portion of it remains such to-day. Its 6,800 square miles 
 of territory contain only 49,589 inhabitants, chiefly settled 
 along the border of the State from south to north. More 
 than one half of them are of foreign birth or parentage. 
 Whole towns, like Fort Kent and Frenchville, are popu- 
 lated almost exclusively by French Canadians, not a single 
 American name appearing in the list of town officers and 
 business men. Others are occupied by immigrants of other 
 nationalities. With a heterogeneous and scattered popula- 
 tion, it is not strange that the liquor traffic should flourish 
 nearly unchecked. The number of United States special 
 liquor taxes (sixty-five in 1894-95) is conclusive evidence 
 on this point, but these by no means represent the extent 
 of the traffic. Despite the vigilance of federal officers, 
 many sell without a license. The long stretch of border 
 offers excellent facilities for smuggling, and the necessity of 
 transportation over the railroads from the interior of the 
 State is thus partly obviated. Setting aside the plantations 
 and unorganized places and taking only the towns, we find
 
 FRANKLIN AND HANCOCK COUNTIES. 71 
 
 that 17 of these, with a total jDopulation of 25,075, contain 
 special liquor tax payers, as against 19, having 13,540 in- 
 habitants, in which no such taxes are paid. The unusually 
 large number of liquor tax payers in the more important 
 centres, notably Caribou 16, population 4,087, Houlton 20, 
 population 4,015, and Presque Isle 5, population 3,046, are 
 especially significant. 
 
 FRANKLIN COUNTY. 
 
 The total absence of large villages has simplified the 
 question of enforcing the liquor laws in Franklin County. 
 Extensive tracts are still but sparsely inhabited ; in fact, 
 the census shows a distinct loss in population for the whole 
 county. The characteristics noted for Farraington apply 
 more or less to all of the villages. Within a year the 
 number of persons paying the United States tax has been 
 increased by five (twelve in all in 1894-95). In Kingfield, 
 Strong, and other places some illicit traffic is known to 
 exist. While probably less spirits are sold in this county 
 — in some places none — than in any other, and it thus 
 shows as encouraging results from prohibition as any, it is 
 also the best illustration of how far it is possible to force 
 complete obedience to the law under the most favorable 
 circumstances. 
 
 HANCOCK COUNTY. 
 
 Hancock is one of the seven counties in the State in 
 which the prohibitory law is allowed to slumber. In so far 
 as the county officials bestir themselves, the repletion of the 
 treasury from the fines collected appears to be the prime 
 motive. Generally the law remains inoperative. 
 
 A prohibitive regime at Bar Harbor and the other water- 
 ing-places in the county would not only be resented by 
 visitors, but would perhaps prove disastrous financially to 
 those who derive much profit from the large summer popu- 
 lation. Hence the summer hotels at Bar Harbor are, as a
 
 72 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS KESULTS. 
 
 rule, let severely alone. At the end of the season occa- 
 sional raids are made, and the remaining stock, very small, 
 of course, is confiscated. The extent to which the law is 
 violated at Bar Harbor is indicated by the number of 
 United States special tax payments (twenty-five in 1894— 
 95). So long as the hotel-keepers are practically assured 
 of non-interference, the officials cannot very well prevent 
 the existence of dramshops pure and simple. Except at 
 the summer resorts, Hancock County offers conditions not 
 unfavorable for a prohibitory law. The foreign element of 
 the population forms an insignificant part, nor is there a 
 single seaport of prominence. The only place designated 
 as a city is Ellsworth, a retrogressive place with a popula- 
 tion of 4,804 in 1890. The city limits extend over an 
 area of 53,000 acres, equal to the area of the city of New 
 York, and it includes three villages and many farms. Ells- 
 worth proper has a population of scarcely more than 2,200 
 inhabitants, but contains 14 bars and four other places 
 (apothecary shops) where liquor is sold, or one to about 
 219 inhabitants. The traffic is but ill concealed ; the dealers 
 no longer fear expulsion, but only fines accompanied perhaps 
 by more or less unpleasant raids. Gambling was going on 
 in several saloons visited by the writer. 
 
 KENNEBEC COUNTY. 
 
 In Kennebec County prohibition has to meet conditions 
 not unlike those in Androscoggin County. There is a large 
 foreign population living in cities with extensive manufac- 
 turing interests. Of the 57,012 inhabitants, 12,712, or 22 
 per cent., are foreign-born or of foreign parentage — nearly 
 all French Canadians employed in the mills, or as lumber- 
 men. Kennebec is one of the counties where the law is 
 enforced for revenue only ; that is, seizures are made for the 
 purpose of collecting fines to defray county expenses. Local 
 officials are occasionally elected with the understanding that
 
 KENNEBEC COUNTY. 73 
 
 they must suppress the sale of liquor, but they have not 
 effected any permanent improvement. 
 
 Augusta, the capital of the State, supports 50 places 
 where liquor is sold by persons paying the United States 
 tax, including the drug-stores, of which there are 11, the 
 hotels, eating-houses, and ordinary saloons ; also 12 kitchen 
 bars, most of them situated along the water-front in the 
 French Canadian quarters. This gives a total of 62, or one 
 to about 170 inhabitants, according to the census of 1890. 
 In the very house where the liquor laws passed at the 
 State House are said to be made, the law is broken, and 
 that, it is said, by the very men who vote for every pro- 
 hibitory amendment. The local express companies help to 
 swell the flood of liquor by taking orders for so small a 
 quantity as one quart at a time. One company, however, 
 does not deign to accept orders for less than five gallons. 
 A former city marshal owns one of these express lines. It 
 is commonly asserted that the dealers *' stand in " with the 
 officers of the law. One dealer made the sententious re- 
 mark, " You don't suppose the officers would be such fools 
 as not to touch me up." Still, men are chosen for office 
 on the pledge that they will rid the city of liquor-selling. 
 It is not difficult for them to keep up a semblance of activ- 
 ity. A city marshal may, for instance, carry on a spas- 
 modic warfare against dealers of the opposite political faith, 
 while he shields those of his own. Or should the exigen- 
 cies of the moment demand that his party associates also be 
 punished, he may confine his operations to seizures, and, at 
 a later date, return the liquor seized to its owners. These 
 things have been done in Augusta, private honor and public 
 trust being sold as merchandise in all matters concerning 
 the prohibitory law and its execution. 
 
 At Gardiner, a few miles below Augusta, on the Kenne- 
 bec River, liquor is sold possibly with still more freedom. 
 The practice of serving liquor by the glass is more common
 
 74 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 at the drug-stores. A dealer of whom inquiry was made 
 estimated the number of places where spirits are served at 
 19. There are 20 special liquor tax payers. It is a con- 
 servative estimate that in Gardiner there is one liquor shop 
 to about 274 inhabitants. 
 
 In Hallowell, situated between Augusta and Gardiner, 
 conditions are not perceptibly better. In Waterville the 
 number of United States special liquor tax payers (twenty- 
 three in number in 1894-95) does not fairly represent the 
 extent of the liquor trade, A personal count of the places 
 where liquor is sold (including hotels, apothecary shops, 
 kitchen bars, and common saloons) gives a total of about 
 thirty-five, or one to a little more than 200 inhabitants. 
 Saloons may be found occupying some of the best sites on 
 the principal street of the city, some of which serve exclu- 
 sively the " gentlemen trade." While the traffic is pro- 
 tected, bribery is said to be less common here than in other 
 cities. An instance was related by a trustworthy person 
 illustrating the temptation to embark in liquor-selling for 
 the great profit in it. One man approached an official and 
 asked his permission to open a bar for six months. The 
 immediate answer was, " What will you give ? " The man 
 promised one half of the profits. Mutual fear prevented 
 the closing of the bargain at that time, but the man owns 
 a saloon to-day. The proportion of saloons to inhabitants 
 in the cities of Kennebec County does not admit of the sup- 
 position tliat the anti-saloon sentiment is common or very 
 active ; nor is it possible that they could exist in such 
 number without the patronage of the rural population. 
 The truth is that the liquor business is overdone in these 
 places. Many dealers find it difficult to pay the periodical 
 fines and to meet the other expenses of the traffic. If we 
 add up the population of the cities and towns paying 
 United States special liquor taxes and those that pay none, 
 we get a total of 34,994 " wet " as against 22,018 for the
 
 KNOX COUNTY. 75 
 
 towns reckoned as " dry," or about 60 per cent, of the 
 whole population of the county. 
 
 KNOX COUNTY. 
 
 Counties with a large seafaring population- are rather un- 
 congenial to prohibitory legislation. Knox County is such 
 a one, but it harbors only a few foreigners. The law is 
 enforced as it is in Penobscot County. When the saloons 
 become too bold, or upon the advent of some strong prohi- 
 bitionist new to the city (usually a clergyman), a period of 
 liquor war ensues. The result is a temporary suspension 
 of the business. During the progress of the present in- 
 vestigation many raids were made in Rockland at the insti- 
 gation of the clergy. What effect they had may be judged 
 from a single instance. In the week of June 17, 1894, 
 one of the principal hotel bars was raided twice, but it 
 continued to do a lively trade, and was patronized almost 
 exclusively by the well-to-do citizens. It is a conservative 
 estimate that liquor is sold at about forty-five places in 
 Rockland. One drinking-place to 171 inhabitants is there- 
 fore the average for this city. Rockland bears all the marks 
 of a locality in which intemperance is common and not 
 confined to any particular class. The viciousness of the 
 lower drinking element is greater here than was observed 
 elsewhere. The relations of the liquor-dealers to ofiicials 
 charged with the enforcements of the law are in many re- 
 spects similar to those noted in other cities. Protection is 
 not always given gratis, yet conditions are better than, for 
 instance, in Augusta and Lewiston. Men who cannot be 
 bought with money may be bribed by votes. More than 
 one attempt at continued enforcement has been frustrated 
 by the intimation tl)at if the officer did not '' let up," he 
 could expect no further favors at the hands of the voters. 
 This kind of intimidation is practiced not only by liquor- 
 dealers, and it could never prove effective unless it repre- 
 
 1^
 
 76 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 sented strong public sentiment. For several years there 
 has been no change of city marshals. Presumably, there- 
 fore, the same methods have obtained with regard to arrests. 
 Supposing that the city is better policed than it was ten 
 years ago, there is still reason to believe that intemperance 
 has increased. So far as could be learned, the police are 
 not very strict about making arrests for drunkenness. 
 Their inactivity in arresting liquor-sellers also is plainly 
 shown by statistics for the years 1885-93. In 1893 only 
 ten persons were arrested for illegal selling, while 236 were 
 charged with drunkenness, not to mention those held in 
 " safekeeping," of whom the greater number were intoxi- 
 cated. No town in Maine, except the seashore resorts, has 
 so many liquor-shops in proportion to the inhabitants as 
 Camden, where no less than twelve persons paid the United 
 States special tax in 1893, or one to about 206 inhabitants.! 
 In ten out of sixteen towns in Knox County liquor is sold. 
 The towns which are presumably free from the traffic con- 
 tain only 5,494 inhabitants of the total of 31,473, or 17 
 per cent. Under such circumstances wholesome results 
 from prohibition cannot be looked for. 
 
 LINCOLN COUNTY. 
 
 Lincoln County offers singularly favorable conditions for 
 the, enforcement of a prohibitory law. Its population is 
 nearly all of one race and religion ; only 480 persons are 
 recorded as of foreign nativity. But here, as elsewhere, 
 the payment of United States special taxes (18 in 1894-95) 
 offers much prima facie evidence of intent to sell. It may, 
 however, be said in extenuation of some of the towns, 
 notably of Boothbay Harbor and Wiscasset, that they are 
 summer resort towns ; and as if by common consent, viola- 
 tion of the statutes at places where summer guests abound 
 
 1 In 3894 only five persons paid special taxes ; a period of enforcement 
 had set in.
 
 OXFORD AND PENOBSCOT COUNTIES. 77 
 
 is overlooked. Whether liquor is sold to a greater extent 
 than indicated by the special taxes paid is not known. 
 
 OXFORD COUNTY. 
 
 Oxford County is by many regarded as the most encour- 
 aging field for the study of the benefits of prohibition. Its 
 remoteness from the great highways of commerce, its homo- 
 geneous population, and almost exclusively agricultural 
 pursuits offer exceptional facilities for the enforcement of 
 prohibitory laws. Except in the new manufacturing village 
 of Rumford Falls, comparatively few United States licenses 
 were paid in the county in 1894-95. From memoranda 
 furnished by persons in the trade, it appears that liquor is 
 sold in the following towns which in 1893 were without 
 United States liquor tax payers. In Paris (population 
 3,156, with 4 villages) at three places ; in Fryeburg (pop- 
 ulation 1,418, with 6 post-oliices) at three places; in An- 
 dover (population 740) at two ; in Bryant's Pond (in the 
 town of Woodstock, with a population of 859) at one ; in 
 Oxford (population 1,455) at one. 
 
 The 13 towns in which it is known that the liquor traffic 
 still exists contain 15,873 inhabitants as against 14,713 in 
 the 22 towns and 4 plantations where, so far as can be as- 
 certained, the law is obeyed. In some of the many towns 
 bordering on New Hampshire the opportunity for bringing 
 liquors into the State is unusually good ; but notwithstand- 
 ing the many assertions to the contrary, there seems no valid 
 reason to believe that it is habitually used on a large scale. 
 
 PENOBSCOT COUNTY. 
 
 Every effort to induce or force obedience to the liquor 
 laws in Penobscot County has met an imrelenting and, in 
 the end, victorious opposition, which has not restricted its 
 operations to the populous centres only. The city of Ban- 
 gor, however, and other large places determine the issues
 
 78 PKOHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 for the rest of the county, and therefore these require special 
 consideration. Bangor, a seaport of some magnitude, with 
 a large lumber industry but no other manufacturing inter- 
 ests of importance, had in 1890 a population of 19,103, of 
 which 3,471 were foreign-born, generally from the provinces. 
 During the season for lumber-drives, the floating population 
 is greatly augmented by men of the drinking class. It is 
 not recorded that the local officials have expended much 
 energy for any length of time in efforts to stamp out the 
 traffic. The sure reward of such action would be defeat at 
 the polls or failure of reappointment. In the seventies, a 
 county sheriff fought the liquor element persistently with 
 every means in his power. The trade was temporarily 
 driven into dark places and partly crippled, but drink-selling 
 still flourished, and with it intemperance. This officer is 
 reported to have said that nothing could induce him again 
 to pass through such an ordeal. Later attempts at enforce- 
 ment by means of special officers appointed by the governor 
 were attended by similar results. One of these officers has 
 declared that he found the municipal officials and the public 
 arrayed against him, and soon relinquished the odious task. 
 The number of United States special liquor taxes paid by 
 residents of Bangor in 1894-95 was 146, including those 
 for a wholesale business. 
 
 A police official estimated the number of regular liquor- 
 shops at 150, to which must be added about 40 kitchen 
 bars. If the total be only 185, this gives one liquor-shop 
 to about 100 inhabitants — an indication that the liquor 
 business is overdone. Many engaged in it find it difficult 
 to eke out a subsistence and collect the sums needed to pay 
 the periodically recurring fines. Liquor agents complain 
 that " collections are hard " in Bangor. The saloons are, 
 of course, run openly without any attempt at disguise. 
 Many are on the principal thoroughfares, and the operations 
 at the bars may often be viewed from the sidewalk. Ex-
 
 PENOBSCOT COUNTY. 79 
 
 cept for the absence of gilded signs and the usual show 
 window, there is little to distinguish them from saloons in 
 license cities. The ordinary saloons are naturally subjected 
 to certain police regulations ; thus they are required to close 
 at ten p. m., to refrain from Sunday selling, and otherwise 
 to observe general decorum. So long as they do this, per- 
 fect immunity can be relied upon. The owners are occa- 
 sionally reminded of the fact that they are lawbreakers by 
 notices to appear in court and pay fines ; these, however, are 
 levied with no thought of enforcement, but simply to meet 
 county expenses. But for this one circumstance, no greater 
 odium would attach to the liquor traffic in Bangor than in 
 any other city. As a matter of fact the public, as well as 
 the dealers themselves, have grown so accustomed to the pay- 
 ment of fines that it is -regarded merely as a business incident. 
 In certain respects the saloons in Bangor present a sharp 
 contrast to those in Portland. They are more orderly, do 
 not tolerate the presence of minors or children, and are not 
 such perpetual abodes of the vicious. In general they con- 
 form pretty well to the police regulations. Notwithstand- 
 ing all that has been said, the police are still much occupied 
 with violations of the liquor laws. In 1893, for instance, 
 the arrests on the search and seizure warrants numbered 
 sixty -five — or more, proportionately, than in some cities 
 where the police are supposed to carry on war against all 
 who sell liquor. This unexpected activity can easily be 
 accounted for. The numerous kitchen bars are the most 
 disorderly, and sell " after hours " and on Sundays. For 
 such off'enses they are raided, the liquor confiscated, and 
 the owners taken before the courts. Not infrequently 
 some of the regular dealers come under the ban, and are 
 similarly dealt with. Diligent search for any evidence 
 showing that the police in Bangor extort money for pro- 
 tection of the Illicit trafiic resulted in the conviction that 
 they do not, nor can political bribery well be resorted to.
 
 80 
 
 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 A candidate openly pledged to enforcement would not be 
 considered eligible. 
 
 Were it necessary to dwell furtber on tbe unique posi- 
 tion held by the bars in this city, outlawed though they be, 
 it is enough to say that they cater to the very element in 
 the community whose active support is a conditio sine qua 
 non of their suppression. While some of the evils con- 
 nected with non-enforcement are less glaring than in Port- 
 land and other cities in the State, the demoralizing effect of 
 the toleration of open rebellion against the law is obvious. 
 That the operations of so many saloons cause much drunk- 
 enness is unavoidable. But the actual amount of it, as 
 compared with other places, remains a matter of conjecture. 
 The statistics indicate an unusually high rate of arrests. 
 In 1884 they were 19.2 per 1,000 inhabitants; 1885, 41.3; 
 1886, 44.6 ; 1887, 47.4 ; 1888, 48.1 ; 1889, 48.4 ; 1890, 
 49.4 ; 1891, 53.4 ; 1892, 48.4 ; 1893, 64.0. During the 
 months of log-driving the number of arrests takes a sudden 
 upward leap. Men thus employed, coming to the city 
 from certain provinces, are almost without exception heavy 
 drinkers. So far as could be observed, there was not so 
 much public intoxication in Bangor as in Portland. 
 
 Since all the apothecary shops sell liquor, some of them 
 by the glass, the need of a liquor agency in Bangor is not 
 quite apparent, except it may be that a number of persons 
 with strong principles refuse to purchase from shops not 
 legalized. Prom the appended figures showing the trans- 
 actions of the agency for a number of years, it is a safe 
 conclusion that it in part occupies the same field as the non- 
 legalized liquor-shop. 
 
 SALES OF THE BANGOR LIQUOR AGENCY. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 1884 
 188.5 
 1886 
 1887 
 1888 
 
 Amount. 
 
 $9,021.80 
 
 7,404.42 
 
 8,427.47 
 
 12,-384.1.5 
 
 1.5,563.61 
 
 Year. 
 1889 
 1890 
 1891 
 1892 
 1893 
 
 Amount. 
 
 114,600.43 
 . 1,5,734.66 
 . 10,498.79 (10 mos.) 
 . 12,713.71 
 . 13,169.93
 
 PISCATAQUIS COUNTY. 81 
 
 Other cities in the county follow the example of Bangor 
 in their manner of dealing with the liquor traffic. In 
 Brewer, just across the river, 7 United States liquor tax 
 payers were found in 1893; Orono, 7 miles north, with 
 only 2,790 inhabitants, had 6. The city of Oldtown, 12 
 miles from Bangor, counted 26. But it must not be in- 
 ferred that these places allow liquor-selling to go on un- 
 checked at all times. For instance, in Oldtown the traffic 
 was carried on at about 40 places, counting the kitchen bars, 
 until the last of February, 1894. The mayor then coming 
 into office had been elected to enforce the prohibitory law. 
 By persistent effort he closed the bars, and at the time of 
 this investigation it was said that very little liquor was sold. 
 As a lumber city Oldtown is frequented by large numbers 
 of the drinking class, who greatly increase the difficulties of 
 enforcement. 
 
 Of the sixty-two cities, towns, and plantations in the 
 county, liquor is sold, according to the United States Rev- 
 enue Records of 1894, in twenty-five, which include all the 
 principal centres and contain 48,970 inhabitants, or 67 per 
 cent, of the whole. Presumably the illicit traffic is even 
 more extensive. Not every individual who sells pays the 
 United States special tax. As we already know, other coun- 
 ties influenced by the example of Penobscot have adopted 
 the same methods of evading the law. No severer blow 
 has been dealt prohibition than the methods successfully 
 pursued by the city of Bangor. 
 
 PISCATAQUIS COUNTY. 
 
 Only the southern portion of the large tract (3,780 square 
 miles) embraced in Piscataquis County can be regarded as 
 settled. The existence of United States special tax payers 
 in no less than four of the unorganized places indicates a 
 wider violation of the law than local statistics show, espe- 
 cially in the lumber regions. It is only proper to say that
 
 82 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS KESULTS. 
 
 the many sportsmen and summer visitors who frequent the 
 county help to reduce the effectiveness of the prohibitory 
 law. About one eighth of the population are foreign-born 
 or of foreign parentage. 
 
 SAGADAHOC COUNTY. 
 
 Scarcely any part of the small county of Sagadahoc is 
 free from the liquor traffic. In the city of Bath, which 
 contains nearly one half of the tofal population, the sale 
 was for many years practically unrestricted until the month 
 of June, 1894. The sheriff's officers persistently refused to 
 meddle with the Ijquor element, because they said that this 
 duty properly belonged to the city police and the mayor. 
 But in 1894, after a good deal of pressure upon the mayor, 
 two special liquor officers were appointed. They began 
 their duties by notifying seventy-two dealers, owners of 
 common saloons, hotels, apothecary shops, kitchen bars, and 
 eating-houses, to cease selling. Many obeyed the order, 
 saying, however, " We are waiting till the storm blows 
 over," or, " till we can make a deal." Others continued, 
 some selling only beer because they feared a seizure of the 
 more costly liquors ; others selling only distilled spirits be- 
 cause of their smaller bulk. About forty places were still 
 doing business some weeks after the new period of enforce- 
 ment set in, but more secretly than before. The largest 
 number of saloons in operation were found in the poorer 
 sections along the water-front. The apathy of the police 
 can be explained only on the ground that the traffic is not 
 unprofitable to them. This is the general understanding. 
 They manifested their lack of sympathy with the new re- 
 gime, it is alleged, by making fewer arrests, although visi- 
 ble drunkenness increased when enforcement was decreed. 
 With nearly the same number of inhabitants to each place 
 where liquor is sold, one would naturally expect as high a 
 percentage of arrests in Bath as in Bangor. But this is far
 
 SOMERSET AND WALDO COUNTIES. 83 
 
 from being the case, as the following figures show : Arrests 
 in 1884, 19.9 per 1,000 inhabitants; in 1885, 17.8; 1886, 
 14.0; 1887, 18.7; 1888, 21.7; 3889, 23.9; 1890, 22.9; 
 1891, 19.4 ; 1892, 21.4 ; 1893, 20.4. The remarkable dis- 
 crepancy may be partly attributable to the large floating 
 population of Bangor, and partly to the lax police methods 
 in Bath. 
 
 SOMERSET COUNTY. 
 
 The prohibitory law is enforced in Somerset County after 
 the Penobscot model. With regard to Skowhegan, the 
 number of United States special tax payers (12 in 1894— 
 95) does not represent the extent of the traffic. The low- 
 est estimate fixes the present number of dramshops at 
 twenty-five. Skowhegan has a large French Canadian pop- 
 ulation. The officials show no disposition to enforce the 
 law except for the sake of collecting fines to pay county 
 expenses. The relation of the police to the lawbreakers is 
 said to be the same as noted in other cities. The town of 
 Fairfield, two miles from Waterville, has six post-offices 
 and ten United States liquor tax payers. In the village 
 proper six ordinary bars were counted. Numerous kitchen 
 bars are said to exist in the quarters along the river bank 
 populated by French Canadians. In the plantations liquor 
 is sold with even more freedom than in the towns. In 
 Jackmantown, for instance, there was in 1893 one special 
 tax payer to fifty-four inhabitants ; Sandy Bay had one to 
 thirty-one inhabitants. For the whole county, it may be 
 said that the liquor law is inoperative. The places where 
 liquor is sold contain 21,629 inhabitants, or 66 per cent, of 
 the total population. 
 
 WALDO COUNTY. 
 
 Waldo County is one of the several counties which show 
 a distinct decrease in population. Outside the city of Bel- 
 fast there are few United States special tax payers. In
 
 84 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 Belfast there is one. liquor tax payer to about 481 inhabit- 
 ants. The city is noted for its numerous sarsaparilla fac- 
 tories. Much of the " medicine " contains sufficient alcohol 
 to produce drunkenness, and is habitually used in remote 
 districts as a stimulant. Indeed, in many parts of the State 
 various preparations sold under such names as " Morning 
 Glory Bitters," " Beef, Wine, and Iron," and various kinds 
 of " Sarsaparilla " have alcohol as the principal ingredient, 
 and are used as a substitute for whiskey. On the whole it 
 cannot be said that the liquor law is vigorously enforced in 
 this county. 
 
 WASHINGTON COUNTY. 
 
 In response to inquiries relative to the workings of the 
 prohibitory law in Eastport, the following was received 
 from a well-known attorney : " The law is not strictly or 
 constantly enforced. I think drunkenness may have l)een 
 on the decrease during the past ten years. Kitchen bars, 
 closed bars, and places where liquor is served in one form 
 and another number possibly from forty to fifty. There 
 may be some reason to believe that liquor-dealers have paid 
 officials for protection, but the proof is wanting ; it is a fact 
 that danger signals are displayed Avhen any squall of en- 
 forcement approaches this section." Another gentleman 
 equally well known, while stating that the law is not con- 
 tinually or strictly enforced, does not admit that there are 
 any places where liquor is sold. Yet in 1894-95 twenty- 
 two United States special liquor taxes were paid by resi- 
 dents of Eastport, or one to 224 inhabitants. The town of 
 Brookton has an unusual number of special tax payers in 
 proportion to its size. In the towns along the Canadian 
 border liquor is smuggled, for the remoteness of many of 
 the towns and the imperfect means of communication 
 render a vigilant enforcement of the law impossible.
 
 YORK COUNTY. 85 
 
 YORK COUNTY. 
 
 In York County the enforcement of. the prohibitory law 
 is difficult. There are a number of popular seaside resorts ; 
 two cities and one town with large manufacturing interests, 
 employing thousands of persons not natives ; and seven 
 towns bordering on New Hampshire. Of the 9,965 persons 
 of foreign birth in the whole county, not less than 6,290 
 are found in the city of Biddeford alone. But however 
 little sympathy with prohibitory legislation is displayed by 
 them, they cannot bear the Avhole responsibility for the 
 liquor traffic in this city. 
 
 What has been said relative to the conditions under 
 which the illicit traffic is carried on in Portland, and the 
 various results observed, applies with equal force to Bidde- 
 ford. It is stated that there is always more intoxication 
 visible in the streets during a time of so-called enforcement, 
 since malt liquors are then not so easily obtained, and 
 many have to content themselves with '' split." 
 
 The city of Saco bears the same geographical relation to 
 Biddeford as Auburn to Lewiston, yet is by no means free 
 from liqiior-selling. 
 
 At Old Orchard the law is grossly violated, especially 
 during the summer season. Much gambling is said to be 
 connected Avith the illegal sale. Within a year the number 
 of persons paying the United States special tax has in- 
 creased from thirteen to eighteen. Among others, a whole- 
 sale liquor-dealer from Boston has embarked in the " drug 
 business." 
 
 In Sanford the operatives employed in the large plush 
 mills, who are nearly all of foreign extraction, are said to 
 oppose every attempt at enforcing the law. 
 
 The places in the county in which liquor is sold, as 
 shown by United States special tax payments, contain 
 35,717 inhabitants, or 56 per cent, of the total population.
 
 86 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 GENERAL SUMMARY. 
 
 According to the special United States tax payments the 
 liquor traffic exists in eighty-seven places in Maine, contain- 
 ing 407,925 of the 661,086 inhabitants of the State, or 
 about 61 per cent. It may be said that the mere existence 
 of one liquor tax payer in a town of, say, nearly 2,000 in- 
 habitants, scattered over thousands of acres, does not prove 
 that most of the towns do not enjoy the advantages of a 
 generally enforced prohibitory law. The ready answer to 
 this is that by no means do all dealers pay the United 
 States tax. An ex-deputy collector of internal revenue 
 states that in 1890, 956 persons paid this tax in Maine, 
 and adds, " but I have always figured that there were 500 
 more who ought to have paid, but who did not." At 
 every session of the United States Circuit Court, says the 
 presiding judge, from eight to ten cases are tried for viola- 
 tion of the United States revenue law ; that is, for failure 
 to pay the special tax. The stricter tlie enforcement of 
 the law, the less willing are the dealers to pay the tax, and 
 thus furnish evidence against themselves. A falling off in 
 the number of special liquor tax payers does not therefore 
 necessarily indicate a proportional decrease of the traffic. 
 Furthermore it should be remembered that many towns 
 without special tax payers are adjacent to liquor centres, so 
 that the law puts not the slightest barrier to obtaining 
 liquor. 
 
 Without considering the activity of express companies 
 and other carriers, it remains a conservative statement, 
 however unwelcome it may be, that more than two thirds 
 of the population of Maine are not living under an enforced 
 prohibitory law, and that more than one half live in towns 
 and cities where the liquor traffic is practically unrestricted, 
 so far as the opportunity for procuring drink is concerned. 
 
 What has been said about the prevalence of liquor-selling
 
 GENERAL SUMMARY. 87 
 
 in Maine to-day would have held true years ago. Statistics 
 compiled from the reports of the Commissioners of Internal 
 Revenue show that, in proportion to the population, the 
 dealers were numerically about as strong in 1881 as in 
 1894. The increase of special tax payers beginning with 
 1879 is probably due to a better organized revenue service 
 rather than to the general neglect of state officials in enfor- 
 cing the law. The enthusiastic sentiment in response to 
 which prohibition was made constitutional in 1884 did not 
 have the force to deter more than one thousand men from 
 defying the Constitution by paying the annual liquor tax 
 to the United States government. No better success at- 
 tended the act of 1887, which made the payment of the spe- 
 cial tax prima facie evidence of intent to violate the law. 
 Direct evidence of the considerable proportions of the liquor 
 trade in Maine is found in the large number of men who, in 
 violation of law, travel about soliciting orders for wholesale 
 houses. In addition to the agents of local firms, there are 
 between thirty and forty representing liquor houses in Boston, 
 New York, and Western cities. They are found everywhere, 
 even seeking customers in remote towns with a sparse popu- 
 lation. Many of them are permanent residents, nor are they 
 inimical to the prohibitory law as now enforced. 
 
 Both the extent of the traffic in Maine and the difficulty 
 of enforcing prohibition are made evident by the following 
 totals of prosecutions in the several counties, compiled 
 from the returns of the attorney -general. Still, these rep- 
 resent but a part of the liquor cases annually tried, and 
 the immense legal machinery put in operation to secure 
 obedience to this one law. Only the cases coming up 
 before the superior courts and justices of the supreme 
 court on circuit are included in these totals. I>ut in many 
 instances, as we know, cases are tried and settled before 
 municipal judges or trial justices, and consequently do not 
 appear in the returns for the whole State.
 
 88 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 NUMBER OF PROSECUTIONS IN THE STATE INSTITUTED 
 BEFORE THE SUPREME JUDICIAL AND SUPERIOR 
 COURTS, AND PROPORTION OF CASES FOR VIOLATION 
 OF THE LIQUOR LAWS, 1877-1894. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Whole Number. 
 
 Liquor Cases. 
 
 1877 
 
 3,473 
 
 2,010 
 
 1878 
 
 1,2.50 
 
 676 
 
 1879 
 
 942 
 
 475 
 
 1880 
 
 963 
 
 496 
 
 1881 
 
 1,200 
 
 765 
 
 1882 
 
 1,173 
 
 785 
 
 1883 
 
 1,343 
 
 789 
 
 1884 
 
 1,445 
 
 982 
 
 188.5 
 
 1,409 
 
 945 
 
 1886 
 
 1,107 
 
 732 
 
 1887 
 
 No reports. 
 
 - 
 
 1888 
 
 No reports. 
 
 - 
 
 1889 
 
 1,231 
 
 819 
 
 1890 
 
 1,132 
 
 726 
 
 1891 
 
 1,103 
 
 819 
 
 1892 
 
 1,.569 
 
 1,156 
 
 1893 
 
 2,092 
 
 1,327 
 
 1894 
 
 2,294 
 
 1,444 
 
 A reading of this table leads directly to two conclusions : 
 (1) That but for the liquor cases the criminal docket in 
 Maine would be reduced to less than one half of its present 
 proportions ; and (2) that the legal forces employed are 
 not sufficient to stop liquor-selling. The first year given 
 shows the greatest number of prosecutions, but it is by no 
 means clear that the efi'ect was to administer even a tem- 
 porary check to the illicit traffic. Penobscot County was 
 the chief offender in that year. One searches vainly through 
 the statistics in detail for any evidence to show that bring- 
 ing offenders against the liquor laws to justice has materi- 
 ally lessened tlieir number in a single county. It should 
 again be remarked that the number of cases do not, in all
 
 GENERAL SUMMARY. 89 
 
 instances, represent so many individuals. One person may 
 often be tried on two or more indictments.^ 
 
 The next table, also compiled from the records of the 
 attorney-general, should be read in connection with the 
 foregoing. The sentences imposed by municipal courts and 
 trial justices, and not appealed from, do not appear in the 
 figures. Still, the majority of offenses are tried on indict- 
 ment, or appeals from the decisions of the lower courts, 
 so that most of the sentences imposed find a place in the 
 returns. 
 
 NUMBER OF THE PERSONS SENTENCED, AND THE PRO- 
 PORTION SENTENCED FOR VIOLATION OF THE LIQUOR 
 
 LAW, 1882-1894. 
 
 For Violating 
 
 Years. Whole Number. Liquor Law. 
 
 1882 538 39G 
 
 1883 654 447 
 
 1884 670 492 
 
 1885 618 428 
 
 1886 553 364 
 
 1887 No reports. 
 
 1888 No reports. 
 
 1889 519 323 
 
 1890 589 366 
 
 1891 584 380 
 
 1892 675 522 
 
 1893 894 696 
 
 1894 1,037 714 
 
 1 The following is from an editorial article in the Portland Argus of 
 June 28, 1895 : — 
 
 "At the INIay term of the Supreme Judicial Court for York County, 
 Clerk Hervey reports the ' disposition ' of sixty indictments for liquor- 
 selling. In these sixty cases just six convictions were made, and fines of 
 a hundred dollars and costs imposed. In twenty-four cases 'nol pros.' 
 was entered on the docket. Twenty-four other cases were 'continued,' 
 and some 'filed.' In six cases action was discontinued because the wit- 
 nesses are dead. In at least two cases occurs the entry ' no such person ' 
 against the name of the party accused. We fancy that the York County 
 record is not singular ; and that in other counties in Maine cases liave 
 been continued until the witnesses have died, — perhaps of old age."
 
 90 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 The number of individuals sentenced is of course much 
 less than would seem from the figures, each person being 
 counted once for every sentence imposed on him. During 
 one year a person in Cumberland County Avas convicted on 
 thirteen counts for violation of the liquor law^s, and was 
 sentenced that number of times. This was a rare exception, 
 but it frequently happens that the name of the same indi- 
 vidual is counted three times in one year, except in the 
 counties where the law is hardly enforced at all, or for rev- 
 enue only. 
 
 A comparison of the number of sentences imposed and 
 the number of liquor cases tried is interesting. Taking the 
 last four years, it is found that of 819 cases tried in 1891 
 sentence was imposed in only 380, or 46 per cent. ; in 1892, 
 1,159 cases, and 522 sentences, or 45 per cent. ; in 1893, 
 1,327 cases and 696 sentences, or 52 per cent. ; in 1894, 
 1,444 cases and 714 sentences, or 49 per cent. 
 
 There is no reason to believe that the courts deal with 
 liquor cases otherwise than on their merits. The discrep- 
 ancy between the number of persons brought to trial and 
 the number finally convicted must therefore be explained on 
 general grounds, although it seems natural, as has commonly 
 been asserted, that juries are not so willing to bring in a 
 verdict of guilty in liquor cases as in others. 
 
 With regard to the penalties imposed, a great variety is 
 observed in the diiferent counties. Taking only the year 
 1892, when the law still deprived the courts of all discre- 
 tion in liquor cases, most of the persons convicted in An- 
 droscoggin County were fined from $25 to $200, or impris- 
 oned from one to six months. In Cumberland County the 
 fines ranged from $11.99 to $830.48, the majority exceed- 
 ing $200. Most of the indictments were made under the 
 nuisance act, and thus the necessity of imposing imprison- 
 ment in addition to the fine was obviated. In Kennebec 
 County fines running considerably lower than in Cumber-
 
 GENERAL SUMMARY. 91 
 
 land were the common punishment. In Knox County the 
 nuisance act was taken advantage of, and the average fine 
 placed at $110. The same was true of Penobscot, Wash- 
 ington, York, and some other counties. Only in Hancock 
 were the dealers made to suffer both fine and imprisonment. 
 At present imprisonment is rarely resorted to in any county 
 except in default of payment of fines and costs. A dispo- 
 sition unfavorable to imposing the severest penalties of the 
 law is thus manifest. In Maine the rule has been, the 
 more unrelenting the liquor law, the fewer convictions 
 under it. Except in Cumberland County, relatively few 
 dealers have gone to jail from inability to pay fines. Not 
 infrequently wholesale dealers in Boston and elsewhere 
 help them out or aid in defraying the expenses of litigation. 
 The state liquor commissioner holds a peculiar position 
 in the prohibitive community, and the ofiice is an important 
 part of the institutions which have grown up under the 
 prohibition law. The law requires that he shall make an- 
 nual returns of his business to the governor and council, 
 and that they shall be published in the newspapers. As a 
 rule, very incomplete statements were handed in, reporting 
 the quantities of liquor of various kinds sold to the differ- 
 ent agencies and the total sum received for them, witliout 
 further details. Sometimes no statement was made, as in 
 1889 and 1892, and only on rare occasions were his reports 
 published — for thirteen years only once. The office is one 
 of the greatest if not the greatest " plum " in the State. 
 It is understood to be worth from $8,000 to $10,000 a 
 year. By those in the liquor business it is " rated " much 
 higher than these figures. It is a part of the political ma- 
 chine, and its occupant must contribute liberally to the 
 campaign funds. Formerly the commissioner was allowed 
 a percentage on tlie sales, but now he receives a salary and 
 must pay a seven per cent, commission to the State. A 
 few words are necessary to explain how, in spite of this
 
 92 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 arrangement, the office became such a rich reward for polit- 
 ical service. On being appointed to the place the commis- 
 sioner asked for offers to supply liquors. Agents for vari- 
 ous liquor houses made their bids, promising him a certain 
 percentage for the privilege of supplying the state liquor. 
 
 One cannot in reason expect that the liquor supplied by 
 the state agent should be either pure or cheap, nor can it 
 be wondered at that unsavory practices are in vogue among 
 city and town agents also. To cite a single example : one 
 city agency sold a brand of whiskey at $4.50 per gallon, of 
 which the original cost was $1.80 ; of the $4.50, $1 was 
 given to the Democratic City Committee, $1 to the " drum- 
 mer " who had sold the liquor, and the remainder was taken 
 care of by the local agent. 
 
 The office of liquor commissioner has been made the sub- 
 ject of legislative action forced by the scandals connected 
 with it. A semiannual auditing of the commissioner's ac- 
 counts by a committee composed of members of the gov- 
 ernor's council is now required, as well as inspection and 
 analysis of all liquors furnished for the State. The new act 
 leaves the supervision of the affairs of the commissioner to 
 the same body of men who were formerly charged with it. 
 On the petition of " ten or more well-known tax-payers " a 
 town liquor agency may be closed if its affairs be found to 
 be conducted in violation of the law. 
 
 An idea of the magnitude and growth of the state liquor 
 " business " may be obtained from the following tables. 
 Reports for 1889 and 1892 have not been made. 
 
 Malt liquor and wines are not included, and they do not 
 enter largely into the sales.
 
 GENERAL SUMMARY. 
 
 93 
 
 TRANSACTIONS OF THE STATE LIQUOR COMMISSIONER. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Quantity of Liquor Sold. 
 
 Value. 
 
 Gallons. 
 
 Dozen Pints. 
 
 1887 
 1888 
 1890 
 1891 
 1893 
 
 8,651 
 30,226.44 
 30,106 
 21,892 
 34,348.80 
 
 66 
 299 
 
 277 
 179 
 697 
 
 $19,872.40 
 75,91.5.24 
 76,388.59 
 57,974.65 1 
 
 130,812.29 
 
 KINDS AND QUANTITY OF LIQUOR SUPPLIED BY THE 
 STATE COMMISSIONER TO THE AGENCIES AT 
 
 
 Portland. 
 
 BiDDEFORD. 
 
 Leaviston. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Whiskey. 
 (Galls.) 
 
 Rum. 
 (Galls.) 
 
 Whiskey. 
 (Galls.) 
 
 Rum. 
 (Galls.) 
 
 Whiskey. 
 (Galls.) 
 
 Rum. 
 
 (Galls.) 
 
 1887 
 
 792 
 
 938 
 
 690 
 
 316 
 
 131 
 
 173 
 
 1888 
 
 222 
 
 3320 
 
 1890 
 
 885 
 
 397 
 
 184 
 
 1890 
 
 2337 
 
 1472 
 
 1599 
 
 648 
 
 1230 
 
 801 
 
 1891 
 
 2628 
 
 1406 
 
 2076 
 
 657 
 
 3592 
 
 259 
 
 1892 
 
 7586 
 
 5981 
 
 4145 
 
 1297 
 
 1104 
 
 325 
 
 While much alcohol is purchased in Maine for use in pre- 
 paring intoxicating drinks, it is reasonable to suppose that 
 most of the alcohol sold through the agencies is used for 
 mechanical and medicinal purposes ; not so with whiskey 
 and rum. 
 
 By the second table it appears that not far from two 
 quarts of whiskey and rum per capita of the population in 
 Portland was furnished by the state agent in 1893. 
 
 1 During seven months of the year. The total sales for 1891 represent 
 S;99,815.
 
 94 PROHIBITION IN MAINE AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 How far prohibition has fostered sobriety in Maine must 
 be inferred from the manner of its enforcement and the ex- 
 tent of the illicit traffic. The question is at bottom one of 
 consumption, not whence come the supplies, and how they 
 are delivered to the customer ; but data of consumption are 
 unattainable, although positive statements relative to its 
 amount are as frequent as they are untrustworthy. Fur- 
 thermore, in measuring the benefits of prohibition, a com- 
 pletely unregulated traffic cannot be taken as a standard of 
 comparison. Neither can it be taken for granted that the 
 good results of a prohibitory regime in semi-rural communi- 
 ties are due to prohibitory legislation. In Massachiisetts, 
 for instance, the number of towns outlawing the saloon, 
 previous to the enactment of the local option law, far ex- 
 ceeded the number of towns in Maine where, at the same 
 time, prohibition Avas partially enforced. And there are 
 other considerations to be weighed carefully. 
 
 The fact that prohibition has so long had a place on the 
 statute books, and latterly in the Constitution, has fostered 
 a feeling of security detrimental to the cavise of temperance 
 pure and simple. Men in sympathy with the aim of pro- 
 hibition complain that the temperance work which formerly 
 reached the masses has degenerated into meetings for politi- 
 cal purposes, or that the agitation for abstinence has become 
 a cry for police and detective methods. The identification 
 of great temperance organizations with party politics has 
 crippled their influence as popular moral agents, however 
 much it may have aided the election of officials chosen for 
 prohibitory purposes. 
 
 As to the relation of politics to prohibition, it is a perti- 
 nent remark that " politics have a double effect in Maine, 
 weakening the opposition to the law itself as well as weak- 
 ening its enforcement." In other words, whether to win 
 favor or because of fear, many men assume a friendly atti- 
 tude toward the law in which they disbelieve. The ques-
 
 GENERAL SUMMARY. 95 
 
 tion of enforcement depends mainly on political exigencies, 
 which, again, depend on the state of public opinion. A 
 fuU-bloAvn hypocrisy must result from this method of deal- 
 ing with prohibition. iSTowhere is it so blatant as in the 
 legislative halls, where men lend their votes in support of 
 restrictive measures of which they not only disapprove but 
 violate openly and even grossly. The corrupting influence 
 of a large social element thriving in defiance of all law needs 
 no further elucidation ; bribery, perjury, and official dis- 
 honor follow it. 
 
 1894.
 
 THE HISTORY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 The First General Assembly of Iowa, in 1846, passed an 
 act embodying the principle of local option. The electors 
 in each county were directed to vote for or against the 
 granting of licenses by the county commissioners ; the re- 
 sult was almost unanimously against the retail traffic ; 
 only one county cast a majority in its favor. At first this 
 action of the people at the polls ''seemed to put a slight 
 check on the liquor traffic : some grocery-keepers quit the 
 business, while others sold commodities and gave away 
 liquor." But it was rumored that the law was uncon- 
 stitutional ; and, about the time it was to be enforced, an 
 adverse decision upon a similar statute by the Supreme 
 Court of Pennsylvania ^ caused the Iowa law to become a 
 dead letter. Many counties reversed their former vote and 
 authorized the county commissioners to give licenses, but 
 even under these circumstances some commissioners refused 
 to do it. Accordingly petitions in favor of the repeal of 
 local option and for the enactment of a prohibitory law in 
 its stead were presented to the legislature of 1850. 
 
 The Code of loAva, approved in 1851, contained a chapter 
 on the " Sale of Intoxicating Liquors," which began with 
 the declaration that, although the traffic was not prohibited, 
 " the people of this State will hereafter take no share in 
 the profits." It forbade the retailing of liquors by the 
 glass, and declared dramshops to be public nuisances, and 
 was in effect a prohibitory law, though it assumed not to 
 be such. 
 
 1 Sec Barr's Pennsylvania State Reports, vol. vi. pp. 507-529, Parker 
 V. Commonwealth.
 
 EARLY PROHIBITIVE EFFORTS. 97 
 
 The law was not satisfactory either to the prohibitionists 
 or to the anti-prohibitionists of that day. The Democratic 
 governor, in 1852, suggested its repeal, and the substitu- 
 tion for it of " a judicious license system." The prohibi- 
 tionists, on the other hand, had secured between four and 
 five thousand signatures to a petition for the enactment of 
 a stronger law ; but their bill failed to pass. 
 
 In 1854 the Whig party incorporated in its platform a 
 resolution declaring for a law prohibiting the manufacture 
 and sale of ardent spirits within the State as a beverage, 
 which was the first appearance in Iowa of prohibition as a 
 political issue. The Whigs elected their candidate for 
 governor that autumn by a majority of 1,823. This year, 
 however, the original prohibitory law was repealed, and an 
 act passed " for the suppression of intemperance." This 
 was in substance the famous " Maine law." It provided 
 for the sale of liquors by county agents, " for medicinal, 
 mechanical, and sacramental purposes only," but " foreign " 
 liquors could be sold by importers in the original packages. 
 Cider and wine made from fruit grown by the maker could 
 also be sold in quantities not less than five gallons. Being 
 submitted to the people at the April election in 1855, it 
 was approved by a majority of 2,910. The validity of the 
 new act was disputed, on the ground that its submission 
 was unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court held that, 
 although the popular vote in its favor was of no effect, the 
 act was a complete act and became a law by its adoption 
 by the General Assembly and approval by the governor. 
 
 At about this time the questions growing out of the ef- 
 fort to extend the territorial area of slavery began to assume 
 alarming prominence. The early settlers of Iowa were 
 strongly anti-slavery in their sentiments. The State had 
 been decidedly a Democratic State till 1854, when it became 
 Whig, and in 1856 Republican. There was, however, a 
 German population, disposed to vote with the opponents of
 
 98 THE HISTORY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 slavery, but to which prohibition was repulsive. Accord- 
 ingly, to propitiate them and to secure their adhesion to the 
 new Republican party, the General Assembly, in 1856, 
 passed a supplemental act designed to relax the rigor of ab- 
 solute prohibition. By this act the manufacture of cider, 
 wine, ale, and beer was authorized without restriction. 
 Other provisions required the county judge in any county, 
 on the petition of one hundred voters, to order a vote taken 
 at any election on the question of license, and if a majority 
 appeared in its favor he was authorized to grant licenses 
 for the sale of malt, spirituous, and vinous liquors. 
 
 This act was held by the Supreme Court to be unconsti- 
 tutional, on the ground that it " attempted to abrogate the 
 uniform operation of a law general in its nature " and to 
 " provide for licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors in 
 any county, not by virtue of an act of the legislature passed 
 into a law, but by a vote of the majority of the people of 
 such county expressed at the polls," which was " in effect 
 the repeal of one law and the enactment of another by a 
 vote of the people, ... a plain surrender to the people of 
 the law-making power." The court said that " the prohi- 
 bitory liquor law is a law of a general nature, and its opera- 
 tion must be uniform throughout the State." 
 
 In 1856 the General Assembly abolished the county 
 agent system, and allowed any citizen not a hotel-keeper, or 
 keeper of a saloon or eating-house, to sell " intoxicating " 
 liquors " for mechanical, medicinal, culinary, and sacra- 
 mental purposes only," if furnished with the required legal 
 certificate to his citizenship and good character. Ko com- 
 mon carrier nor other person was permitted to bring liquor 
 into the State, unless first furnished with a copy of this cer- 
 tificate. A supplemental act in 1857 defined intoxicating 
 liquors to mean " all spirituous, malt, and vinous liquors." 
 By this act the manufacture of cider or wine from fruit 
 grown " by the manufacturer " was authorized.
 
 THE POLITICAL PARTIES AND PROHIBITION. 99 
 
 In 1858, to suit the Germans, the law was so modified 
 as to exclude from the definition of intoxicating liquors beer 
 and domestic wine. The manufpcii'./e; o^/lDeer ^ti^i ^lithor- 
 ized, also of wine from fruit grown f' in the .State ," . .With 
 the passage of this act the''fir.st'',peric?d;'of',p'J(i^iHitiW'm 
 Iowa came to an end. The beer and wine saloon was 
 now recognized as a legitimate institution. It is to be 
 observed that this was a concession to the foreign element 
 in the population of the State, and that it was made for 
 purely political reasons. The sale of beer was regarded 
 by the party in power as a less evil than the risk of defeat 
 at the polls, and the consequent possible inclusion of Iowa 
 with the States which might, for the sake of peace, con- 
 sent to the extension of the area of slavery. This was, 
 evidently, the controlling consideration which secured the 
 passage of the measure. An additional motive of minor 
 importance was the desire to encourage foreign immigra- 
 tion. An immigration association held the title to vast 
 tracts of land in the northwestern portion of the State, 
 and had persuaded the legislature to make an appropriation 
 for the payment of immigration agents, who circulated in 
 Germany and Sweden documents setting forth the adapta- 
 bility of Iowa soil for the growth of barley and grapes. 
 
 In 1859 the prohibitory law, even with this concession, 
 was attacked by the Democratic State Convention as " incon- 
 sistent with the spirit of a free people, unjust and burden- 
 some in its operations, and wholly useless in the suppression 
 of intemperance." In 1866 the party demanded the repeal 
 of the law. In 1867 it avowed itself in favor of a " well- 
 regulated license law ; " in 1869 it pronoimced the Maine 
 law "a disgrace to the statutes of Iowa." During all this 
 time no other party took any position on the question. 
 The Republicans ignored it ; the Prohibition party had not 
 yet come into being. The struggle for prohibition, on the 
 one hand, and for a general license law (with or without
 
 100 THE HISTORY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 local option), on the other, went on, for a dozen years or 
 morej in the General Assembly, with no very important 
 legislat:te Tesult. .' The Civil War and the problem of "re- 
 construction " absorbed a large portion of the political en- 
 ergiW'of ^h's jiedpie hi the "State. In 1862 the principle of 
 liability, on the part of the owner of premises used as a 
 dramshop, for damages growing out of the traffic, was in- 
 corporated in the statutes. The liquor-dealers of the State 
 had by 1867 come to have $2,000,000 invested in the 
 trade. The House committee on the suppression of intem- 
 perance, while it was for prohibition in sentiment, yet 
 admitted that " intemperance has steadily and alarmingly 
 increased during the past five years," and attributed the 
 fact largely to the Civil War. The Liquor Dealers' Asso- 
 ciation had raised by assessment a fund to be employed in 
 fighting the law. That association made itself responsible 
 for taking the liquor question into state partisan politics, 
 by the adoption of the following resolution in 1866 : — 
 
 "Resolved, That at the coming election we willsupport.no 
 candidates for state or county offices who do not pledge them- 
 selves in writing to favor the repeal of the prohibitory liquor 
 law and the enactment of a judicious license law in its stead, 
 but will do our utmost to defeat the candidates opposed to said 
 measures, regardless of party issues." 
 
 The answer to this challenge was a petition with 40,000 
 signatures for prohibition, and an act empowering incorpo- 
 rated towns and cities under special charters to " regulate 
 or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors not prohibited 
 by state law," including beer and wine, and to "impose 
 a tax on such sale." 
 
 In 1870-71 the Avarring factions compromised upon a 
 local option measure, which was subsequently held by the 
 Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. 
 
 The struggle continued, with various changes in the law, 
 till 1874-75, when the prohibitionists concluded that the
 
 THE RISE OF THE PROHIBITIONISTS. 101 
 
 time had arrived for independent party action. They met 
 in convention. They scored the Democrats for favoring 
 license, and the Republicans f«r TEfiisirig >to adopt," a reso- 
 lution opposed to the repeal of the proliibitory laW. They 
 declared that "the temperance BeoMe<ot loiva ;are,: by this 
 action of these political parties, forced to seek the promo- 
 tion of their objects by such organizations and combina- 
 tions as may prove most effective for the success of the 
 temperance cause, without reference to previous political 
 affiliation." They then put a ticket of their own in nomi- 
 nation and cast at the next election 1,397 votes. No im- 
 mediate legislative result followed. But in 1877, the 
 Democrats having proposed that the moneys received for 
 liquor licenses should be paid into the school fund, the 
 new party declared that the evil of intemperance "has 
 long since assumed a political form, and can never be elimi- 
 nated from politics until our legislatures and courts accom- 
 plish its entire overthrow and destruction." At the fol- 
 lowing election it polled more than 10,000 votes. The 
 situation was serious, and the politicians took the alarm. 
 In 1878 the Republicans resolved that " personal temper- 
 ance is a most commendable virtue in a people, and the 
 practical popular movement now active throughout the 
 State for the promotion of temperance has our most pro- 
 found respect, sympathy, and approval." That year, the 
 Republican candidate for secretary of state was elected, 
 in spite of a fusion between the " Greenbackers " and 
 Democrats, but by a margin of only 8,000. From this 
 moment it became the most ardent wish of the Repub- 
 lican party leaders to get the temperance question " out of 
 politics." 
 
 It is impossible to write the history of prohibition in 
 Iowa without perpetual reference to the political aspects of 
 the controversy. This is because it in turn affected party 
 action and was affected by it ; the two were inseparable.
 
 102 THE HISTORY OF PKOHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 It might almost be entitled an account of an episode in the 
 history of the Republican party. The course of the Demo- 
 cratic pvirty was •leso;i^fi,ucnved, for the obvious reason that 
 its attitude to ■ prohibition' was determined by its funda- 
 meofaj ipdUticR-I^fconVictialis. ;The Republican party had, 
 as 'such, nb'convictioiis oil the subject; it temporized with 
 the movement, sought to take advantage of it, and to re- 
 strain it within bounds. It was indifferent or hostile to it, 
 when it was weak ; subservient, when dangerous. But it 
 would be unjust to suppose that the only forces at work 
 during this memorable period were ambition and self-in- 
 terest. Political trickery and hypocrisy in the methods 
 pursued were strangely blended with sincere and noble 
 aims. To the ardent friends of prohibition their cause 
 represented the triumph of the spiritual over the animal 
 elements in human nature ; it represented self-control and 
 self-denial, the abolition of drunkenness, the salvation of 
 the drunkard and his family, the deliverance of their own 
 and their neighbors' posterity from the blight of an ungov- 
 ernable appetite, and therefore the decline of pauperism, 
 vice, and crime. The opponents of prohibition, in so far 
 as they were actuated by principle, regarded the attempt to 
 create habits of sobriety by coercion as a threat, unjustifi- 
 able in itself and perilous to human freedom. They espe- 
 cially detested the cowardice and falsehood which led so 
 many men to profess prohibition principles and indulge in 
 secret potations, the fanaticism which pretended that the 
 use of alcohol was in itself sinful, and the moral confusion 
 of ideas which transferred the responsibility for its use from 
 the purchaser to the man from whom he bought it. 
 
 The campaign of 1877, at which the third party cast 
 10,000 votes, thereby putting John H. Gear, the Repub- 
 lican candidate for governor, in the mortifying position of 
 receiving G74 fewer votes than the combined opposition to 
 him, is locally known as the " Jessup " campaign, because
 
 THE PROHIBITORY AMENDMENT. 103 
 
 Dr. Elias Jessup was the Prohibition candidate for gov- 
 ernor. Only the year before the Republicans had had a ma- 
 jority of 50,000 over all opponents. Governor Kirkwood's 
 majority in 1875 had been 30,000. The Republicans had 
 most to lose and were in greatest danger. Accordingly in 
 1879 they '' hailed with pleasure the beneficent work of 
 reform clubs and other organizations in promoting personal 
 temperance," and, " in order that the question of prohibition 
 may be settled in a non-partisan manner," they favored the 
 submission to the people, at a special election, of a constitu- 
 tional amendment prohibiting the manufacture and sale of 
 all intoxicating liquors. The Democrats were " desirous of 
 promoting temperance, and, being opposed to free whiskey, 
 in favor of a judicious license law." The General Assembly 
 in 1880-81 adopted a joint resolution proposing this amend- 
 ment to Article I. of the State Constitution, and referring 
 it to the succeeding General Assembly : — 
 
 " No person shall manufacture for sale, or sell, or keep for 
 sale, as a beverage, any intoxicating liquor whatever, including 
 ale, wine, and beer. The General Assembly shall by law pre- 
 scribe regulations for the enforcement of the prohibition 
 herein contained, and shall thereby provide suitable penalties 
 for the violation of the provisions hereof." 
 
 Vigorous opposition was made to the resolution, but to 
 the mass of arguments arrayed against it the Republicans, 
 with few exceptions, made no reply, except to declare that 
 they were bound by their pledge, and to pass the resolution. 
 
 When, in 1882, this amendment again came up for rati- 
 fication by the General Assembly, the Brewers' Association 
 submitted a written protest asserting that there were then 
 about 140 breweries in the State, malting 250,000 barrels 
 of beer annually, and that the amount permanently in- 
 vested in the business was about $4,000,000 — a very 
 extravagant estimate. An unsuccessful attempt was marie 
 to secure from the House Judiciary Committee a report
 
 104 THE HISTORY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 whether the adoption of the amendment would involve the 
 State in the payment of damages sustained by the owners 
 of property used for the manufacture of spirituous, malt, 
 and vinous liquors. At that time there had just been 
 built, at Des Moines, the International Distillery, owned 
 by Mr. John S. Kidd and not a member of the Western 
 Export Association (commonly known as the " Whiskey 
 Trust"). The city of Des Moines had agreed to exempt 
 this property from taxation for five years. The Senate 
 adopted an explanatory resolution (which could have no 
 legal effect), declaring that the prohibitory amendment 
 would apply to domestic traffic only, but place no restric- 
 tion upon the manufacture of liquors for export. It is 
 somewhat significant that the prohibitionists in the Senate 
 voted for this resolution. 
 
 The prohibitory amendment was voted upon at the gen- 
 eral state election in June, 1882, when it was adopted by 
 a majority of 29,759. The vote for secretary of state at 
 the same election showed a Republican plurality of 38,185. 
 The total number of votes on the amendment, compared 
 with the total cast for all candidates for secretary of state, 
 shows that 11,171 voters refused to go on record for or 
 against the amendment. Nevertheless it received 6,385 
 more votes than the Republican candidate, and the majority 
 in its favor exceeded his majority by 23,941. Undoubtedly 
 many Republicans abstained from voting or voted against 
 the amendment. It is probable that it received some Demo- 
 cratic votes; but the figures do not, upon their face, sup- 
 port the theory subsequently advanced by Republican anti- 
 prohibitionists, that it was carried by Democratic votes, 
 insincerely cast, Avith the design to throw the odium of its 
 passage upon their political adversaries. 
 
 The governor issued his proclamation announcing the 
 adoption of the amendment. The liquor interest, however, 
 did not propose to yield without a struggle. In various cases
 
 THE DAVENPORT CASE. 105 
 
 tried by the inferior courts the claim was made that the 
 amendment itself was unconstitutional. What is known as 
 the " Davenport " case,^ which was a test case, both parties 
 being hostile to the amendment, Avas tried before the Dis- 
 trict Court in Scott County, and the decision was adverse to 
 the amendment. The case was carried to the Supreme Court, 
 where the arguments turned on the wording of the reso- 
 lution of submission as adopted by the General Assembly. 
 The resolution as passed by the House did not verbally 
 correspond to the resolution as passed by the Senate and 
 voted on by the people. It was contended by the adver- 
 saries of the amendment that this disagreement was such 
 a want of conformity to the method prescribed in the Con- 
 stitution for its own amendment as to render the proceed- 
 ing null and void ; and in an elaborate opinion, rendered 
 January 18, 1883, the Supreme Court sustained the objec- 
 tion. 
 
 The consequence of this decision was an agitation which 
 shook the State from the centre to the circumference. 
 The State Temperance Alliance and the State Temperance 
 Association joined in a call for a State Prohibition Con- 
 vention. This convention formulated a request to the 
 governor to call an extra session of the Legislature for 
 the submission to the people of a new prohibitory amend- 
 ment and for the immediate enactment of a prohibitory 
 law. This the governor declined to do, on the ground 
 that the emergency was not such as to constitute " an 
 extraordinary occasion," and that amendments to the Con- 
 stitution cannot legally be proposed save at a regular ses- 
 sion. In the next Republican convention Mr. Kasson, the 
 temporary chairman, said : " In the great and unending 
 debate between the claims of Iowa homes and the demands 
 of Iowa saloons, the Republican party, enlightened by and 
 obedient to the popular verdict rendered just one year ago 
 1 Koehler and Lang (brewers) v. John Hill (a saloon-keeper).
 
 106 THE HISTORY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 to-day, ought not, cannot, and will not take the side of 
 the saloon." Mr. ]\Ianning, in accepting the nomination 
 for the lieutenant-governorship, exclaimed : " Republican- 
 ism means protected homes and firesides, — a schoolhouse 
 on every hill and no saloon in the valley." This last 
 phrase became a national prohibition war-cry. The Dem- 
 ocratic party favored " a well-regulated license law." 
 
 In the campaign which followed, the State Temperance 
 Alliance, with which the State Temperance Association 
 had been consolidated, took a leading part, seconded by 
 nearly all the Protestant churches. The " Third Party " 
 made no separate nominations but supported the Republi- 
 can ticket. 
 
 In the next General Assembly, at " the most exciting 
 session in the history of Iowa legislation," an act, knoAvn 
 as the Kennedy bill, was passed, which was intended to 
 secure total prohibition and to incorporate the prohibitory 
 amendment in the statutes. The Brewers' Association un- 
 dertook to test the validity of the act. The State Temperance 
 Alliance issued an appeal for the formation of auxiliary 
 county alliances throughout the State to aid in its enforce- 
 ment. Many saloon-keepers voluntarily went out of busi- 
 ness. Others were prosecuted. Resistance was made both 
 in and out of the courts. There were mobs and riots at 
 various places during the summer, especially at Burlington 
 and Iowa City. At Burlington an attempt was made to blow 
 up with dynamite the residence of the prosecuting attorney ; 
 a mob threatened a prominent merchant who had filed in- 
 formation against two saloon-keepers. At Iowa City an 
 informer's house was stoned, and a rope left hanging on a 
 lamp-post near by, with a placard bearing the inscription, 
 *' To the informer — death ! " On the day before the trial 
 an attorney for the prosecution was seized, stripped, and 
 his body was coated with brewers' tar ; a mob pursued him 
 to the residence of the magistrate before whom the suit was
 
 DISTURBANCES OF THE PEACE. 107 
 
 brought, and there sought to kill him. This mob broke up 
 the court, held possession of the town for three days, and 
 it was nearly a week before any arrests were made. In 
 Des Moines there was no popular disturbance, but two 
 saloon-keepers, who were forced to close their doors, posted 
 notices, of which one read : " Convicted before guilty. 
 Writ of injunction served on this building to restrain the 
 sale therein of any intoxicating liquors, while no such 
 charge has yet been proven in any court." The other : 
 " Closed by writ of injunction, by virtue of a law passed by 
 a Republican legislature, signed by a Republican governor, 
 issued by a Republican judge, prosecuted by a Republican 
 sheriff, — a hired spy and informer, — served by a Repub- 
 lican deputy sherifi', and sworn to by hirelings." These 
 incidents sufficiently illustrate the temper of the times. 
 
 The first of the notices just quoted was posted by Louis 
 Pritz. The temporary injunction of which he complained 
 was issued September 24, 1884, by the Circuit Court of 
 Polk County, notwithstanding the objection of his attor- 
 neys, who claimed that a temporary injunction was not, 
 upon the showing of the petition in the case, authorized by 
 the statutes of Iowa nor by the rules of chancery procedure ; 
 that the court had no jurisdiction of the matters therein 
 set forth — the same, if true, constituting a violation of the 
 criminal law ; that the defendant was entitled to a trial by 
 jury ; and that the section of the Code under which the 
 suit was brought was unconstitutional, since it assumed to 
 deprive a citizen of liberty and property without due pro- 
 cess of law, and to subject him to punishment by fine and 
 imprisonment summarily, without the intervention of a 
 grand jury or trial by jury according to the course of the 
 common law. An appeal to the Supreme Court was 
 taken. The Supreme Court, in its decision, announced 
 March 17, held that the statute was not contrary to tlie 
 Bill of Rights ; that a temporary injunction might properly
 
 108 THE HISTORY. OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 issue in advance of trial upon the criminal charge ; and that 
 the purpose of such injunction was not to punish the alleged 
 culprit. The action of the lower court was sustained. 
 
 In addition to the resort to violent methods of resistance 
 and the appeal -to the courts, in some counties the boards of 
 supervisors made free use of the power vested in them to 
 grant permits for the sale of liquor for the lawful uses 
 specified in the statute, under the color of which permits 
 liquor was sold for unlawful uses. In other counties the 
 law was openly defied and set at naught by the granting 
 of licenses, presumably by authority of the section of the 
 general municipal incorporation act conferring power upon 
 municipal corporations to regulate or prohibit the sale of 
 liquors whose sale is not forbidden by law — although, 
 under the new act, the sale of all liquors as a beverage was 
 in fact prohibited. The City Council of Keokuk, on the 
 Mississippi River, passed an ordinance, for example, per- 
 mitting the sale of " temperance drinks." Sioux City, on 
 the Missouri Eiver, adopted a " tavern ordinance," under 
 which saloon-keepers were obliged to pay a license fee of 
 $1,000 a year. At a meeting of mayors in Des Moines in 
 December, 1885, Mayor Davis said that Keokuk had, when 
 the act went into effect, sixty-nine saloons, which paid into 
 the city treasury an annual revenue of $14,500. Within 
 sixty days thereafter, owing to the removal of the tax and 
 the withdrawal of municipal control, the number increased 
 to ninety. A fight ensued between the " Law and Order 
 League " and the " Personal Liberty League," in which the 
 latter gained the victory in the local courts. Thereupon 
 the city imposed a $400 license tax, and the number of 
 saloons fell to forty, the annual revenue from which was 
 $16,000. The mayors' convention adopted a memorial to 
 the legislature, one of the statements in which was that in 
 twenty-three cities named, the number of saloons, which 
 before the passage of the act was 8G6, was now 1,436.
 
 THE TRIUMI'II OF THE PROHIBITIONISTS. 109 
 
 The indifference and hostility of the local officers, mu- 
 nicipal and judicial, which rendered the act in so many- 
 counties practically a nullity, and the trouhle and expense 
 to which the friends of prohibition were everywhere put, 
 in order to reap the practical fruit of their victory at the 
 polls and in the legislature, created a demand on the part 
 of some of them for a State Constabulary to initiate and 
 press prosecutions for unlawful sales, even in the rebellious 
 counties ; but there has never been a time when so drastic 
 a remedy has had sufficient popular support in Iowa to ad- 
 mit of its application. One difficulty in the way of the 
 enforcement of the law was the refusal of juries, in many 
 cases, to render a verdict of guilty, even where the evidence 
 for the prosecution was convincing. 
 
 The feeling engendered on both sides by the events 
 above alluded to, and by many other incidents, was intense. 
 It divided friends, neighbors, and even families. It can 
 be compared only to the animosities in the Border States at 
 the outbreak of the Civil War. Both sides prepared for 
 the decisive struggle which occurred in the General As- 
 sembly of 1885-86. That the law had been enforced with 
 some degree of efficiency in certain districts, chiefly rural, 
 was not denied. Of 420 prosecutions initiated in 93 coun- 
 ties, 372 had resulted in conviction. Of 1,085 saloons in 
 certain counties, 701 had been closed. These figures are 
 taken from the report made to the State Temperance 
 Alliance at its annual meeting in January, 1886. The 
 bold resistance made to enforcement had exasperated and 
 augmented the prevalent sentiment in favor of prohibition 
 to a high degree. Money was freely expended by both 
 sides at the election in 1885, the result of which was a 
 decided majority of prohibitionists in both branches of the 
 Twenty-First General Assembly. 
 
 The opposition exhibited its usual courage and persist- 
 ence in the introduction of various license measures, some
 
 110 THE HISTORY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 of which embodied the principle of local option and au- 
 thorized a popular vote on the question by counties or by 
 municipal corporations. All these failed. The majority 
 was determined to find a way, if possible, to make prohibi- 
 tion a reality. The bill finally agreed to was known, from 
 its author, as the Clark bill. In an impassioned speech 
 in its favor, Senator Clark dramatically exclaimed : " I am 
 willing to give up my homestead and every dollar which I 
 possess, to take my wife and sweet children, and to go out 
 into the highway, barefooted, as a beggar, if the sacrifice 
 would shut up these moral sinks of Iowa." It passed the 
 Senate, in 1886, by a vote of 29 to 16, and the House by 
 56 to 43 — a majority of 13 in each branch. It had the 
 effect desired, that of closing the doors of the saloons. 
 The essential features of this act are as follows : — 
 
 " Any citizen of the county may institute proceedings for the 
 abatement of a liquor nuisance in the name of the State, if the 
 district or county attorney refuse or neglect to do so. Evidence 
 of the general reputation of the place shall be admissible for 
 the purpose of proving the existence of the nuisance. 
 
 "If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that the nui- 
 sance complained of actually exists, a temporary injunction 
 shall be granted. The court shall have power to try summarily 
 and punish the party found guilty of violating any injunction 
 granted under such action. 
 
 " The penalty for keeping a nuisance shall be a fine not less 
 than $300 or more than $1,000 ; the jierson convicted to stand 
 committed until the fine and costs are paid. 
 
 " The liquor found on the premises shall be seized and de- 
 stroyed ; and all movable property be removed and sold. The 
 building shall be kejit closed for one year, in order to prevent 
 its occupation for saloon purposes. 
 
 "If the owner of the premises pay all the costs of proceeding 
 and give a bond with sureties, in the full value of the property, 
 conditioned that he will immediately abate the nuisance, and 
 prevent the same from being established or kept therein within 
 the period of one yeai-, the judge may order the premises to be 
 delivered to the owner, and tlie order of abatement is then 
 canceled.
 
 THE CLARK ACT. Ill 
 
 " The finding of intoxicating lic^uors, except on the premises 
 of one legally authorized to sell the same or in a private house, 
 shall be presumptive evidence of illegal sale. 
 
 '' On a second conviction for keeping a liquor nuisance, or for 
 violating the law while under an injunction, the penalty shall 
 be imprisonment in the county jail from three months to one 
 year. 
 
 " Common carriers, or any other person, who knowingly bring 
 into the State for others, or ti-ansport from place to place 
 within the State, any intoxicating liquors without first having 
 been furnished with a certificate under seal from the county 
 auditor of the county to which the licpiors are consigned, certi- 
 fying that the person to whom it is brought is authorized to 
 sell liquors in the county, shall be liable to a fine of iSlOO. The 
 offense shall be held to have been committed in any county of 
 the State through or to which the liquors are transported, or 
 ■within which they are conveyed from place to place. Any 
 peace officer may vinder warrant open any package suspected of 
 containing liquor, either before or while the same is being 
 transported. 
 
 " For all fines and costs or judgments rendered for violation 
 of this act, the personal and real property " [both of the lic^uor- 
 seller and of the owner of the premises used as a dramshop] 
 " shall be liable ; and all such fines, costs, and judgments shall 
 be a lien upon such real estate until paid." 
 
 This bill, as will be seen, embodies three principles, 
 namely, that liquor-selling, contrary to law, is a nuisance ; 
 that it may be proceeded against by injunction and punished 
 as contempt of court ; and that judgments rendered can be 
 collected of the owner of the premises. 
 
 A bill introduced at the same session for the creation of 
 a State Constabulary did not come to a vote. A " phar- 
 macy bill " passed, of which it is necessary to state the 
 leading feature, because it had the result of transferring a 
 large share of the saloon trade to the drug-stores. The 
 Iowa Pharmaceutical Association had long wished a law 
 which " Avould protect an honorable profession from the 
 evils growing out of the indiscriminate sale of intoxicating 
 liquors by so-called druggists." The legislature had created,
 
 112 THE HISTORY OF PKOHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 in 1880, a board of pharmacy commissioners, by whom phar- 
 macists were to be examined and registered ; the keeping 
 of a drug-store by persons not thus registered "was made a 
 misdemeanor. It was made illegal for any licensed or reg- 
 istered pharmacist to retail or sell or give away any alco- 
 holic liquors or compounds as a beverage. For repeated 
 violations he was liable to have his name stricken from the 
 register. But it was no longer necessary for a druggist to 
 secure a permit or to file the returns required by permit- 
 holders. In 1884 this act was materially amended. The 
 obtaining of a permit was again made obligatory ; the appli- 
 cant was required to present to the county board a petition 
 signed by one fourth of the freeholders in his township, town, 
 or ward, and to procure shipping permits, without which 
 common carriers could not deliver liquors to them. They 
 must make monthly returns, in detail, to the county audi- 
 tors, and the returns must be accompanied by duplicate 
 applications executed by each purchaser. These provisions 
 were retained in the pharmacy act of 1886 ; and in ad- 
 dition it was enacted that " pharmacists whose certificates 
 of registration are in full force and effect shall have the 
 sole right to keep and to sell, under such regulations as 
 have been or may be established from time to time by the 
 commissioners of pharmacy, all medicines and poisons, in- 
 cluding intoxicating liquors only for the actual necessities 
 of medicine." 
 
 The operation of these two statutes — the Clark act and 
 the pharmacy act — was precisely what might have been 
 expected. The ease with which proceedings could be 
 instituted in equity against owners of property rented for 
 saloons, and the tremendous eff'ect of injunctions granted 
 against them, rendered it practically impossible for saloon- 
 keepers to hire premises to carry on their business. A 
 general suspension of the saloon traffic was inevitable. 
 Forty saloons closed in Des Moines in a single fortnight.
 
 DKUGGISTS AS LIQUOR-SELLERS. 113 
 
 In Burlington 113 saloons were voluntarily closed in less 
 than a month. The same condition was general through- 
 out the State. If prohibition was aimed exclusively at the 
 saloon, even the enemies of prohibition were compelled to 
 acknowledge that at last it had accomplished its purpose. 
 
 But although this source of supply was shut off, the 
 demand for stimulants was precisely what it had been 
 before the passage of the act. The most immediate, 
 obvious, and respectable source of supply was the drug- 
 stores, which immediately began to do a thriving trade in 
 liquors, purchased ostensibly for medicinal use, but in real- 
 ity to be consumed, if not in the shop, at least at home, as 
 a beverage. In a paper read before the State Pharmaceu- 
 tical Association in March, 1887, Mr. Korman Lichty 
 humorously set forth the embarrassment of the honorable 
 and law-abiding pharmacist in the position in which he 
 found himself, between his customer and the stringent pro- 
 visions of the pharmacy act. " The law of human neces- 
 sity has forbidden the elimination of alcohol from the 
 pharmaceutical laboratory ; and the law of Iowa has made 
 the pharmacist the sole authorized dispenser of this class 
 of poisons. On one side of us is the law, holding aloft 
 a placard inscribed ' Here is the only place where whiskey 
 can be legally purchased ; ' on the other are our patrons, 
 who threaten to take their custom elsewhere, if we refuse 
 to risk the consequences of the violation of law at their 
 request. . . . Many of our customers are in the habit of 
 determining for themselves when they need a cathartic, a 
 tonic, or a sedative. They claim the same right to use 
 their own judgment in regard to liquors. Shall I reply 
 with smiling alacrity to the wants of dyspepsia and bile 
 and malaria, and flatter their victims on their choice of 
 remedies, and then turn to my colicky friend and insult his 
 intelligence or wound his pride by bidding him go and take 
 a dose of cayenne pepper or ginger tea ? "
 
 114 THE HISTORY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 There were druggists whose conscience was not over-sen- 
 sitive ; or the chink of coin was an effective solace for its 
 wounds. Some moved forward the partition which divided 
 the public shop from the prescription case and counter in 
 the rear, thus giving room for the organization of an 
 extemporized and irregular bar, entered, possibly, by a 
 swinging door, to which friends (and strangers who suc- 
 ceeded in disarming suspicion) were freely admitted. Many 
 ex-saloon-keepers opened drug-stores, in which a beggarly 
 array of bottles and jars, with cheap but gaudy chemical 
 liquids and powders, served as a blind ; the real business 
 of the place was carried on in the back room. They hired 
 registered and licensed pharmacists as clerks, or took them 
 into partnership. The anger of the prohibitionists can 
 readily be imagined. As Mr. Lichty truly said : " The fact 
 is that enormous quantities of liquors are sold to consumers 
 in this State by the traveling salesmen of Eastern houses. 
 These agents require no declaration of the purpose for 
 which the liquor is required ; they have no care whether it 
 is to be used for medicine, or whether the purchaser is a 
 minor or in the habit of becoming intoxicated. But the 
 pharmacist is held responsible for it all." The pretense of 
 insuring obedience to the law by requiring druggists to file 
 detailed accounts of their purchases and sales, verified by 
 the original statements of the purchasers " that they were 
 of age, not in the habit of using intoxicating liquors, and 
 did not design using them as a beverage," was farcical in its 
 transparent simplicity. Guests at hotels could order wine 
 or beer for the table on a " pharmacy blank." Fraudulent 
 returns could be filed, without a possibility of the fraud 
 being detected. Fictitious signatures were easily attached 
 to the blanks which customers were supposed to sign, or the 
 amount purchased raised, with or without the connivance 
 of the purchaser. 
 
 But the drug-store was by no means the only source of
 
 OTHER ILLICIT SALES. 115 
 
 supply. Secret and illicit sales were common. The amount 
 of supervision and espionage necessary to prevent them was 
 beyond the reach of municipalities, even where there was a 
 disposition to suppress illicit traffic. The schemes adopted 
 in order to avoid detection were varied and ingenious. The 
 man who went around with a concealed bottle upon his 
 person, and dispensed drinks of the vilest composition in 
 back alleys, was known as a " boot-legger." Few dealers 
 sold openly. They had a store of liquor in one place, from 
 which hidden pipes conveyed it to another, where it was 
 dispensed ; the faucets through which it was drawn were 
 cunningly placed, out of sight, in the most extraordinary 
 places. Or the liquor was in a cellar or sub-cellar, beneath 
 a secret trap-door, and was sent up, on receipt of the price, 
 by means of a concealed hoist or dumb waiter ; or a step in 
 a stairway was so constructed as to lift up, on hinges, and 
 reveal a well-filled glass ; or the glass was sent in through 
 a partition wall by means of a revolving closet. There 
 was no end to these devices, in most of which the customer 
 did not see the man who supplied the liquor, nor the dealer 
 the man who drank it. But there were also open bars in 
 barns and stables ; and mysterious invitations were extended 
 to the thirsty-looking to enter at the front or back door of 
 private dwellings, generally of a mean sort, in the outlying 
 suburbs of the larger towns ; the women in these houses 
 were not always chaste. The practice of " treating " be- 
 came also a popular method of avoiding the necessity for 
 violation of the law. Closets in oftices and counting-rooms 
 were unlocked for the benefit of favored guests, the supply 
 in which had been regularly imported, we may suppose, 
 from outside the State. 
 
 In rural and temperate communities these evils did not 
 exist. The question is whether they would have existed 
 there, under a license law. Some think that they would, 
 others that they would not. But the fact is indisputable
 
 116 THE HISTOEY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 that the open saloon was nearly everywhere wiped out. 
 The anti-prohibitionists said that, in driving the bottle out, 
 the prohibitionists had driven it in. The prohibitionists 
 replied that the abolition of the saloon was a clear gain ; 
 that home drinking would never, under a prohibitory law, 
 become the general rule ; and that the illegal sale of stimu- 
 lants must be suppressed. 
 
 Meanwhile, the breweries were not suppressed. They 
 insisted upon compensation for the pecuniary loss caused by 
 the law. They fought it in the courts upon this ground, 
 and held on, pending the final decision in the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, expecting ultimate reimburse- 
 ment. The case in which this decision was rendered, De- 
 cember 5, 1887, originated not in Iowa but in Kansas. 
 The finding of the court of last resort was in favor of the 
 Kansas prohibitory law. The questions raised in the Iowa 
 cases were very nearly identical. The court held that 
 compensation to brewers and distillers was not necessary. 
 The promulgation of this opinion was followed by an 
 immediate cessation of the manufacture of malt liquors in 
 Iowa. 
 
 The attitude of many prohibitionists to the manufacture 
 of whiskey by the International Distillery at Des Moines 
 had furnished their opponents with much material for sar- 
 castic comment. The distinction between the moral guilt 
 of manufacturing for export and for home consumption is 
 too fine for a plain man to comprehend. Yet there were 
 men with whom the financial argument in favor of man- 
 ufacture for export outweighed the love of ethical consis- 
 tency. The annual product of this distillery was about 
 4,000,000 gallons of alcohol, high wines, and cologne spir- 
 its, in making which it afforded a home market for about 
 1,000,000 bushels of corn, rye, and malt. It fed about 
 4,000 head of cattle. The revenue paid by it into the 
 United States treasury was very nearly $1,750,000, and its
 
 THE INTERNATIONAL DISTILLERY. 117 
 
 pay-roll was more than $126,000 a year. Sales were made 
 either through an agent in the city of New York, or upon 
 orders by mail or telegraph direct from customers. In 
 either event the alcohol was shipped, and a draft drawn 
 upon the purchaser for the amount, which, with bill of lad- 
 ing attached, was forwarded through a local bank. These 
 drafts were, in all cases, drawn upon persons outside the 
 State. Beer was not manufactured in Iowa for export; 
 hence it was asserted that the prohibitory law crushed the 
 brewer but protected the distiller, although, in fact, the law 
 was the same for both. Either could manufacture for ex- 
 port, or for legitimate use (not as a beverage), within the 
 State. But the black smoke from the tall distillery chim- 
 ney was blown into the faces of the friends of the law. 
 Since this distillery was not a member of the Western Ex- 
 port Association, the trust was anxious to close it. Tlie 
 law gave that organization its opportunity. A petition was 
 filed in the Circuit Court by two prohibitionists, asserting 
 that the distillery was a nuisance, and praying for its abate- 
 ment. The judge refused the injunction, but it was granted 
 on an application to the District Court. The Supreme 
 Court of the State issued a supersedeas, suspending the 
 injunction for sixty days, in order to allow the distillery 
 to dispose of its cattle and make the necessary preparations 
 for closing. Meanwhile, the "■ capacity " was sold to the 
 whiskey pool for $80,000 per annum, and the establishment 
 shut down. At the next term of the State Supreme Court 
 a decision was rendered, sustaining the action of the District 
 Court, in which it was held that the manufacture of intoxi- 
 cating liquors for export, for any but the four specified 
 legitimate uses, is in violation of the statute, and that the 
 statute is not repugnant to the Constitution of the State nor 
 in conflict with the Federal Constitution. On an appeal to 
 the Supreme Court of the United States, the consistency of 
 the law with the Federal Constitution was affirmed, in
 
 118 THE HISTOKY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 October, 1888. The property was in the end sold, and 
 converted into a malt-house. 
 
 The closing of this distillery was the occasion of consid- 
 erable dissatisfaction on the part of Republicans who were 
 not zealous prohibitionists, and even of some prohibitionists 
 who did not care to carry on a temperance crusade beyond 
 the borders of the State. The popular disapproval of the 
 methods adopted for the enforcement of the Clark law was 
 very pronounced. It was charged that its enforcement had 
 *' fallen into the hands of a few corrupt constables and their 
 allies, — a few complacent justices of the peace, — and that 
 the prosecutions carried on by them were for private gain 
 and had impoverished the county treasury." There was so 
 much truth in this charge, that some of the worst offenders 
 were, in 1888, indicted. There were also indications of a 
 diminution of the strength of the Republican party at the 
 polls, which many Republicans attributed to its attitude on 
 prohibition. The Republican majority over the Demo- 
 cratic candidate, which in 1881 was 59,984, had fallen in 
 1885 to 6,986 ; while the Republican majority over all 
 other candidates, which in 1881 was 31,858, had fallen in 
 1885 to 5,211. It was therefore said that prohibition had 
 cost the Republican party 25,000 votes. The law of 1886 
 was so much more stringent than that of 1884, that it was 
 supposed by many, especially those who did not very 
 heartily approve of it, to foreshadow further losses in 1887, 
 and this anticipation was realized. 
 
 At the election that year, the anti-prohibition or so- 
 called " Liberal " Republicans in Polk and Marshall coun- 
 ties nominated two independent candidates for the legisla- 
 ture. The Democrats indorsed them, and the " fusion " was 
 partially successful. Mr. A. B. Cummins (the one of these 
 two who was elected) declared himself a Republican, but 
 not a prohibitionist. Early in 1890 an " anti-saloon " 
 Republican conference met in Iowa City, which resolved to
 
 " OKIGINAL PACKAGE HOUSES." 119 
 
 call a general convention of Liberal Repuljlicans at Des 
 Moines in April. Mr. Cummins was made cliairman of its 
 Executive Committee. In 1892 he was elected temporary 
 cliairman of the State Republican Convention, which elected 
 him by acclamation delegate-at-large to the National Conven- 
 tion ; in the Presidential campaign of that year his name 
 was at the head of the electoral ticket. The spectacle of a 
 successful revolt within the party, the election of a Re- 
 publican anti-prohibitionist to the legislature by the aid of 
 Democratic votes, and the subsequent honors paid to the 
 leader of this revolt, substantially encouraged the anti-pro- 
 hibition Republicans, and thus contributed to prepare the 
 way for the events which followed. 
 
 About this time a new method of circumventing prohi- 
 bition was tried, with great temporary success. The liquor 
 interest established " delivery depots " or " original package 
 houses." The Code forbade common carriers to bring 
 liquor into the State without first having been furnished 
 with a certificate, signed by. the proper official, that the 
 consignee was authorized under the law to sell liquor, not 
 to be drunk as a beverage, but for legitimate uses. In the 
 case of Bowman v. The Chicago and Northwestern Rail- 
 road, the United States Supreme Court held that this pro- 
 vision was void, because it was an interference with the 
 freedom of commerce between the States, a matter over 
 which the federal government has, under the Constitution, 
 exclusive jurisdiction. The decision in this case was ren- 
 dered March 19, 1888. 
 
 The Code contained another section, in which it was 
 said : — 
 
 " Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to forbid the 
 sale, by the importer thereof, of foreign intoxicating liquor, 
 imported under the authority of the laws of the United States 
 regarding the importation of such liquors, and in accordance 
 with such laws : Provided, that the said liquor, at the time of
 
 120 THE HISTORY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 such sale by said importer, remains in the original casks or 
 packages in which it was by him imported, and in quantities 
 not less than the quantities in which tlie laws of tlie United 
 States require such liquors to be imported, and is sold by him 
 in said original casks or packages and in said quantities only." 
 
 The section quoted would, under the decision of the 
 Supreme Court, have authorized sales in original packages 
 without any restriction as to the use to be made of the 
 liquor. But the pharmacy act of 1888 formally repealed 
 this section. The constitutionality of such repeal was 
 questioned. Proceedings were instituted against the origi- 
 nal package houses. Such a house was sought to be en- 
 joined in the Superior Court of Keokuk County as a nui- 
 sance, the dealer not being a registered pharmacist nor the 
 holder of a permit from the Board of Supervisors. Tlie 
 court held that beer sold by the case was sold in the 
 original package, and that such sale was protected by the 
 laws regulating interstate commerce ; but that whiskey put 
 up in pint or quart bottles, and packed in boxes or barrels 
 for shipment, if the importer opened the barrels or boxes, 
 took out the bottles and placed them upon a shelf for sale 
 by the bottle, was liable to confiscation ; that the opening 
 of the original package completed the transaction as a 
 matter of interstate commerce ; and that subsequent deal- 
 ings with the liquor were governed by the statutes of Iowa. 
 This case was taken by appeal to the Supreme Court of 
 the State, and was the occasion of a decision (February 7, 
 1889) in which it was held that " when property purchased 
 in another State is transported to this State and there 
 delivered to the purchaser, the transaction, in so far as it 
 is governed by the provisions for the regulation of com- 
 merce between the States, is at an end. The sale and 
 delivery are then consummated, and the property becomes 
 at once subject to the laws which the State has enacted 
 governing its use or disposition." Hence, the sales of both
 
 "THE REIGN OF THE CORK-SCREW." 121 
 
 beer and whiskey, as conducted by tlie defendant, were 
 illegal, and subjected him to punishment for nuisance. 
 
 In the case of Leisey et al. v. Hardin, the plaintiffs, who 
 were brewers in Peoria, Illinois, shipped beer in kegs and 
 cases to an agent at Keokuk, by whom it was sold in un- 
 broken packages as received. The beer was seized. The 
 Superior Court held that the statute forbidding the sale 
 of liquor by an importer in the original package was con- 
 trary to the Constitution of the United States and void. 
 The Supreme Court reversed this judgment, October 4, 
 1889, following the precedent established in Collins v. 
 Hills. Subsequently the Supreme Court of the United 
 States reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of 
 Iowa. Its decision, rendered April 28, 1890, was that 
 Leisey et al. " had the right to import into Iowa beer to 
 be sold in original packages ; and they had the right to 
 sell it, by which act alone it would become mingled in the 
 common mass of property within the State. Up to that 
 time, in the absence of Congressional permission to do so, 
 the State had not power to interfere, by seizure or any other 
 action, in prohibition of importation or sale by the non- 
 resident importer." 
 
 This decision ushered in what was facetiously termed 
 "the reign of the cork-screw." All the old evils of the 
 saloon system returned with augmented violence. Many 
 towns in the State suffered open drunkenness, that had 
 been free from it for years. ^ 
 
 1 See description of the condition of the State, in the decision rendered 
 by Judge Cakhvcll in the United States Circuit Court, E. D. Arkansas, 
 October 31, 1890, in re Van Vliet. "The retail li(iuor trafflc was practi- 
 callj^ reestablished, and in many cases by the most irresponsible and un- 
 suitable persons, who were not citizens of the State and were indifferent 
 to its welfare. Peaceful and quiet communities, from which the sale of 
 liquor had been l)anish('d for years, were suddenly attlicted with all the 
 evils of the liquor tratlic. The seats of learning were invaded by the 
 liquor-vender, and the youth of the State gathered there for instruction 
 were corrupted and demoralized, and disorder, violence, and crime 
 reigned where only peace and order had been known before. The invaded
 
 122 THE HISTORY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 Thereupon Congress passed a bill (introduced by Senator 
 Wilson of Iowa) in the following words : — 
 
 " That all fermented, distilled, and other intoxicating liquors 
 or liquids transported into any state or territory or remaining 
 the'rein shall, upon arrival in such state or territory, be subject 
 to the operation and effect of the laws of such state or territory, 
 enacted in the exercise of its police power, to the same extent 
 and in the same manner as though such liquids or liquor had 
 been produced in such state or territory, and shall not be ex- 
 empt therefrom by reason of being introduced in the original 
 package or otherwise." 
 
 It was estimated that this act closed 15,000 " original 
 package holes " in Iowa. There was scarcely a town in the 
 State in Avhich they had not been opened, between April 
 28, the date of the Supreme Court decision, and July 22, 
 the date of the passage of the Wilson bill — a period of 
 three months, less one week. 
 
 The validity of the Wilson bill was disputed on various 
 grounds, principally because it " could not vivify a dead 
 statute." This point was raised in an appeal from the Cir- 
 cuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas, 
 in re Eahrer. Rahrer was the agent at Topeka of a whole- 
 sale liquor house in Kansas City, Missouri. His attorneys 
 argued that " an unconstitutional act is in legal contempla- 
 tion as though it had never been passed ; the Kansas statute 
 prohibiting the sale of imported liquor was unconstitutional ; 
 if void when passed, it was still void." Furthermore, Con- 
 gress itself, they said, could not allow the States to deter- 
 mine whether or not imported liquor shall be an article of 
 
 communities were powerless to protect themselves. They could neither 
 regulate, tax, restrain, nor prohibit this traffic. The courts held, and 
 rightly so, that the importer and vendor of original packages was not 
 subject to the state law, and that any application of the state law to him 
 would be an invasion of his rights under the Constitution of the United 
 States, until (Jongress, in the exercise of its power to regulate commerce, 
 should withdraw the protecting shield of that instrument from original 
 packages that had reached the State where they were destined for con- 
 sumption or sale."
 
 A DEMOCKATIC GOVERNOR. 123 
 
 commerce; if it could, then it might delegate its entire 
 commercial power to the States. The Supreme Court de- 
 cided that the Kansas prohihitory law was an act within 
 the competency of the State to pass, hut tliat it could not 
 operate to prevent the sale of imported liquor prior to the 
 passage by Congress of the Wilson bill ; that bill, however, 
 removed the impediment to the enforcement of the state 
 laws in respect to imported packages in their original condi- 
 tion, created by the absence of a specific federal statute ; it 
 did not confer upon the State any power which the latter 
 did not already possess, but simply allowed imported prop- 
 erty to fall at once, upon arrival, within the local jurisdic- 
 tion. Upon the publication of this decision, the original 
 package houses of Iowa closed their doors. 
 
 The Republican Convention in 1888 congratulated the 
 people of the State " on the temperance legislation . . . 
 which has given to Iowa the best prohibitory law in the 
 United States. To the credit of the Republican party . . , 
 no backward step has been taken, and none will be taken, 
 on a question so vital to the moral welfare of all our com- 
 munities." It liked this phrase so well, that it said again, 
 in 1889 : " We reaffirm the past utterances of the Repub- 
 lican party of Iowa upon prohibition . . . upon which there 
 should be no backward step." The Democratic Convention 
 arraigned the Republican party " for changing the phar- 
 macy laws, by which a great hardship and gross indignity 
 has been imposed upon honorable pharmacists and upon 
 all the people requiring liquor for the actual necessities of 
 medicine." It again demanded the enactment of a carefully 
 guarded license law, with local option by cities and towns. 
 
 In 1889 the Democratic party nominated for the gov- 
 ernorship Horace Boies, an ex-Republican and an opponent 
 of prohibition. Both parties professed to be strongly op- 
 posed to railway monopoly, and on this subject there was 
 not enough difference between them to justify making the
 
 124 THE HISTORY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 issue prominent. Up to this time the raih-oads had taken 
 an active part in state politics, and had sought protection at 
 the hands of the party in power. The result had rather 
 disappointed them. They therefore claimed to have changed 
 their tactics, determining to keep out of politics and not 
 influence their employees in favor of either party. This 
 change of attitude on their part is said to have contributed 
 to the election of Governor Boies, but he made his canvass 
 as an anti-prohibitionist, everywhere forcing this issue to 
 the front ; and he was elected by a plurality of 1,573 over 
 his Republican rival. ^ 
 
 Mr. Boies's election was regarded as an indication that 
 the prohibition movement had lost favor with the people. 
 It gave fresh courage to the independent or liberal Repub- 
 licans, and rendered it impossible for the party to adminis- 
 ter to them the discipline which it might otherwise have 
 attempted. During the following session of the General 
 Assembly, the anti-saloon Republicans held a meeting in 
 Des Moines, which was presided over by Mr. George E. 
 Hubble, a total abstainer and prohibitionist, who had voted 
 for the constitutional amendment. He had also actively 
 fought saloons in Scott County. But in his opening address 
 he said that the law had been in that county a dismal fail- 
 ure. " The will of the people is against it. The officials 
 elected are hostile to it. Grand juries composed of good 
 men refuse to indict the guilty, in the face of the most 
 overwhelming evidence. Petit juries refuse to convict or 
 to find a verdict for damages in court actions under the 
 law. Two hundred saloons, with open doors and with no 
 effort at concealment, are selling in violation of the law. 
 The City Council of Davenport resorted to the degrading 
 method of evasion by taxing the saloons $100, and per- 
 
 ^ Tliis is the view taken by Demncvats and l)y "railniail" lte]iiilili- 
 cans in Iowa, but not by "anti-monopoly" Kei)iil)licans, who tliink tliat 
 Governor Hoies had the quiet support of the railway corporations; they 
 make a point of his reduced majority when reelected.
 
 THE BREAK-DOWN OF THE LAW. 125 
 
 mitting the sale of * beverages not prohibited by law.' " 
 The resolutions adopted by this convention were strongly 
 anti-prohibition. It declared that " the Republican party 
 cannot justify its further support of the law as a party 
 measure," and urged the General Assembly " so to amend 
 the prohibitory liquor law as to give to communities that 
 desire so to act the power, subject to a minimum license to 
 be fixed by the legislature, to regulate the sale of intoxi- 
 cating liquors through the medium of high license." 
 
 A resolution for resubmission of the constitutional amend- 
 ment which was offered in 1890, both in the House and 
 the Senate, was not adopted ; but the pharmacy act of 1888 
 was repealed, and a substitute for it enacted, Avith many of 
 the offensive features of the former law eliminated. 
 
 It was beginning to be felt by business men of all par- 
 ties that the cost of prosecution under the prohibitory law 
 was out of all proportion to the results attained. An in- 
 vestigation of the records of Polk County showed, for in- 
 stance, that of $90,000 paid out during the first half of 
 1890, one third, namely, $30,451.23, had been paid for 
 criminal expenses, of which $11,121.30 went to the jus- 
 tices, $11,201.33 to constables, $5,524.80 to witnesses, 
 $181 to jurors, and $1,720 to attorneys ; the bulk of this 
 enormous cost was for criminal proceedings in liquor cases. 
 The " State Register," commenting on this state of affairs, 
 said : — 
 
 " At the present rate these justices and constables will have 
 drawn $60,000 within the year, and still be unable to show a 
 single place where they have stopped the illegal sale of liquor. 
 They do not want the illegal traffic suppressed, for they are 
 getting rich by it. The so-called enforcement of prohibition 
 is nothing but a combination to plunder the county treasury. 
 . . . Why have not the liquor-sellers been arrested ? In many 
 instances a single bottle of beer has been put on trial, but not 
 often the men who had it. That lone bottle costs the people 
 of the county seven dollars and a quarter, including fees to 
 witnesses and tasters."
 
 126 THE HISTORY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 The Republican party nevertheless continued for an- 
 other year to utter the same defiant note as in former years. 
 The Democrats in 1891, encouraged by their success at the 
 polls in 1889, ventured to include in their platform a dec- 
 laration for license, omitting the former reference to local 
 option. For this omission they were roundly denounced 
 by the Republicans, who declared : '' We recognize the fact 
 that the control of the next legislature by the Democratic 
 party means state-wide license, and the control of the next 
 legislature by the Republican party means continued op- 
 position to the behests of the saloon power through the 
 maintenance and enforcement of law." This action was 
 not had without strong opposition ; a minority report on 
 the platform was submitted, and rejected by a majority of 
 only 11 votes. 
 
 The Democrats renominated Governor Boies, and elected 
 him in 1891 by a plurality of 8,213 ; the aggregate major- 
 ity against him was 5,024. The Union Labor partj^ cast, 
 at this election, more than 12,000 votes. The aggregate 
 majority against the Republican party was 13,237. 
 
 From 1880 to 1891 the Republicans fell behind, at the 
 polls, by more than 80,000 votes. True, the four years of 
 Harrison's administration were years of Republican losses 
 throughout the Northern States, where prohibition was not 
 an issue. The year 1892 was the year in which Grover 
 Cleveland was a second time elected to the Presidency. 
 In face of that nomination, the Republican State Conven- 
 tion had not a word to say about prohibition. The Repub- 
 lican National Convention had said : " We sympathize with 
 all wise and legitimate efforts to lessen and prevent the 
 evils of intemperance and promote morality." The Repub- 
 licans of Iowa affirmed that this ambiguous declaration was 
 " broad enough and strong enough and all-sufficient as a 
 basis of union," and said : " There is no test of fealty to 
 the national Republican party other than adherence to its
 
 CHANGE OF REPUBLICAN ATTITUDE. 127 
 
 fundamental principles announced in its national plat- 
 form." 
 
 The " Wine and Spirit Gazette " sarcastically observed : 
 " The temperance plank of the platform might with pro- 
 priety have been adopted by any liquor dealers' associa- 
 tion." The State Temperance Alliance issued a circular 
 saying, " As an organization, we cannot, under our con- 
 stitution, continue to support the Republican party." But 
 the majority of 30,000 given by the State of Iowa for Mr. 
 Harrison for President in November was the best evidence 
 of the sagacity of the local Republican leaders. After the 
 result was known, the "State Register" said editorially, 
 " Over 30,000 Republican voters have returned to the fold. 
 If there is any one who deserves credit for this result, it 
 is Mr. A. B. Cummins." 
 
 The Republican convention of 1893 said : " Prohibition 
 is no test of Republicanism." It relegated the whole sub- 
 ject to the General Assembly, " to take such action as it 
 may deem best, maintaining the present law in those por- 
 tions of the State where it is now or can be made efficient, 
 and giving to other localities such methods of controlling 
 and regulating the liquor traffic as will best serve the cause 
 of temperance and morality." The Democratic candidate 
 for governor, Mr. Boies (who ran for the third time), now 
 received 174,660 votes, or 32,934 less than in 1891. 
 
 The year 1893 Avas characterized by a spirited discussion 
 of the new legislation to be enacted in 1894. The idea 
 of the mulct law was borrowed from Ohio, and was first 
 suggested, in a crude form, by the editor of the Marshall- 
 town " Times-Republican," who was an Ohio man. It was 
 gradually formulated by persons who took part in the de- 
 bate about it in the newspapers. The bill originated in 
 the House, where it had a majority of eight ; its majority 
 in the Senate was only two. A Democratic senator, in 
 explanation of his vote against it, said: "The purpose of
 
 128 THE HISTORY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 the bill is merely to relieve those in charge of the Repub- 
 lican machine from a perplexing and embarrassing situation. 
 Their leaders have been compelled to submit to it, as the 
 best concession they could get from the prohibition ele- 
 ment. But it is a serious blow to prohibitionists. The 
 Republican party has at last done what it so long declared 
 that it would not do : it has legalized the saloon. The 
 friends of the bill have tried to conceal the fact by the 
 use of words, but the privilege attempted to be given is 
 nothing less than license." A prohibitionist said of it : 
 " It is to the Democratic bill as varioloid to small-pox." 
 One member voted for it because '' it does not in any 
 way tend to local option." Another voted against it be- 
 cause he regarded it as " virtually a local option bill." 
 Others would have preferred " a straight local option bill." 
 Another, seeing no probability of securing the passage of a 
 satisfactory local option bill, supported it, " deeming it 
 a move in the direction of the regulation and control of the 
 liquor traffic." 
 
 THE MULCT LAVS^. 
 
 The language of the sixteenth section of this act, "to 
 tax the traffic in intoxicating liquors and to regulate and 
 control the same " [approved March 29, 1894] is as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
 "Nothing in this act contained shall be in any way con- 
 strued to mean that the business of the sale of intoxicating 
 liquors is in any way legalized, nor is the same to be con- 
 strued in any manner or form as a license ; nor shall the 
 assessment or payment of any tax for the sale of liquors 
 as aforesaid protect the wrongdoer from any penalty now 
 provided by law, except that on conditions hereinafter 
 provided certain penalties may be suspended." 
 
 The essential features of the law are found in the first, 
 seventeenth, and eighteenth sections.
 
 THE MULCT LAW. 129 
 
 The first section provides for the assessment of a tax of $600 
 per annum against every person, partnership, or corporation, 
 other than registered pharmacists, holding permits, who are 
 engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquors ; this tax is assessed 
 also against the real property and the owner thereof within or 
 whereon such liquors are sold ; and the tax is made a perpetual 
 lien upon all property, both real and personal, used in the 
 business or connected with it. 
 
 The seventeenth section, which applies only to cities of 5,000 
 inhabitants or more, makes the i^ayment of the tax a bar to 
 proceedings under the prohibitory law, but only upon compli- 
 ance with specified conditions, as follows : The person who 
 pays the tax is required to file with the county auditor a certi- 
 fied copy of a resolution by the city council, consenting to the 
 sale of liquor, which must be accompanied by a written state- 
 ment of consent from all the resident freeholders owning prop- 
 erty within fifty feet of the premises where said business is 
 carried on, and by a bond in the sum of if3,000, with two quali- 
 fied sureties, neither of whom shall be surety on any other like 
 bond ; the said bond to be approved by the clerk of the district 
 court and conditioned upon the faithful compliance with all 
 the resti-ictions imposed upon the traffic by law. These re- 
 strictions, in addition to forbidding sales to minors, di'unkards, 
 intoxicated persons, graduates of the Keeley cure, and to per- 
 sons whose near relatives, by written notice, forbid such sale, 
 require that the sale shall be carried on in a single room, hav- 
 ing but one exit or entrance, and that opening upon a public 
 business street. The bar where the liquors are furnished must 
 be in plain view from the street, unobstructed by screens, 
 blinds, painted windows, or any other device. There must be 
 no chairs, benches, nor any other furniture in front of the bar, 
 and only such behind the bar as is necessary for the attendants. 
 Gambling or gaming with cards, dice, billiards, or any other 
 device, also music, dancing, and every other form of amuse- 
 ment or entertainment, are forbidden, either in the room 
 •where said business is carried on, or in any adjoining room or 
 building controlled by the person, partnership, or corporation 
 carrying on the business. No obscene or impure decorations 
 or inscriptions, placards, or any such thing are allowed, nor 
 may any female person be employed in the place. The hours 
 of sale are restricted to the portion of tlie day between five 
 o'clock in the morning and ten o'clock at night, and the place
 
 130 THE HISTOKY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 must be closed on Sunday, on election day, on all legal holi- 
 days, and on the evenings of such days. But before the pay- 
 ment of tax can operate as a bar to prosecution under the 
 prohibitory act, even where all of these conditions are complied 
 with, there must first have been filed with the county auditor 
 a written statement of consent signed by a majority of the 
 voters residing in the city who voted at the last general elec- 
 tion. 
 
 By the eighteenth section, in order that any city or town of 
 less than 5,000 inhabitants may come within the provisions of 
 the act, there must be first filed with the county auditor a state- 
 ment of consent signed by sixty-five per cent, of all the legal 
 voters who voted at the last preceding general election, resid- 
 ing within the county, outside of the corporate limits of cities 
 having a populatioii of 5,000 inhabitants or over ; but no such 
 statement of consent can be construed as a bar to prosecution 
 in incorporated towns situated in townships of which less than 
 a majority of the voters of the township, including the incor- 
 porated town, have signed the statement of consent, nor in any 
 incorporated town in which a majority' of the voters do not 
 sign the said statement. 
 
 With the passage of this measiire ends for the present 
 the history of temperance legislation in Iowa. The only 
 thing remaining to be said on the subject is that both 
 houses agreed to a joint resolution to resubmit to a popular 
 vote the constitutional prohibitory amendment. 
 
 THE RESULT OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 The prohibition experiment has probably never had a 
 fairer test, nor a test under more favorable conditions, than 
 in Iowa. It is an agricultural State with no large cities ; 
 the largest is Des Moines, which in 1890 had 50,093 in- 
 habitants. The population is mainly Puritan by descent, 
 with inherited Puritan habits and traditions. Public senti- 
 ment is, and has been from an early day, strongly opposed 
 to intemperance. None of the surrounding States, with the 
 possible exception of Missouri, has had so small a percent- 
 age of foreign immigrants. In consequence of the decision
 
 A FAIR TEST OF PROHIBITION, 131 
 
 by the Supreme Court that local option under the Consti- 
 tution is harred, every voter has been forced to declare 
 himself for general license or for prohibition. The prohibi- 
 tionists have therefore been able to swell the number of 
 their nominal adherents by representing that opposition to 
 prohibition meant subserviency to the saloon. The cause of 
 prohibition has had, besides, the inestimable practical advan- 
 tage of an alliance, offensive and defensive, with the politi- 
 cal party in power. More than that, it was for years the 
 dominant faction in that party, dictating its platform, and 
 controlling its legislation in opposition to the liquor inter- 
 est. It held this vantage-ground for ten years, a period 
 long enough to demonstrate the wisdom or folly of the 
 attempt to restrain and govern an animal appetite by law. 
 The end was defeat. 
 
 The fundamental obstacle to success was the difficulty of 
 finding a solid ethical basis for the movement. When a 
 political party formulates a declaration of principles and 
 starts out, as the State Temperance Convention of 1885 did, 
 with the bald assertion that " the manufacture and sale of 
 intoxicating liquors as a beverage is a crime per se," it not 
 only contradicts every established principle of law, but 
 shocks the sentiment of justice, which cannot accept the 
 doctrine thus enunciated without including in the same 
 sweeping condemnation the man who buys as well as the 
 man who sells wine or beer. If the movement, on the con- 
 trary, had been founded upon the doctrine that the State, 
 in the exercise of its police powers, has the right to sup- 
 press the liquor traffic, and that its suppression is expedient 
 upon the ground of public policy, its partisans would have 
 made what seemed to many of them a fatal concession. 
 Moderate men in the prohibition ranks explained that they 
 aimed at nothing more than the closing of dramshops. 
 They did not propose to deprive sober citizens of mature 
 age of the right to regulate their diet. The attempt, how-
 
 132 THE HISTORY OF PKOHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 ever, to make and enforce a statutory rule broad enough to 
 cover the case of the drunkard, and yet allow for the neces- 
 sary exceptions, involved such inconsistency as to render 
 the rule practically of little effect. 
 
 The two loopholes in the law were the pharmacist and 
 the importer. The importer was protected by the federal 
 Constitution ; the State imagined that it could watch and 
 control the pharmacist. But it soon appeared that the drug- 
 store was even harder to regulate than the saloon, and that 
 men would drink in a drug-store who would not, under a 
 license system, have drunk at a public bar. The business 
 of selling drugs became, in a city like Des Moines, more 
 profitable than banking. Under the cloak of a pretended 
 medical necessity — and in many cases even this flimsy sub- 
 terfuge was lacking — liquor continued to be bought and 
 sold as a beverage, even where there were no saloons. As 
 to the importation of liquor, it required a special federal 
 statute to bring the importer under the operation of the pro- 
 hibitory law and prevent him from selling within the State, 
 by the bottle, Avhat he could buy outside and order shipped 
 to his address in any quantity and in any sized packages 
 that he pleased. The evil of the original package house for 
 a few months was greater than that of the licensed saloon 
 had ever been. 
 
 But these two sources of supply were inadequate to meet 
 the demand. Two other methods of obtaining liquor in 
 unlimited quantities were open to the thirsty and the law- 
 less. There were counties in which the prohibitory law 
 was boldly disregarded. Saloons continued to ply their for- 
 bidden trade without the slightest attempt at concealment, 
 not only in river towns on the eastern and western boun- 
 daries of the State, but at various points in the interior. 
 These saloons were at first unregulated, and paid no tax, 
 but the communities in which they existed passed local 
 ordinances subjecting them to slight restrictions, and com-
 
 DEGEADATION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS. 133 
 
 pelling them to contribute to the municipal revenue ia 
 defiance of the general statute. Or, if the authorities feared 
 to go so far, they fined the retail dealers at stated intervals, 
 and at other times let them alone, thus accomplishing by 
 indirection the same result. But where public sentiment, 
 on the contrary, sustained the prohibitory law, and an at- 
 tempt was made by the authorities to enforce it, a contra- 
 band traffic was maintained in cellars and barns and alleys, 
 and in houses on the outskirts of the towns, — a fugitive 
 and skulking traffic carried on in the spirit and by the 
 methods of the smuggler, difficult to detect and impossible 
 to suppress. 
 
 Thus we are brought to consider another obstacle to the 
 success of prohibition, in the difficulty of enforcing the 
 provisions of the law. Officers elected by a constituency 
 unfriendly to prohibition neglected to do their duty, and it 
 became necessary for individuals to secure evidence and in- 
 stitute complaint. Searchers had to be hired and paid from 
 funds secured by subscription. The amount of such funds 
 was limited, and the number of prosecutions insignificant in 
 comparison with that of the known offenders. To cure this 
 defect, the law was so amended as to insure payment to in- 
 formers and to attorneys engaged for the prosecution. The 
 attorneys' fees were charged up against the defense. Fees 
 were allowed to searchers, to witnesses, to tasters, and even 
 for the destruction of the confiscated bottles. The character 
 of the searchers was for the most part low, and their conduct 
 was regulated by the profit accruing to themselves ; in ad- 
 dition to the sums realized from legal compliance with the 
 letter of the law, many of them derived a handsome income 
 from blackmail. In some instances the justices of the peace 
 who presided over the trial of liquor cases earned more 
 than the salaries paid to the judges of the Supreme Court. 
 The sanctity of private life was violated. AVitnesses per- 
 jured themselves upon the stand. Juries refused to render
 
 134 THE HISTOKY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA, 
 
 a verdict of guilty, even where the testimony was ample 
 and uncontradicted. If the case was taken before the 
 grand jury, it was often impossible to secure an indictment. 
 While the statutes were constantly augmenting in severity, 
 the public opinion which alone could give them validity 
 was crystallizing in opposition to their enforcement. The 
 popular respect for law rapidly declined before the spec- 
 tacle of the impotence of the government to compel obedi- 
 ence to it. 
 
 There were also certain elements in the political situa- 
 tion which contributed to the ultimate defeat of prohibi- 
 tion. The Democratic party was branded as the friend of 
 the saloon. But it is fair to say that the brewing and 
 distilling interest was not at heart so dissatisfied with the 
 condition of the liqvior traffic as it pretended to be ; and 
 that the legal relief which was at last accorded to the retail 
 liquor trade in the mulct law was the act of Republicans, 
 resisted by Democrats, who derived greater political advan- 
 tage from keeping the question in politics than their Re- 
 publican adversaries could gain by getting it out of politics. 
 The Republican party saw the control of the State passing 
 into the hands of its adversaries. It was irritated and angry 
 with the extremists who revived the third party movement, 
 at the most critical moment of the conflict. The prohibi- 
 tion team had run away with the Republican wagon. The 
 time arrived when a halt must be called, and the Repub- 
 lican party saved, whatever became of the radical pro- 
 hibitionists, who, on their side, were offended because they 
 had measurably lost their control. The emotional fever, 
 from which the State had suffered so much, subsided ; a 
 reaction set in, and the result was the mulct law, which 
 is virtually the surrender of prohibition — at least of 
 " state-wide " prohibition, as the phrase is in Iowa. This 
 reaction was further influenced by purely economic consid- 
 erations ; namely, the loss of public revenue from the sale
 
 BENEFITS OF PROHIBITION. 135 
 
 of spirits, the enormous cost of criminal procedure on ac- 
 count of tlie prohibitory law, and the failure to obtain an 
 adequate benefit in return for this expenditure. 
 
 I find it quite impossible to formulate a thoroughly sat- 
 isfactory answer to the question what prohibition in Iowa 
 accomplished, and especially what effect it had to increase 
 or diminish the actual consumption of liquor. It certainly 
 wiped out nearly a hundred and fifty breweries, closed a 
 large distillery, and drove out of business nearly or quite 
 two thousand saloons. On the other hand, the quality of 
 the liquor drunk deteriorated under the law ; and not only 
 the resident population but the traveling public was edu- 
 cated, under its influence, in the habit of purchasing liquor 
 at the drug-stores in preference to the saloons, and to drink 
 in private. This custom still prevails. If one were to 
 base a judgment merely on a comparison of the saloon trade 
 in Des Moines to-day with the same trade before the adop- 
 tion of the law of 1854, it would be clear enough that the 
 effect of the law has been salutary. There were more 
 saloons in Des Moines a dozen years ago than there are 
 now, and they were more prosperous, in spite of the fact 
 that the population of the city has doubled within that 
 period. But I am of the opinion that far more liquor is 
 still sold as a beverage in the drug-stores than in the sa- 
 loons. Many of them sell freely by the bottle, but allow 
 no drinking on the premises ; others permit trusted friends 
 to keep their private bottles behind the prescription case; 
 and some do a flourishing and profitable business in beer, 
 particularly on Sundays and after ten o'clock at night, which 
 is drunk by the purchasers in the back room. The amount 
 thus consumed cannot be estimated, nor the amount or- 
 dered by mail from abroad for home consumption, and 
 delivered by the express companies at the purchaser's door. 
 The fact, however, that the liquor interest was willing to 
 expend money to secure the repeal of the law indicates that
 
 136 THE HISTOKY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 it entailed upon them more or less pecuniary loss, as well 
 as great annoyance, which means that their sales fell off in 
 consequence of prohibition. That public drinking fell off 
 is not denied, but it is asserted that private drinking, to an 
 equal or greater extent, took its place. But the growth of 
 the class known as " saloon loafers " was materially checked. 
 These results were secured, however, at considerable cost in 
 other directions. The tension was too great to be kept up. 
 The wave of popular feeling reached its maximum height 
 and broke ; then followed the undertow, the inevitable re- 
 cession of the lofty ideal beneath which it had been hoped 
 that the evil of intemperance might be forever submerged. 
 
 The reaction, however, did not go so far as to bring about 
 the repeal of the prohibitory law, which still stands upon 
 the statute books in all its majesty, without abatement of 
 any of its harsh and coercive features. It did not even go 
 far enough to admit of the passage of a local option law, at 
 least in form. The prohibitory law is still nominally in 
 force, even in the rebellious counties where it has never 
 been enforced in fact. 
 
 The effect of the law popularly called the mulct law, 
 though the word mulct does not occur in it, is very nearly 
 the same as if the legislature had passed a local option law 
 in due form. The prohibitory law is now practically in 
 force wherever a majority of the legal voters favor it, and 
 not in force where the majority of legal voters is opposed 
 to it. But the Supreme Court has held, in the case of 
 Witter V. Forkner and Moore, that the new act is not open 
 to the constitutional objections which applied to the acts of 
 1857 and 1870, held by the court to be null and void. It 
 has been declared to be a general law, applicable alike to 
 all localities coming within its terms, Avhich does not de- 
 pend upon the vote of the people to give it validity. Pro- 
 hibition remains the general rule, and license, or a bar to 
 the proceeding against violation of it, the exception. The
 
 THE EFFECT OF THE MULCT LAW. 137 
 
 whole matter is one of police regulation, delegated to the 
 City Council, which has the power to do, but is not required 
 to do, those things which remove the bar. The statute is 
 not a local or special law, nor does it furnish a diversity of 
 laws in different parts of the State, nor is it a violation 
 of the constitutional requirement that all laws of a general 
 nature shall have uniform operation throughout the State. 
 It does not confer upon the people of a particular locality, 
 nor upon city councils or boards of township trustees, the 
 pardoning power, since it does not remit any fine or forfeit- 
 ure, for none is imposed in the locality where the act is in 
 operation ; it simply bars proceedings which might result 
 in fine or forfeiture if allowed to continue. 
 
 These are the essential points made by the court in its 
 decision rendered April 2, 1895. This decision appears to 
 be final. It is above criticism, however difficult it may 
 be for a non-professional mind to reconcile the positions 
 taken with the late deliverances relating to local option. 
 The first difference between the mulct law and local option 
 may thus be stated : Under a local option law, the will of 
 the people of a county or of a municipality is ascertained by 
 resort to the ballot-box ; under this act, it is ascertained 
 by petition. The question whether the petitioners are in 
 fact voters, and whether they constitute a majority of all 
 the voters who voted at the last general election, cannot be 
 conclusively determined by a comparison of the signatures 
 with the names entered upon the poll lists, owing to bad 
 writing, and mistakes in spelling and in initials, and the 
 law is defective in that it does not provide for the final 
 decision of disputes as to this point. It has been held by 
 the judge of the District Court in Polk County, that the 
 arbiter in this case is not tlie auditoi', but the court. 
 From this decision an appeal has been taken to the Su- 
 preme Court. 
 
 The second point of difference between the mulct law
 
 138 THE HISTORY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 and local option is that, by a popular vote, under the local 
 option system, the sale of liquor is legalized in certain 
 localities. Under the mulct law it is legalized nowhere. 
 Then, too, anybody may circulate a petition at any time ; 
 the proceeding does not require to be initiated by any 
 official or set of officials. There is no fixed period during 
 which the bar to prosecution continues to operate ; but the 
 filing at any time of a counter petition, signed by a majority 
 of the legal voters within the territory affected, and duly 
 filled with the auditor, removes the bar, and reinstates the 
 prohibitory law. The payment of the tax does not in itself 
 constitute a bar to prosecution, unless all the other condi- 
 tions of the act are complied with. The tax is imposed 
 upon all persons and places engaged in or occupied for the 
 sale of intoxicating liquors, without reference to the petition. 
 It therefore constitutes, in fact, an additional penalty imposed 
 upon violators of the prohibitory law — a penalty from which 
 the county and the municipality receive a pecuniary bene- 
 fit ; and this is a feature of the bill which recommended it 
 to the prohibitionists in the General Assembly, since such 
 a tax can be more easily collected than the fines imposed 
 by the prohibitory law. It is doubtful, however, whether 
 the bill could have been passed, had it not been coupled 
 with the joint resolution, adopted in 1894, authorizing the 
 resubmission of the constitutional prohibitory amendment 
 to a vote of the people in 1898. Some prohibitionists, in 
 giving their reasons for consenting to the bill, which are 
 spread upon the legislative journals, expressly declare that 
 this was the motive which controlled their action. 
 
 Very little attention is paid to the police regulations 
 contained in the seventeenth section, in towns like Daven- 
 port and Burlington, where the saloons are open on Sunday 
 and at all hours of the night as before, and where there are 
 back doors and other concomitants of the business forbidden 
 by law. It is not strictly observed even in Des Moines.
 
 THE EFFECT OF THE MULCT LAW. 139 
 
 There have been prosecutions under it, for instance, for 
 sales to minors ; and while the law requires that the sales 
 shall be conducted in a single room, upon the ground floor, 
 in plain view of every one who passes by in the public 
 street, there are saloons which furnish liquor to customers 
 in a room upstairs, by means of a dumb waiter. There are 
 also saloons which have a back room, in which there are 
 chairs and tables. Nevertheless, my observation in this 
 city warrants me in saying that I doubt whether there is 
 any city of equal size, in the United States, in which any 
 law imposing restrictions upon the liquor traffic is so well 
 obeyed as here. It would be over-sanguine to expect this 
 state of affairs to continue permanently. 
 
 Registered pharmacists holding permits are exempt from 
 the mulct. They have therefore a decided business advan- 
 tage over their competitors. They also wield, through the 
 Pharmacy Commission, a political influence which the keep- 
 ers of dramshops do not at present exercise, since they are 
 still under the ban of the law. 
 
 By the mulct act the saloons are successfully required 
 to contribute to the support of the government. The ques- 
 tion of license or no license is measurably taken out of 
 politics, since it does not come up at any general or special 
 election, and cannot be complicated with purely political 
 issues or the claims of candidates for office. The holding 
 in reserve, over saloon-keepers' heads, of the pains and 
 penalties contained in the prohibitory act, is a powerful 
 motive to impel them to compliance with proper police re- 
 strictions upon their business. But there seems to be, from 
 a theoretical point of view, a certain inconsistency in pre- 
 tending that a law is uniform in its operation and at the 
 same time providing for the suspension of penalty upon 
 payment of a pecuniary consideration. There is, moreover, 
 an element of governmental weakness in the practical sur- 
 render of the legislature, which represents the people of
 
 140 THE HISTORY OF PROHIBITION IN IOWA. 
 
 the whole State, to the counties which have been so long 
 in rebellion. The government virtually, by this act, says 
 to the governed : If you do not like our laws, and will only 
 persist long enough in resistance to them, we will not indeed 
 repeal them to please you, but we will undertake to defend 
 you against prosecution for their violation. The same 
 principle applied to other social evils, such as gambling, for 
 instance, would be equally justifiable, and the law appears 
 to have established a dangerous precedent. 
 
 It is only a pessimist who can impartially review this 
 history with feelings of regret. The Eepublicans of Iowa 
 have done much to educate public opinion in opposition to 
 self-indulgence and excess. The Democrats have insisted 
 that the principle of personal liberty must not be sacrificed 
 to a supposed moral exigency. The long fight in Iowa has 
 cleared away in part the obscurity of thought which delays 
 the reconciliation of these two seemingly antagonistic ideas ; 
 and the experience through which the State has passed can- 
 not fail to teach many lessons which will aid other States 
 in the determination of the best course to pursue, in order 
 to preserve the liberty of the citizen and at the same time 
 reduce the evils of intemperance to a minimum. 
 
 1895.
 
 THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 When, in 1876, the Democratic party of South Carolina 
 regained control of the State, the old planter class had in 
 good measure disappeared, and with it the main prop of 
 the ante-bellum regime. Vast estates had been divided, 
 and many had passed into the hands of negro tenants. The 
 era of the small freeholder had begun. The old oligarchy, 
 however, still held the wealth and had the social power and 
 were the educated class. From their ranks came the new 
 leaders and office-holders. The policy of government con- 
 tinued to be shaped by a minority which lived in the cities 
 and larger towns, and more especially by those who, through 
 the prevailing class distinctions, considered themselves the 
 traditional heirs to political preferment. Although the 
 State is predominantly aia agricultural community, the will 
 and wishes of the farmers were not consulted. Except in 
 point of numbers, they lacked the influences that command 
 even an unwilling hearing ; and they were without organi- 
 zation. 
 
 But before long the mutterings of the agrarian move- 
 ments, then in their infancy, were heard. The growing 
 restlessness of the agricultural classes was encouraged by 
 leaders till it became an organized discontent. Their most 
 effective argument was an appeal to class prejudice. The 
 State, they said, was not governed by the people, but by a 
 class of aristocrats, who regarded themselves as privileged. 
 These were denounced as a " ring," guilty of all manner of 
 abuse and mismanagement, and their sins of the past were
 
 142 THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 recalled. From their beginnings the " Patrons of Hus- 
 bandry " and the " Farmers' Alliance " readily lent them- 
 selves to the new aspirations of the rural population. 
 Between the ''up" country and the "low" country no 
 love had ever been lost. The low country, with Charleston 
 as its centre, had always been accused of arrogating to 
 itself the right to dictate the policy of the State. Now 
 the rural districts were everywhere organized against the 
 towns and cities. The urban residents were accused of 
 reaping undue advantages at the expense of the farmers, 
 and of usurping political power. 
 
 The culmination of years of agitation and discontent 
 came in 1890, when the rustic party overwhelmingly de- 
 feated the ruling minority. The leaders of the new move- 
 ment — the " Eeform party " it was called, in distinction 
 from the " Conservatives," who stood for the old Demo- 
 cracy — had above all things succeeded in dividing the 
 Commonwealth into two bitterly hostile camps. It was a 
 division on social lines. On one side stood the large major- 
 ity of the voters, principally farmers, including the illiterate 
 whites ; on the other, the representatives of the once ruling 
 class and their sympathizers, whose strength was in the cities 
 and towns. Ordinary party questions had not played a con- 
 spicuous part. The Reformers assumed to stand for the 
 national Democratic party ; so did their opponents. Neither 
 side appealed to the negro vote, but both feared it. In 
 short, it was a struggle for supremacy between the " wool- 
 hat and one-gallus boys " and the " kid-glove gentry," to 
 adopt the catchwords of the campaigns. 
 
 In 1890 the total population of the State (United States 
 Census) was 1,151,149 (402,008 whites and 689,141 colored). 
 The foreign-born inhabitants (almost exclusively Irish and 
 German, with a few Italians in the cities) numbered only 
 6,270, or but .54 per cent, of the whole. Of the whites 
 of ten years of age and over, 17.9 per cent, were illiterate.
 
 PEEVIOUS LIQUOR LEGISLATION. 143 
 
 The Avhite people are nearly all of native stock, but with 
 a percentage of illiteracy exceeded in the South only by 
 North Carolina, Alabama, and Louisiana. Of the colored 
 population, 64.1 per cent, were illiterate. 
 
 The urban population is comparatively small. Only five 
 cities have each more than 5,000 inhabitants, and all these 
 five have only 84,459. Only 131,287, or 11.46 per cent., of 
 the entire population live in towns of 2,000 population and 
 more. Nine counties, including some of the largest, are 
 without towns of more than 1,000 inhabitants. In the 
 lower and middle sections the negroes outnumber the whites, 
 in some places two to one. Elsewhere the two races are 
 about equally divided. The agricultural pursuits are su- 
 preme in importance. The manufacturing interests, how- 
 ever, are developing, chiefly cotton spinning, in which white 
 labor is almost exclusively employed. 
 
 LIQUOR LEGISLATION PREVIOUS TO 1892. 
 
 The early liquor laws, which were fragmentary and not 
 uniform, sought to meet special needs by special acts. A 
 general law of 1880 forbade the issue of licenses outside of 
 the incorporated cities, towns, and villages. But municipal- 
 ities were left free to fix the fees, after paying $100 to the 
 county for every license. The independence enjoyed by the 
 municipalities in regulating the traffic resulted, naturally, 
 in keeping the liquor question in local politics. In the 
 fixing of the fee, however, the tax-payer frequently had his 
 say, because it touched his pocket. In numerous places 
 licenses came to cost $500 and even $1,000. But the legal 
 restraints were not severe. There remained the alternative 
 of prohibiting liquor-selling altogether. In 1882 a local 
 option law was passed, which, in turn, was modified by spe- 
 cial acts. But it did not affect the counties where prohibi- 
 tion already existed by virtue of a statute. 
 
 The drink problem, which had hitherto played a part
 
 144 THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 chiefly in local politics, became a state problem at the very 
 time of the triumph of the Reform party. By 1891 pro- 
 hibition was in force in six counties, and in more than 
 sixty towns and villages. But this apparent growth of the 
 temperance sentiment did not satisfy the prohibitionists. 
 The local enactments had not worked successfully every- 
 where. A remedy was sought in " state-wide " prohibi- 
 tion. 
 
 It became a political necessity for the Reformers to take 
 some definite action. Thus far they had not pledged them- 
 selves to one policy or the other, but it was well known 
 that both the Reformers and the temperance men drew their 
 strength from the same sources. In 1891 the prohibition- 
 ists exhi])ited signs of unexpected strength. An immense 
 petition in favor of prohibition was about to be presented 
 to the legislature. The governor in his message spoke of 
 the '' gross ineqiiality " of the license system because only 
 a small part of the license fees went to the general fund, 
 " The people in the country," he said, " pay tribute to those 
 who sell liquor, — by means of which the towns are beauti- 
 fied and adorned, — but they pay tax for the suppression of 
 the crime produced by the maintenance of these barrooms. 
 It is unjust and unequal, and ought to be stopped." 
 
 He proposed to deprive the municipalities of the license 
 moneys, dividing them equally between the State and the 
 county, imposing a high fee and leaving the local option 
 law as it was. 
 
 But this appeal to the pocket of the rate-payer and to 
 the prejudice of the rural classes against the towns did not 
 meet with favor. The lower branch of the legislature, now 
 completely in the control of the Reform party, was of strong 
 temperance proclivities, and passed an " iron-clad " prohil^i- 
 tory bill by a vote of fifty-three to thirty -seven. The Sen- 
 ate, more regardful of party needs, killed this bill. But 
 some concession to the strong prohibition sentiment was
 
 PKEVIOUS LIQUOK LEGISLATION. 145 
 
 imperative. It was therefore agreed in tlie convention 
 preceding the state campaign of 1892 to take a popular vote 
 on prohibition by special ballot at the election of that year. 
 The majority for prohibition was 10,000 votes out of a 
 total vote of 70,000. The prohibitory committee claimed 
 three fourths of the legislature ; they claimed, too, that the 
 candidates for the legislature had voluntarily "agreed to 
 abide by the result of the ballot in the prohibition box and 
 support or oppose the measure in the legislature as the ma- 
 jority in the box should determine." On the other hand, 
 it was pointed out that nearly 20,000 electors had failed to 
 vote on the question, one way or the other, and that hence 
 the popular vote taken did not fairly represent public sen- 
 timent. A political panic had set in, and a month before the 
 legislature convened there was talk of again referring the 
 question of prohibition to the people. The liquor problem 
 had to be met. This was acknowledged at the outset in 
 the message of Governor B. F. Tillman to the legislature 
 in November, 1892. This message revealed the critical po- 
 sition in which the dominant party found itself, and showed 
 the animus of its leaders. In the message the governor 
 said : — 
 
 " I would call your attention to the law in force in Athens, 
 Georgia, by which a dispensary for the sale of liquor is ijro- 
 vided, and which, after a trial, is pronounced a success by the 
 prohibitionists. . . . When attention is directed to the fact 
 that most of our municipalities are relieved altogether of taxa- 
 tion for municipal purposes by the money derived from the 
 sale of liquor, it will be seen why so many towns, wliich have 
 tried the prohibitory system, wlien they found liquor sold any 
 way, and their municipal taxes drawn from property, . . . 
 have returned to license." 
 
 The message then reiterated the plan proposed in 1891 
 of dividing the license fees between the county and State, 
 but permitting the municipality to issue the license, and 
 concluded : " I have seen no reason to change my opinion
 
 146 THE SOUTH CAEOLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 as to this being the simplest and most practicable way of 
 accomplishing the end desired. . . . On the other hand, abso- 
 lute refusal to license liquor will increase the taxes of the 
 county one half mill. , , . Another struggle which we can- 
 not be blind to will be the probability of a desperate politi- 
 cal struggle between the prohibitionists and anti-prohibi- 
 tionists two years hence, with an appeal to the negro as the 
 balance of power ; for in every town where the question has 
 been fought out at the polls this has been the effect, and, 
 when applied to the State, we must look for a like result." 
 
 This renewed appeal to the pocket-book and the jealous 
 feeling of the rural districts toward the cities did not pro- 
 duce the desired effect ; nor did the fear expressed of polit- 
 ical complications sure to endanger the Reform party, 
 should prohibition win, strike deeply. After much debate, 
 and having considered several prohibitory bills, the House 
 passed one of the most stringent nature. The leaders of 
 the Reform party, who were best represented, naturally in 
 the Senate, took alarm at the situation. They were, above 
 all things, pledged to bring about a reduction of taxation, 
 which last of all could be effected when under the necessity 
 of enforcing a prohibitory law. Besides, within the party 
 itself there was not a unanimous sentiment in favor of the 
 proposed law. Its enactment foreboded for a certainty 
 serious complications, if not political shipwreck. Inaction 
 would be equally fraught with danger. 
 
 The problem had to find some solution. The dispen- 
 sary system in vogue at Athens, Georgia, gave the cIcav to 
 a possible escape from the dilemma. This was a system 
 of municipal control of the liquor traffic having a twofold 
 aim : to reduce the evils of the liquor traffic by taking it 
 out of private hands, and to retain the whole profit from it 
 for municipal purposes. Accordingly, the House prohibi- 
 tory bill was killed in tlie Senate by substituting for it, by 
 a vote of 18 to 10, what became known as the " dispensary
 
 THE LAW OF 1892. 147 
 
 act." The new measure was rushed through toward the 
 very end of the session. Tlie lower House liad barely time 
 to read it. It was whipped through in the course of two 
 and a half hours at the last meeting. 
 
 THE DISPENSARY LAW OF 1892. 
 
 This law bore the sub title, " An act to prohibit the man- 
 ufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage 
 within the State, except as herein provided ; " and it went 
 into effect only July 1, 1893. Its principal features are 
 summarized as follows : — 
 
 The governor, with the approval of the Senate, shall appoint 
 a commissioner for two years, who, under the regulations of 
 the State Board of Control (the governor, the comptroller- 
 general, and the attorney-general), shall buy all liquors for 
 lawful sale in the State, giving preference to distillers and 
 brewers in the State ; and he shall supply them to local dis- 
 pensers for not more than 50 per cent, above their net cost. 
 The liquors shall be shown by analysis to be pure and unadul- 
 terated. The commissioner must give a bond in the sum of 
 f 10,000 and pay monthly to the state treasurer all money re- 
 ceived by him. He shall make a quarterly sworn statement of 
 all the business done by him. 
 
 Every package of liquor must be sealed and bear a certificate 
 that it was bought by the commissioner ; a package shall not 
 contain less than a lialf-iiint nor more than five gallons. The 
 local dispenser shall not break the seal of any package ; he 
 must sell by the package only, and the purchaser shall not 
 open a package on the premises. 
 
 County Boards of Control (consisting of three members), a\> 
 pointed for two years by the State Board, shall make rules for 
 the sale each in its own county, subject to the approval of the 
 State Board. 
 
 Manufacturers in the State may sell to no one in the State 
 but the state commissioner, but they may sell to purchasers 
 outside the State ; but packages without certificates, shipped 
 outside the State, shall be liable to confiscation. 
 
 Any one may make wine from grapes or other fruits for 
 personal use. 
 
 Provision was made for one county dispenser at the county
 
 148 THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 seat of every county (except that in Charleston there might be 
 ten dispensers and in Cohunbia three), and the County Board 
 were at liberty to establish dispensaries at other towns than 
 the county seat. The petition of the applicant for the place 
 of dispenser must be signed by a majority of the freeholders 
 of the municii:)ality in which the dispensary is to be, and he 
 shall give a bond in the sum of $3,000. He may not be a drug- 
 gist or the keeper of a hotel or restaurant or place of amuse- 
 ment. 
 
 "Permits granted under this act shall be deemed trusts," 
 says the law, " reposed in the recipients thereof, not as a matter 
 of right but of confidence," and they may be revoked. Their 
 compensation is fixed by the State Board. 
 
 The profits shall be paid monthly, one half to the county and 
 the other half to the municipality. 
 
 A purchaser, before he may be served, must present a re- 
 quest, printed or written in ink, giving his name, age, and 
 residence, the kind and quantity of liquor wanted, and for 
 whose use ; and the request must bear the signature of the ap- 
 plicant and be countersigned by the dispenser ; the dispenser 
 shall requii-e the identification of the applicant if unknown ; 
 and no minor nor habitually intemperate person may be served. 
 All requests shall be reported monthly to the county auditor. 
 
 The disjienser's books shall at all times be open to the in- 
 spection of officials and of citizens. 
 
 The payment of a United States special liquor tax shall be 
 prima facie evidence of liquor-selling; druggists may buy for 
 the purpose of compounding medicines that cannot be used as 
 beverages. 
 
 The State shall appropriate $50,000 to buy the first supply. 
 
 Attaching a false signature by any buyer shall be a misde- 
 meanor, fine f 100 to $500, or imprisonment front one month to 
 six months ; for maintaining a place where liquor is illegally 
 sold or given away, for the first offense, fine $100 to $,1000, 
 or imprisonment from three to twelve months. Transjiorting 
 liquor into the State, or transporting from place to place liquor 
 for sale, $500 for each offense and imprisonment one year. 
 
 The governor shall have power to appoint constables (salary 
 $2 a day and expenses) to enforce the law. 
 
 This is the substance of tlie first dispensary act. In re- 
 ferring to it in his message a year later, the governor said 
 that the Senate, using the prohibitory bill which had
 
 THE LAW OF 1892. 149 
 
 passed the House " in its entirety almost as a basis, with a 
 few alterations and amendments made necessary on ac- 
 count of the change of purpose," returned the dispensary 
 act as a substitute for the prohibition bill, and the House, 
 concurred in tlie same without amendment, as the time 
 was too short even to discuss it. But when he continued, 
 *' The act thus hurriedly prepared became a law, as a com- 
 promise between the prohibitionists and the temperance peo- 
 ple who were skeptical as to the practicability of a prohibit 
 tion law," he did not make a statement of the whole case. 
 " The dispensary bill," said the Reform party, " was intro- 
 duced to gain time for discussion of the whole subject," 
 after a prohibition bill had gone through one branch of the 
 legislature with a rush. The " Reformers " were afraid of 
 an out-and-out prohibition law, but they wished to retain 
 the support of the prohibitionists. *' The passage of the 
 dispensary bill will not weaken the Reform movement to 
 any great extent," said the chief newspaper organ of the 
 governor.^ " The prohibitionists will come over. The great 
 majority of our white voters reside in the country, and have 
 no interest in sustaining the saloons. Liquor licenses do 
 not lessen their taxes, and if they can procure all the whiskey 
 required, and have the profits thereon returned to them, 
 they will be content with the existing order of things." 
 
 The financial feature of the new device was thus relied 
 upon to win favor among the party pledged to its enforce- 
 •ment and support. By the highest authority it was de- 
 clared in advance that, with a much reduced consumption, 
 the dispensaries would within a year yield net profits of 
 not less than $500,000. And this led to the further pre- 
 diction that '' before 189-4 dispensaries will be established 
 in counties where there now is prohibition," 
 
 In 1892 South Carolina had about 613 barrooms, from 
 1 Columbia Register, December 25, 1892.
 
 150 THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 which the counties derived a revenue of $81,000 and the 
 municipalities $134,372. In 1893 many of the saloon- 
 keepers had not opened their shops, although the law ex- 
 pressly provided that they might continue their business 
 until June 30 on the payment of one half of the usual 
 fee. 
 
 The closing of the saloons was generally accomplished 
 without much disturbance. The step to perfect compli- 
 ance with the new law was, however, still a very long one. 
 Many former dealers were determined to continue the traffic ; 
 for even after the law became operative no less than 205 
 United States special liquor taxes were paid. " Blind 
 tigers," as the unlicensed liquor-shops are called, made 
 their appearance. Whiskey flowed into the State through 
 many unsuspected channels. The railroads and other com- 
 mon carriers did not all discovmtenance the smuggling of 
 the contraband goods ; some seemed rather to lend active 
 aid in defeating the law. The state constabulary were at 
 the outset wholly unable to stem the liquor tide. The 
 governor, upon whom from the beginning had rested, not 
 only the perfecting and conducting of the state liquor busi- 
 ness, but the organization and direction of the constabulary, 
 soon said : " The only and best means I have to keep down 
 the ' blind tigers ' is to establish dispensaries. Again, the 
 revenue from these is absolutely necessary to maintain the 
 force of constables." The city aiithorities did not feel called 
 upon to assist him, for the enforcement of the laws was 
 naturally assumed to be a function of the State. While no 
 municipalities displayed activity in suppressing the illegal 
 selling, several of them strove to prevent the opening of 
 dispensaries. Suits were brought for this purpose and in 
 order to test the constitutionality of the law. Charges of 
 fraud were made against those who had labored to secure 
 the required number of signatures to petitions for state 
 liquor-shops. The governor went on extending his new
 
 THE LAW OF 1892. 151 
 
 enterprise. But the dispensary act remained unpopular. 
 It did not satisfy the advanced prohibitionists, who had 
 been baffled by its enactment when almost within the sight 
 of victory. While many temperance advocates rejoiced at 
 the closing of the saloons, others, among them prominent 
 clergymen, denounced the state traffic as " unholy." In 
 two instances dispensers found themselves forced to resign 
 church membership. Moreover, the socialistic basis of the 
 law displeased many ; and it was decried as unconstitu- 
 tional and a gross infringement upon personal liberty. The 
 press (with but few exceptions) ridiculed the law, and 
 rather encouraged its violation. 
 
 Beneath all the bitter opposition lay a rooted hostility, 
 partly political, partly personal, to the originators and chief 
 supporters of the scheme, creating a conviction that nothing 
 good could emanate from the party in power. By its enact- 
 ment the administration had not only demonstrated the im- 
 potence of the minority, but had gained a distinct political 
 advantage. This intensified the feeling. 
 
 Serious legal complications soon arose from attempts to 
 enforce the law. One constable found himself in trouble 
 for interference, as it was alleged, with the Interstate Com- 
 merce Act by seizing certain contrabrand liquors. Subse- 
 quently, a circuit judge declared the law unconstitutional. 
 By October, 1893, three judges had rendered decisions to 
 the effect that the act did not provide penalties for the mere 
 act of selling liquor. Before November, dispensary cases 
 had b§en argued in the United States court, in the State 
 Supreme Court, and before nearly every circuit judge on 
 the bench. Under the circumstances, the penal clauses of 
 the law naturally remained inoperative. The severest pun- 
 ishment that could be inflicted even on flagrant offenders 
 was only the confiscation of their liquors. Before the law 
 was four months old, more than fifty cases for its violation 
 had reached the courts. But it was impossible to push them
 
 152 THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 on to a final conviction, and very few ever reached a petty 
 jury. Not only was there a manifest reluctance thus to 
 assist in making effective a law odious to nearly all men 
 from whose number juries were drawn, but some of the 
 offenses were of a nature " which most men consider not 
 as meriting such severe punishments as now provided." ^ 
 In this category belonged, for instance, the penalty for 
 transporting liquor for others, or bringing it into the State 
 for personal use. Arrests for such violations were therefore 
 often made more as form than to bring the offender to book. 
 
 To add to the complications, some of the local dispensers 
 showed themselves utterly unfit, which of course engendered 
 new contempt for the whole scheme. Meanwhile the busi- 
 ness had grown. In July there were 29 county dispensa- 
 ries ; in August, 39 ; in September, 47 ; in October, 51. 
 One had been discontinued. The local dispensers and their 
 clerks numbered 74, and were receiving salaries ranging from 
 $300 to $1,000 per annum. At the central distributing 
 depot in Columbia, 54 employees were working 10 hours 
 a da3^ Yet it was found '* almost impossible to keep the 
 local dispensers in stock," and that, too, when the governor 
 said that " not more than one half of the liquor drunk in 
 the State at this time has passed through the dispensary." 
 The negroes harbored no ill-will against the promoters of 
 the law, and furnished the principal custom of the dispen- 
 saries. 
 
 The gross sales to consumers in four months had amounted 
 to $166,043.56 ; total expenses of the State Dispensary, 
 $72,566.36, and of county dispensers, $19,890. This left 
 an apparent profit of $32,198.16, counting the probable 
 proceeds from the stock still in the hands of the local 
 dispensers. The actual profit paid in was $4,546.93. 
 
 To what extent the system, from a temperance point of 
 view, would surpass a license system, it was too early to 
 1 Governor Tillman's message, 1894.
 
 THE LAW OF 1893. 153 
 
 determine ; besides, the illegal traffic still flourished. As a 
 financial venture, the dispensaries had so far not proved a 
 success. The expectation of large returns to the several 
 counties and the State, with a proportionate reduction of 
 taxes, had appealed strongly to the rural legislators. But 
 the cities and towns now found themselves deprived of a 
 large part of their revenue, which caused further resent- 
 ment ; and there were many among the temperance advo- 
 cates who " cried aloud against the iniquity of a government 
 sharing in the ' blood money.' " 
 
 With many recommendations of specific amendments by 
 which the law could be fortified and its better enforcement 
 secured, the act of 1892 was referred to the next legislature, 
 and it emerged in due time in a completely remodeled form. 
 The underlying principle remained the same. The changes 
 were in general designed to strengthen and secure the mo- 
 nopoly of the State J 
 
 (1) By facilitating the establishment of new dispensaries, 
 which would do away with rural prohibition, and thus ex- 
 tend the monopoly ; (2) by increasing in several ways the 
 power of the constables, and thus render illicit importation 
 or sale unprofitable, if not impossible ; (3) by reducing the 
 penalties in some cases and bringing them down to trial jus- 
 tice jurisdiction, thus avoiding petty juries as well as grand 
 juries, besides making the punishment more commensurate 
 with the popular estimate of the ofiense ; (4) by providing 
 new penalties to meet every contingency ; (5) by threaten- 
 ing to withhold from the municipalities their share of dis- 
 pensary profits for failure to suppress illegal sales ; and (6) 
 by discrimination in favor of home products, thus lessening 
 the opposition from one quarter at least. 
 
 THE AMENDED DISPENSARY LAW (1893). 
 
 The new act went into efi"ect upon its approval, Decem- 
 ber 23, 1893, and served but to feed the feeling of ill-will
 
 154 THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 against the state liquor traffic. Especially odious were the 
 unusual powers conferred upon the constables, who had not 
 proved themselves a high type of officials in making searches, 
 seizures, and arrests, and the threat to punish the munici- 
 palities by depriving them of revenue for not lending sym- 
 pathy to the state monopoly. The tension caused by the 
 work of the constabulary grew. On December 17, 1893, 
 the first bloody conflict between constables and citizens aris- 
 ing from it occurred, when a negro was shot by a constable. 
 Soon all municipalities received notice from the governor 
 that they must exterminate the " blind tigers " or forfeit 
 the revenue. One city was thus dealt with a few days later. 
 A circular was issued to trial justices instructing them, under 
 penalty of removal, to secure obedience to the law. This 
 significant document was in part as follows : — 
 
 " The statutes, as construed by the Supreme Court, require 
 that criminal cases coming within the jurisdiction of trial 
 justices shall be tried by jury, on demand of the defendant. 
 . . . Jurors are to be summoned by the constable after six 
 names have been drawn from a hat in which eighteen names 
 have been placed by the constable. It will be the duty of trial 
 justices to see that no names are put in the hat except those of 
 men who will find a verdict according to the evidence, and not 
 perjure themselves through prejudice against the law." 
 
 The friction produced by attempts at executing the laws 
 was rapidly nearing the danger point. On February 3, 
 1894, occurred the second deadly conflict (in Wellington), 
 in which one man was killed by a constable and another 
 was wounded. 
 
 The state officers were now armed with rifles, and there 
 was talk of the need of the militia to reinforce them. Be- 
 fore the end of March, three cities — Columbia, Florence, 
 and Darlington — were notified that they must relinquish 
 their share of the dispensary money. In Darlington seri- 
 ous trouble was already brewing. Numerous raids in search
 
 THE LAW OF 1893. 155 
 
 of liquor had been made ; many constables were on the 
 spot, and threats had been heard that they would invade 
 private houses. Whether or not such an extreme course 
 was actually contemplated, the rumor of it was spread, and 
 armed citizens gathered, bent on resisting to the last any 
 such attempt of the state officers. In Sumter and Florence 
 meetings were held and resolutions were passed to aid the 
 citizens of Darlington in case of need. As yet there had 
 been no outbreak. But on March 30 the memorable Dar- 
 lington riot occurred, in which five lives were lost and 
 several men were wounded. The trouble arose through the 
 interference of constables in a quarrel between two citizens. 
 The coroner's jury, composed of three Reformers and two 
 Conservatives, returned a verdict of " felonious murder " 
 against two of the constables. Whatever provocation to 
 violence the latter had, they were held responsible for the 
 blood shed. 
 
 But the " riot " gave rise to many st;;-ange complications, 
 and the opposition to the dispensary law began anew. 
 As soon as the shooting was over, the constables had fled, 
 pursued by citizens. The news of the aifair caused the 
 intensest excitement. Only the counsel of cooler heads 
 prevented rioting in other towns. The governor called out 
 the militia companies of Columbia, but they refused to 
 obey, preferring rather to give up their commissions. Com- 
 pany after company laid down their arms amid the applause 
 of citizens. From other points came refusals of mili- 
 tary organizations to proceed to the seat of trouble. The 
 governor then called out the rural militia, of which the 
 majority could be counted as his political followers. 
 Florence, where the dispensary had been looted, and Dar- 
 lington were declared under martial law. Railroads and 
 telegraph offices were seized by the governor, who also 
 assumed control of the entire police force in the State. 
 Business was at a standstill. A censorship was exercised
 
 156 THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 over telegraph dispatches. Four hundred troops were con- 
 centrated at Darlington, and others were kept in reserve 
 in the State penitentiary at Columbia. But in Darlington 
 perfect order had reigned after the murderous shooting. 
 The constables who had been pursued for a while were not 
 molested, and the civil authorities were able to uphold the 
 peace. A contemplated looting of the dispensary was pre- 
 vented. When the troops arrived there was no conflict 
 between them and the citizens. As early as April 5 con- 
 stables returned to Darlington and went their ways un- 
 harmed. The escape from a state of civil war had been 
 averted by a hair's breadth only. The high-handed course 
 of the governor in seeking to enforce the unpopular law at 
 any hazard had served only to increase the odium in which 
 it was held. 
 
 The lull which now ensued was, however, largely due to 
 the knowledge that the Supreme Court would soon pass 
 upon the law, and to the generally accepted prediction 
 among its opponents that it would be declared unconsti- 
 tutional. 
 
 THE LAW IN THE COURTS. 
 
 On April 19, 1894, the Supreme Court of the State ren- 
 dered a decision declaring the law unconstitutional. The 
 issue had been raised on the act of 1892, which was declared 
 invalid, except in so far as it prohibited the licensing of the 
 sale of liquor ; one justice dissented. Politically the court 
 was composed of two Conservatives and one Reformer, 
 who had lately come into office. The general ground taken 
 in the decision was that the State could not constitutionally 
 embark in a commercial pursuit, as the^ selling of liquor for 
 profit was held to be ; and that such sale did not come 
 within the legitimate exercise of its police power. 
 
 On the day after the decision the State Dispensary, as 
 well as the local shops, were closed by order of the gov- 
 ernor, and all employees were paid off. The trial justices
 
 THE LAW IN THE COURTS. 157 
 
 throughout the State were ordered to refrain from issuing 
 arrest warrants for violations of the dispensary act. To all 
 appearances the decision against the law was accepted as final. 
 
 Meanwhile in some places beer and wine licenses were 
 issued by municipal authorities ; in others, such action was 
 discussed ; in still others, prohibition was regarded as the 
 lawful order of things. 
 
 Within a few days, however, came a supplementary de- 
 cision from the Supreme Court to the eifect that the State 
 was now under prohibition. This had the result of re- 
 straining certain municipalities from issuing any licenses, 
 but general enforcement of prohibition was not attempted. 
 The governor stated that he had no authority to enforce 
 prohibition, as " sheriffs are under-officers," and he had " no 
 longer control of the police force, as the necessity for that 
 was not now at hand." The constabulary, it was main- 
 tained, had been appointed to uphold the dispensary act 
 only ; besides, it would become a serious question how to 
 pay them for their services. 
 
 In the absence of specific law the municipal authorities 
 were not strongly disposed to interfere with the liquor- 
 sellers. From April 21 to August 1, 1894, no less than 
 1,174 United States special taxes were paid by retail liquor- 
 dealers in the State, showing plainly how unrestricted was 
 the traffic. 
 
 But afi"airs were not suffered to remain long in this un- 
 settled state. In a campaign speech delivered in July, the 
 governor announced his intention of reopening the dispen- 
 saries the following month. A proclamation to this effect 
 was issued a few days later, in which the reasons for set- 
 ting aside the decision of the Supreme Court were given. 
 The adverse decision was the result of a suit brought to 
 test the original law of 1892, not the law of 1893. They 
 were, however, held to be identical in principle. In his 
 message in 1894 the governor said : —
 
 158 THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 " I fully anticipated a case being brought under the act of 
 1893, and a decision of like natinre to the first, . . . although I 
 felt, as did most people, that the decision was an outrage, and 
 the result of partisan bias. ... I resolved to thwart the court 
 if I could ; and every effort was put forth to prevent the act of 
 1893 from coming before the court as it was then constituted. 
 . . . The act of 1893 had been ignored by the court in two 
 cases, and a change in the court made me feel it a duty to 
 revive the act of 1893, and test the question of its constitution- 
 ality once for all. So, on July 22, I issued a proclamation 
 ordering the dispensaries to be reopened August 1st. . . . The 
 constabulary . . . was reorganized about the middle of August, 
 and put to work, being gradually increased, and instructed to 
 close down on the liquor-dealers by degrees." 
 
 The course taken by the governor amazed even his own 
 adherents. The proclamation concluded thus : — 
 
 " The said Supi-eme Court, having adjourned without in any 
 wise giving expression in regard to the act of 1893, the said 
 act is in full force and effect, and will be enforced in accord- 
 ance with my oath of office until the courts shall have passed 
 upon the same, or until the legislature shall have repealed it." 
 
 One of the judges of the court who had declared the 
 law invalid was to retire before many weeks. His suc- 
 cessor had already been chosen by the legislature from the 
 party in sympathy with the law. This is the "change in 
 the court" to which the governor alludes. Relying in 
 advance upon the favorable opinion of the incoming justice, 
 the plea that the act of 1893 had not formally been passed 
 upon furnished a pretext for opening the dispensaries in 
 order that the constitutionality of the law might be tested 
 " once for all." Moreover, the financial aspect of the mat- 
 ter was one of supreme importance. 
 
 For some time after August 1 little effort was made to 
 suppress illicit selling ; on the other hand, several dis- 
 pensers were arrested for not taking out a beer and wine 
 license as required by certain municipalities. Vmt when 
 the constabulary force had been reorganized, the chief exec-
 
 THE LAW IN THE COURTS. 159 
 
 utive announced : " I intend to enforce the law up to the 
 very hilt ; I intend to enforce it if it takes all the military 
 in the State to help me do it." The constables, however, 
 proceeded with greater caution than formerly. Yet in one 
 or two instances riots were narrowly averted. 
 
 Meanwhile a circuit judge had declared the act of 1893 
 unconstitutional because identical in principle with the one 
 preceding it. On October 9 the Supreme Court pronounced 
 the dispensary act of 1893 constitutional ; the chief justice 
 dissenting, adhering to his former opinion that the two 
 acts were identical in principle. 
 
 When the State had thus formally been declared to be 
 under the dispensary law, liquor raids were resumed with 
 increased vigor. To facilitate the work, a reward of 20 
 cents per gallon was offered to informers for information 
 leading to confiscation of liqiior. This scheme, which was 
 not authorized by law, proved wonderfully successful. 
 
 The state legislature, reassembling in November, was 
 again called upon to amend the law and grant the executive 
 further power. Under the same title that distinguished the 
 act of 1893, the dispensary law was reenacled with numer- 
 ous amendments, and approved January 5, 1895. 
 
 This legislation undoubtedly strengthened the State's 
 monopoly of the liquor traffic : (1) by facilitating the mul- 
 tiplication of the official liquor-shops ; (2) by extending 
 the authority of the executive, and enabling him to remove 
 any delinquent officer immediately concerned with the en- 
 forcement of the law ; (3) by changes in the mode of pro- 
 cedure in liquor cases, whereby they may be given to rural 
 juries with better hopes of conviction on sufficient evidence ; 
 (4) by placing breweries and distilleries under new restric- 
 tions, and thus further cutting off competition through illicit 
 sales ; (5) by increasing the penalties ; (C) by increasing the 
 number of officials enjoined to prevent infringement of the 
 law ; and (7) by putting a premium on confiscation of liquors
 
 160 THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 by allowing certain officials one half of the proceeds from 
 their sale. The law as it now stood did not contain any pro- 
 visions aiming at a diminution of consumption not found in 
 the first act. 
 
 Another legal measure to compel compliance with the 
 law had long been contemplated. In the cities, as well as 
 in the majority of the towns, the police officials had shown 
 little sympathy for the state liquor traffic, and had not con- 
 cerned themselves with zealously guarding it. The threat 
 to withhold from the municipalities their share of the liquor 
 money for neglect to fight the " blind tigers " had not been 
 without effect, but the local authorities were still accused 
 of lukewarmness. The question of establishing a metropoli- 
 tan police had been broached in the governor's message of 
 1893. The promise was then held out that, when the co- 
 operation of the local police could be depended upon, the 
 expenses of enforcement would be materially lessened. This 
 "drastic measure," as that message apologetically designated 
 it, was openly advocated in the messages of 1894. 
 
 The metropolitan police bill, passed in December, 1894, 
 provides that whenever a board composed of the governor, 
 the secretary of state, and the comptroller-general shall 
 deem it advisable, for the better enforcement of the law in 
 any city or incorporated town under police regulations, they 
 shall appoint a board of state commissioners to consist of 
 three members for such city. The first mentioned board 
 is endowed with autocratic power. It may at any time de- 
 clare a city vmder metropolitan regulations, and upon its 
 consent the resumption of local self-government by the 
 municipal authorities is absolutely dependent. The local 
 board may, with the consent of the state officers, appoint 
 any number of special policemen not to serve for more than 
 two successive days without reappointment. All fines and 
 forfeitures must be paid into the treasury of the county for 
 the use of the common school fund, the city retaining the 
 fines for violations of municipal ordinances.
 
 EXTENT OF THE DISPENSARY SYSTEM. IGl 
 
 EXTENT OF THE DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 There were at time of this investigation eighty-one dis- 
 pensaries in operation, exclusive of those connected with 
 tourist hotels, the distributing depot at Columbia, and the 
 brewery selling under state protection. The growth of the 
 official liquor-shops had, therefore, been rapid. There were 
 in the State in 1892, when the dispensary system was intro- 
 duced, 613 barrooms ; in Charleston, where there had been 
 285 barrooms, there were only seven dispensaries. 
 
 Taking the counties, Aiken, Barnwell, P>eaufort, Berke- 
 ley, Colleton, Hampton, Orangeburg, and Richland, which 
 all, except the last mentioned, belong strictly to the lower 
 southeastern section of the State, thirty-nine dispensaries 
 were found within them, or 48.14 per cent, of the total 
 number. They contain only 373,936 inhabitants, or 32.66 
 per cent, of the total population in the State. This section 
 includes the greater portion of the black belt, and formerly 
 supported 483 bars, or 78.79 per cent, of the total number 
 existing in 1892 (613). There was thus a good reason why 
 a majority of the dispensaries should be placed there. No 
 incorporated communities other than Charleston and Colum- 
 bia have more than one dispensary each. The dearth of 
 state barrooms in the counties along the northern and west- 
 ern borders of North Carolina is difficult to account for, 
 except on the ground of a still surviving prohibitory senti- 
 ment. Yet that part of the State contains the distillery 
 interest, both the legal and illegal, and offers the best op- 
 portunities for smugglers. However, the notorious moon- 
 shine district has already been invaded by state liquor- 
 shops. 
 
 Classifying the dispensaries according to the population 
 of the places in which they are situated, we find more than 
 one half, or 44, established in communities with less than 
 1,000 inhabitants each, as follows : in places of less than 100
 
 162 THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 inhabitants, 13 ; in places of over 100 and less than 500 in- 
 habitants, 15 ; in places of over 500 and less than 1,000 
 inhabitants, 14. Of the remaining, 18 are established in 
 places of between 1,000 and 3,000 inhabitants, 8 in so many 
 cities of between 3,000 and 9,000 inhabitants, and 11 in 
 Columbia and Charleston. In 9 cities and towns of be- 
 tween 1,000 and 3,000 inhabitants, and in 16 places M'ith 
 a population running from 100 to 1,000, dispensaries are 
 not found, and consequently the sale of intoxicants is pro- 
 hibited. The " dry " towns are nearly all found in the 
 up country. Of the six counties under prohibition in 
 1892, only one remains wholly so. It follows that a num- 
 ber of the old-time no-license places now have state liquor- 
 shops. 
 
 The authorities pursue the policy of establishing dispen- 
 saries wherever a favorable opportunity offers. Two ques- 
 tions only are considered : Will the proposed dispensary 
 pay, and can the necessary number of voters be found in 
 favor of it ? The advantage to the administration of increas- 
 ing the dispensaries are a larger revenue and greater political 
 power. The attempts to force a dispensary upon a prohibi- 
 tion town can scarcely spring from a desire to promote tem- 
 perance. Bitter local contests have ensued more than once 
 from this cause between the advocates of a dispensary — of 
 course, active supporters of the Reform party — and its op- 
 ponents. The latter, however, are doubtless actuated less 
 by motives of a purely moral nature than by fear of having 
 their political enemies gain a firmer footing. So demoraliz- 
 ing has this enmity become, that many, while strenuously 
 opposing the opening of a new dispensary, shut their eyes to 
 the illegal traffic. It is easily seen how, under such circum- 
 stances, private liquor-dealers may continue to influence local 
 politics.
 
 A BUSINESS VENTURE. 163 
 
 THE SYSTEM AS A BUSINESS VENTURE. 
 
 Up to November 1, 1894, the system had been in opera- 
 tion about fifteen months, with an intermission of about 
 three months in 1894. During this period the business 
 was as follows : — 
 
 Total cost of liquors $416,853.12 
 
 Total expenses 207,056.15 
 
 Total sale to dispensers 694,271.69 
 
 Amount due by dispensers to State . . 106,496.42 
 
 Amount cash received from dispensers . . 553,811.13 
 Amount cash all other sources . . . 10,865.26 
 
 Total cash 1564,676.39 
 
 Stock at State dispensary (wholesale) • $65,455.59 
 
 Amount due by state dispensary . . . 43,815.26 
 
 Value of assets over liabilities . . . $147,694.95 
 From which deduct State appropriation . 50,000.00 
 
 Net profits $97,694.95 
 
 The net profits as above exhibited include, liowever, the 
 prospective profits of the State upon goods still in the hands 
 of county dispensers amounting to 22 per cent, on $106,- 
 496.42, or $23,429.21. Exclusive, then, of deficits dis- 
 covered in the accounts of certain dispensers, the actual 
 profits realized up to November 1, 1894, on the basis of all 
 assets given above being considered good, would amount to 
 $74,265.72. This net profit, again, is exclusive of interest 
 upon the state appropriation of $50,000, and of the rental 
 of buildings, etc., used by the dispensary. It will be seen 
 that thus far no cash from the liquor business had been 
 turned over for the use of the State, nor had the original 
 state appropriation been refunded. 
 
 The business of the county dispensaries during the same 
 period was as follows : —
 
 164 THE SOUTH CAKOLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 Total amount purchased from the state dispensary, $671,555.99 
 Total amount of sales, invoice price . . . 573,578.38 
 
 Total sales to consumers (county profit added) 
 
 Gross profits 
 
 Total expense 
 
 Total net profits 
 
 $679,222.88 
 
 165,355.40 
 
 88,580.15 
 
 $76,775.25 
 
 As a source of revenue the system had not realized the 
 glowing expectations of its advocates. In sixteen months 
 the municipalities and counties had received a sum from 
 the dispensaries equaling not quite one third of their usual 
 annual income from liquor licenses, — the former being 
 deprived of the greater amount, — and the State had not 
 been enriched. The system, however, had operated under 
 adverse circumstances, and not even continuously. The 
 growth of liquor-shops and a gradual extermination of the 
 " blind tigers," which in many places is rapidly being 
 effected, indicate greater profits in the future. 
 
 THE SYSTEM AS A POLITICAL MACHINE. 
 
 In absolute control of this vast and ever-growing busi- 
 ness, it should be remembered, are the governor, the sec- 
 retary of state, and the comptroller-general. Not only do 
 they appoint the state commissioner, but in the absence of 
 specific legal provisions they are required to prescribe " all 
 rules and regulations governing said commissioner in the 
 purchase of intoxicating liquors or in the performance 
 of any of the duties of his office." It is, among other 
 things, left to the State Board of Control to fix the per- 
 centage of profit to be charged by the State on its sales 
 to local dispensers. Again, these officials have the sole 
 appointment of the county boards of control, who are sub- 
 ject to thoir rulings in every matter relating to the local 
 shops. TI)ey have the final decision in the questions of 
 establishing new dispensaries, the location of the latter, the
 
 A POLITICAL MACHINE, 165 
 
 appointment of dispensers and their assistants ; they fix 
 the salaries, the prices at which liquors shall be sold to 
 the consumer, and so on. The frequent flippant allu- 
 sions to the governor of South Carolina as the " chief bar- 
 keeper of the State " are thus not without foundation in 
 facts. As chairman of the State Board, he is highest in 
 authority, and many of the details of the dispensary busi- 
 ness are necessarily referred to him. As an instance, it 
 may be cited that, under the present rulings, it is possible 
 for private persons, on paying a royalty to the State, to 
 import officially protected liquor for their own use. Such 
 transactions are efi'ected through local dispensers, but only 
 when permission has been obtained from the governor. 
 He has also the sole and unlimited power to appoint con- 
 stables to enforce the law, and he directs their movements. 
 It is perhaps unavoidable that the unusual powers thus 
 conferred upon the chief executive and the two associates of 
 his own choosing should have a deep political significance. 
 Party exigency was the father of the dispensary act, party 
 welfare demanded its growth and nurture in the face of the 
 bitterest opposition. It follows that the men in any way 
 connected with the state liquor monopoly must be of the 
 same political faith. More than this. Since the establish- 
 ment of a dispensary means an assured competence to one 
 or two men and some party prestige, accompanied perhaps 
 by a little patronage to those composing the county boards 
 of control, strong partisans are naturally chosen to fill 
 those positions. In other words, whether this end was 
 kept in view at the outset, the dispensary law has resulted 
 in the creation of a magnificent political machine, with the 
 governor as engineer-in-chief. For each of the eighty-one 
 dispensaries may be reckoned two employees ; the county 
 boards of control number 105 persons ; the constables about 
 sixty ; the employees at the chief dispensary about fifty-
 
 166 THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 seven, in all some 384 ^ men, scattered over the State, and 
 most numerous in the sections v?here the Reform party is 
 weakest. All the constables and several others may at any 
 time be sent at public expense to any part of the State. 
 Wholly dependent as these men are upon the State Board 
 of Control for their subsistence, it would be idle to dis- 
 claim their willingness to work diligently for party ends. 
 Furthermore, it is notorious that when the first general 
 opportunity presented itself for setting the machine in mo- 
 tion — in the campaign of 1894 — the dispensary forces 
 were notified to help elect the candidates of their party. 
 The potentiality of the machine was much enhanced by the 
 passage of the metropolitan police act. 
 
 Underneath the opposition lies the feeling that, in fur- 
 therance of ostensibly a purely moral object, the advocates 
 of the dispensary system have grasped the opportunity of 
 intrenching themselves in power and abrogated the rights 
 of local self-government in a manner at variance with all 
 the political traditions of South Carolina. That the state 
 control of the sale of liquor cannot be dissociated from 
 politics is admitted by its promoters to be an inherent defect 
 of the dispensary system. 
 
 From a business point of view, the management of the 
 business has not been open to severe criticism founded 
 on known facts, although attacks have been numerous. 
 Another question of interest is whether the financial or the 
 temperance feature is incidental to the dispensary traffic. 
 It is complained, not without reason, that the State has 
 devoted itself to supplying spirituous instead of malt 
 liquors, and that this action is detrimental to sobriety. 
 
 It is unquestionably of greater profit to the State to sell 
 the distilled goods. At present, however, steps are taken 
 to increase the use of malt liquors, but in a peculiar way. 
 
 ' Trial justices are appointed by the executive, and may be added to 
 this number.
 
 A POLITICAL MACHINE. 167 
 
 The State has entered into an agreement with the largest 
 hrewery in South Carolina, under which, on paying a roy- 
 alty to the State, the brewery may supply its officially pro- 
 tected wares directly to the customers. Other breweries 
 expect to reopen on the same terms. This encouragement of 
 the home industry (outside breweries cannot be granted 
 similar concessions) is not easily harmonized with the often 
 reiterated declaration that the dispensary system does not 
 rest upon a revenue basis, and was devised to reduce the 
 consumption of intoxicants. A curious result of this dis- 
 crimination is that the largest brewery in the State, under 
 protection of the government seal, supplied all the beer 
 dispensed by the " blind tigers " of Charleston and perhaps 
 other places. Home-made liquors are required to be bought 
 in preference to imported ones. This attempt at " saving 
 the profit at home " has led to much illegal selling by dis- 
 tillers, as well as to the state purchase of an article unlit for 
 consumption by reason of its newness, and one that is highly 
 intoxicating. Nor can the fostering of the wine-growing in- 
 dustry — the products of which, to the exclusion of wines 
 grown elsewhere, must be handled by the dispensary at a 
 profit not exceeding 10 per cent. — be regarded in the light 
 of a prohibitive measure. A strange blending of moral and 
 business purposes is found in the provisions relating to the 
 sale of confiscated liquors through the state commission : 
 if pure, they find their way to the local dispensaries, but if 
 impure are to be shipped for sale beyond the State. The 
 State persists in selling " straight liquor " only, regardless 
 of its intoxicating qualities. 
 
 An obvious danger of the dispensary system is the temp- 
 tation to accept undue profits constantly besetting those who 
 purchase the state liquor. Any one in the least familiar 
 with the methods of the liquor trade knows that, under the 
 keen competition existing, inducements in the line of rebates 
 or commissions are held out to those who purchase goods,
 
 168 THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 especially if it be for others. Without any apparent detri- 
 ment to the interest of the person for whom the liquor is 
 bought, by way of exorbitant prices being paid for it, only 
 the strictest honesty prevents the purchaser from receiving 
 emoluments for which he cannot be held to account, which 
 remain a secret between him and the seller, but which it 
 was not intended he should receive. The implication is 
 that, when this temptation is not withstood, it becomes the 
 immediate interest of the purchasers to push the sale of 
 liquors to the utmost : hence the twofold danger. 
 
 Considerable difficulty has been experienced in obtaining 
 trustworthy men to conduct the business of the county 
 liquor-shops. Under the strong opposition to the opening 
 of such places and to the law in general, the vocation of 
 dispenser has not been attractive to the better class of men. 
 Some of those employed have at times been short in their 
 accounts, and in other ways have shown themselves unfitted 
 for the trust. Latterly the body of dispensers is supposed 
 to have been much improved, and, a rigid system of book- 
 keeping being insisted upon, the temptation to peculations 
 is less. But even now the men are not recruited from citi- 
 zens of any particular standing in the respective communi- 
 ties. 
 
 The method of compensating county dispensers, fixing 
 their salaries according to the business done, gives the 
 key-note to the manner in which they conduct it. To con- 
 tend that the element of private profits has been eliminated 
 from the dispensary liquor traffic is thus seen to be idle. 
 In principle the county dispenser is placed on a level with 
 the private dealer : both have the same motive to push 
 trade — private gain. Only few dispensers receive the 
 maximum compensation now allowed ; but should the size 
 of the sales warrant it, there is no reason to believe that 
 the present salary limit will be adhered to. 
 
 As may readily be inferred, the method of compensation
 
 A POLITICAL MACHINE. 1G9 
 
 goes far to nullify the legal restraints placed on the sale. The 
 regulations of the law, that tlie purchaser must present a 
 written or printed request, giving name, age, residence, for 
 whose use the liquor is intended, are generally disregarded. 
 The customer simply makes a verbal request, giving his 
 name and the kind of liquor wanted. As a rule further 
 parlance is unnecessary. That the purchaser is totally 
 unknown to the dispenser apparently makes no difference, 
 although the law requires the identification of strangers. 
 That more than one order is filled for the same person in 
 one day was noted ; furthermore, that orders written by 
 strangers, and carried by children, are promptly attended to. 
 Purchasers are rarely questioned as to their ages, although 
 the majorit)'^ of some of them would instantly be challenged, 
 were that point considered of sufficient importance. Intox- 
 icated persons are turned away, but there is nothing to pre- 
 vent them from making purchases through others. Several 
 dispensers intimated that more than a formal compliance 
 with the law is not insisted upon. This was not explicitly 
 denied at headquarters. Indeed, the safeguards of the law 
 cannot well prove effective while there is a source of private 
 profits in large sales. Furthermore, the press of business 
 at some dispensaries is too great to permit of an elaborate 
 mode of procedure in making the sales. 
 
 But for the extensive patronage of the negroes, the dis- 
 pensaries would not fare well financially, because of the 
 antipathy to the state liquor traffic among the white resi- 
 dents of towns and cities, in Avhich nearly all the shops 
 are located. The staple articles of trade are the cheap 
 grades of whiskey. As sold by the State, beer is as yet too 
 expensive a beverage to be generally indulged in. The rate 
 of profit charged by the county dispensaries varies greatly 
 and according to the quality of the liquor. To cite a few 
 instances : —
 
 170 THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 ighty per cent. Rye, Corn, and Bourbon, 
 
 profit 
 
 12 per cent. 
 
 X Rye, Bourbon, etc. 
 
 
 16 " " 
 
 XX " 
 
 
 17 " " 
 
 XXX " 
 
 
 19 " " 
 
 XXXX " and Scotch 
 
 
 27 « " 
 
 Beer 
 
 
 25 " " 
 
 Ale 
 
 
 18 " « 
 
 The profits charged on the low grade of goods are not 
 such as to discourage consumption ; and unless the State 
 sells nearly at cost, it cannot prevent illicit selling from be- 
 ing remunerative. A comparison of the profits on the low 
 and high grades would therefore seem to lead to the conclu- 
 sion that eff'orts are not made to diminish the consumption 
 of the liquors constituting the bulk of the traffic. 
 
 ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW. 
 
 It is quite within the truth to say that no substitute for 
 a license system has been so thoroughly enforced in this 
 country as the dispensary act of South Carolina. On so- 
 cial and political grounds the opposition to the law has been 
 and is exceedingly bitter. Yet while it cannot be said 
 that the law is no longer evaded even by the private citizen 
 who never traded in the contraband goods, its mandates are 
 generally heeded, but from necessity rather than from choice. 
 A strong force of constabulary, which may be augumented at 
 will by the governor, is everywhere at work ferreting out 
 violations of the law, watching railroad stations, steamboat 
 landings, express offices, and other avenues of commerce. 
 Having large powers, they make the importation of contra- 
 band liquor a most difficult operation, no matter under 
 what disguise it may be shipped. Barrels and boxes ap- 
 parently containing flour, pork, and other merchandise are 
 frequently searched for liquor. Every suspicious looking 
 package may be retained twenty -four hours for examination. 
 But quite as efiective, if not more efi"ective, than the pres- 
 ence of constabulary is the offer of the reward of twenty
 
 ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW. 171 
 
 cents per gallon for information leading to seizures. By 
 this means the authorities have frequently learned in ad- 
 vance that on such and such a day a certain consignee 
 would expect a shipment of liquor. Private persons no 
 less than the would-be seller have learned to dread the in- 
 former. Fear of him again necessitates extreme caution 
 on the part of the violator of the law over against his cus- 
 tomers. 
 
 Two legal measures force an oftentimes unwilling obedi- 
 ence to the law. One is the threat to withhold from the 
 incorporated communities their share of the dispensary earn- 
 ings for neglect to suppress the " blind tigers." In more 
 than one instance municipal authorities have acknowledged 
 that fear of losing the revenue has necessitated a semblance 
 of police activity in executing the law. The other is the 
 metropolitan police, which hangs like a sword over the heads 
 of several of the larger cities. It is dreaded, not only be- 
 cause of the awkward entanglements it might cause, but 
 even more on account of the new power the ruling party 
 would wield through it. 
 
 In every municipality, with the exception of Charleston, 
 the law is well enforced, and even in the latter contraband 
 liquors have ceased to be an important factor in consump- 
 tion. Many " blind tigers " still survive, but they lead a 
 precarious existence ; in numerous places they have been 
 driven to become ambulators (pocket peddlers). Charles- 
 ton is believed by the best authorities to harbor from 100 
 to 150 places where liquor is sold Avith more or less regu- 
 larity. When other supplies fail them, the illicit venders 
 can always sell the State protected malt liquors. Brewery 
 delivery wagons are commonly seen unloading goods in 
 front of notorious " blind tigers." The goods cannot be 
 seized, since the dealer solemnly asserts that they are for his 
 own use. The State Board of Control is itself responsible for 
 the continuance of much of the illicit traffic in Charleston,
 
 172 THE SOUTH CAEOLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 and has placed strong obstacles in the way of the police, 
 who display much activity in enforcing the law. The real 
 difficulty, however, lies in the fact that the " blind tigers " 
 draAV patronage from the otherwise law-abiding members 
 of society, and that it is impossible to secure convictions. 
 Citizens to whom the epithet " lawbreakers " would seem 
 the least applicable, do not hesitate to smuggle in liquor. 
 Attempts to secure communion wine in this way have re- 
 cently been made. Threats of " trouble," meaning bodily 
 conflict, should constables attempt a search of their homes, 
 are still made by men who, both from their professions and 
 standing, are accounted the most peace-loving of citizens. 
 
 While the municipalities are more and more brought 
 under the stern hand of the dispensary system, it is not so 
 with many rural districts where the liquor traffic was for- 
 merly little known, that northwestern portion of the State 
 referred to as the " Dark Corner " always excepted. There 
 the United States revenue officers have for years waged war 
 against " moonshiners " with indifi'erent success, and the 
 state authorities are equally powerless to suppress them. 
 From the hill districts the itinerant liquor peddler obtains 
 his supplies, or he may smuggle them across the northern 
 border through other than the usual channels of commerce. 
 
 At all events, from the various sections of the State come 
 reports like these, in response to inquiries made by the 
 writer : " There has been a marked increase of drunkenness 
 in the county, as ' blind tigers ' may be found at every cross- 
 road, and whiskey wagons do a large business." From an- 
 other county : " Drunkenness and disorderly conduct have 
 very materially decreased in the city, but have very greatly 
 increased in the country outside the city, where they have 
 no police protection or vigilance," etc. Evidence is thus 
 at hand warranting the belief that the rural districts are 
 beginning to suff'er the very ills from which thoy wished to 
 relieve tlie town through the dispensary system.
 
 ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW. 173 
 
 The distilleries, although having the State as chief cus- 
 tomer, are not inclined to obey its laws. Not a single one 
 of the forty-three registered distilleries has so far made 
 the returns of its business required by the dispensary act. 
 Efforts to compel them to do so have led to conflict with the 
 federal authorities. Several distillers have been accused 
 of selling liquor to consumers, and keeping '■'■ a large-sized 
 * speak-easy ' establishment in conjunction with their dis- 
 tillery." 
 
 Notwithstanding these numerous leaks, the State monop- 
 oly is, on the whole, well protected. The most conclusive 
 evidence on this point comes from wholesale liquor-dealers 
 in Augusta, Atlanta, and other cities in Georgia who testify 
 that since the introduction of the dispensary system their 
 business with South Carolina has almost ceased. 
 
 The increase of convictions in the United States courts 
 for violations of the revenue laws does not, as has been 
 held, indicate a proportionate growth of the illegal traffic. 
 For an extended period subsequent to the enactment of the 
 first dispensary law, dealers did not hesitate to protect them- 
 selves against the federal authorities by paying the required 
 special tax. Now but very few dare do so, lest they furnish 
 evidence against themselves to the State. But if caught 
 selling without having paid the United States tax, they are 
 generally convicted in the federal courts. 
 
 The attorney-general in his report for the year ending 
 October 31, 1893, cites in all forty-five prosecutions, most 
 of them in Charleston, which up to that time had been 
 brought for violation of the dispensary act ; not a single one 
 resulting in a final conviction. It was then believed that 
 the severity of the penalties precluded the possibility of city 
 juries rendering a verdict of guilty. The proposition was 
 agitated of dispensing, if possible, with jury trials in liquor 
 cases, and to impose the duty of trying them upon a special 
 officer . . . to be designated in each county. Pending the
 
 174 THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 .decision of the Supreme Court as to the constitutionality of 
 the law, it was natural that the difficulties in obtaining con- 
 victions should continue, notwithstanding the lighter penal- 
 ties provided. The two decisions of that tribunal taking 
 opposite ground did not mend matters much. The disre- 
 spect in which the law was held by many had, if anything, 
 grown. 
 
 From the report of the attorney-general for the year 
 ending October 31, 1894, it appears that only one convic- 
 tion resulted from the many arrests of illicit dealers. This 
 solitary case was for " hauling liquor ; " and since the penalty 
 involved a fine of less than $100, action could be brought 
 before a trial justice. In ninety-four cases, true bills were 
 not found, or they were '* discontinued." Three trials by 
 jury resulted in the verdict, " not guilty." The majority 
 of these cases originated in Charleston. In his message of 
 1894 Governor Tillman said of this city : — 
 
 " The temper of the people is such that it is idle to expect 
 juries to punish lawbreakers in whiskey cases ; and the same 
 is true of Beaufort and some other places. Last year I advised 
 reduction of penalties and fines, and placing the administration 
 in the hands of trial justices. It was a mistake. Most of the 
 illicit selling is by townspeople, and the juries in the towns 
 will not convict, no matter how clear the evidence." 
 
 The truth of the latter assertion has been demonstrated in 
 Charleston. From December, 1894, to the middle of April, 
 1895, 204 arrests for illegal selling were made by the police. 
 In each case liquor was seized on the premises, and the 
 finding of it is prima facie evidence of violation of the law. 
 The grand jury refused to consider the most positive evi- 
 dence. Case after case was thrown out. Only one came to a 
 jury trial, and that had no result. On the grand jury was, 
 among others, a man who had himself been arrested under 
 the dispensary act. The only conviction obtained so far 
 in Charleston has been in the case for hauling liquor.
 
 ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW. 175 
 
 heard before a trial justice. How far the number of cases 
 brought to the attention of the courts correspond to the 
 number of arrests made under the dispensary law is not 
 known. Complete returns from the police are lacking, and 
 the doings of the constables are not published. At present 
 the latter seem to apply themselves to the prevention of 
 smuggling, and less to securing evidence against " blind 
 tigers." The confiscation of contraband goods is apparently 
 regarded as sufficient penalty in some cases, and prosecu- 
 tions are not made, especially when the attempted smug- 
 gling is shown to have been for private use only. 
 
 The feeling against the law was illustrated at the first 
 jury trials of dispensary cases which have taken place in 
 Columbia (April, 1895). The judge placed every juryman 
 presented under his voir cUi'e. When the second case was 
 reached, the panel had already been exhausted. Quite a 
 number of jurors were excused by the court since they con- 
 fessed inability to overcome their prejudices against the law 
 and return a verdict simply on the facts. The second day 
 of the trials it was reported that " some of the very best 
 men in the community were excused from serving on the 
 jury " for the reasons given. In some of the cases tried at 
 this time the jury were unable to agree ; in others the plea 
 of guilty was entered, with the understanding that only a 
 light penalty should be imposed. 
 
 If the courts have been brought into disrepute by the 
 opponents of the dispensary system, its advocates are equally 
 to be blamed. The judges who have taken a stand against 
 the law have been repeatedly vilified by the administration, 
 accused of partisanship, and at an opportune moment have 
 been pushed aside. Constables who have been convicted 
 of various offenses have been pardoned by the executive. 
 The tardiness with which the State has proceeded, if at all, 
 against dispensers found short in their accounts is evidence 
 of the same nature.
 
 176 THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 If the arrests for drunkenness can be shown to have de- 
 creased materially under the dispensary law, the inference 
 is warranted that consumption has fallen off in some pro- 
 portion. 
 
 Charleston had in 1890 a population of 54,955. The 
 colored inhabitants constituted 31,036, and no class of dis- 
 tinct drinking propensities, such as is commonly found in 
 large manufacturing towns, exists. On the whole the con- 
 ditions do not seem unfavorable to the enforcement of 
 stringent liquor laws. In 1892 the city contained 285 
 places where liquor was sold, each paying $110 annually 
 for the privilege. The local ordinances regulating their 
 business were by no means severe nor rigidly enforced. The 
 passage of the dispensary act caused some dealers to retire 
 or go elsewhere. Others preferred to remain and take all 
 risks. How grossly the law was violated at first has already 
 been shown. Not until toward the close of 1894 had a 
 systematic war of extermination been carried on against the 
 " blind tigers," and still many of them live, but in numer- 
 ous cases in a state of semi-captivity. In spite of these 
 untoward circumstances, the arrests for drunkenness have 
 diminished in a remarkable degree under the dispensary 
 system, as shown by the following statistics : — 
 
 In 1888 the total arrests for drunkenness, and for drunken- 
 ness and disorderly conduct, 715, or 13.25 per 1,000 inhab- 
 itants; in 1889, 868, or 15.03; in 1890, 801, or 14.57; in 
 1891, 849, or 15.31 ; 1892, 690, or 12.33 ; 1893, 412, or 7.29 ; 
 1894, 459, or 8.06. 
 
 The relatively low rate of arrests per one thousand in- 
 habitants for all the years given must be ascribed to the 
 comparative sobriety of the city rather than to a lax police 
 regime. While the punishment for intoxication does 
 not probably act as deterrent to a perceptible degree, the 
 authorities show quite the ordinary zeal in removing
 
 ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW. 177 
 
 drunken persons from the streets.^ The falling off for 
 1892 has not been accounted for as due to any abnormal 
 conditions. The statistics for 1893 show that, although 
 the dispensary act went into force only in July, and illicit 
 selling remained common, the arrests per 1,000 inhabitants 
 fell off 40.87 per cent, as compared with 1892, and 52.38 
 per cent, as compared with 1891. The increase in 1894 
 over the former year was unquestionably due to the closing 
 of the dispensaries from April 22 to August 1, and the free- 
 dom with which liquor was sold for some time after they 
 were opened again. For the two quarters ending June 30 
 and September 30 that year, the arrests exceeded those for 
 the first and last quarter by 56.42 per cent. The charge 
 that antipathy toward the dispensary law has induced the 
 police to refrain from making arrests with the former zeal 
 lacks substantiation. 
 
 Columbia, the second city in South Carolina, had in 1890 
 a population of 15,352, of which 8,789, or 57.24 per cent., 
 were colored, and only 321 of foreign birth. In 1892 it 
 had 38 bars paying low fees ; the restraints upon the licen- 
 sees were few. As the capital of the State, one of the 
 largest railway centres, and containing a number of large 
 factories, it was not surprising that Columbia should suiJ- 
 port an extensive liquor traffic. The process of putting 
 down the illegal venders when the dispensary act went into 
 force was slow. Not until the metropolitan police bill 
 passed, December, 1894, did the municipal authorities push 
 the work with some vigor. A study of the statistics indi- 
 cates, contrary to the assertion of city officials, that the arrests 
 for drunkenness have fallen off to an appreciable extent. 
 
 In 1891 total arrests for drunkenness, 247, or 15.85 per 1,000 
 inhabitants; in 1892, 201, or 12.71; in 1893, 187, or 11.66; in 
 1894, 182, or 11.19. 
 
 1 Previous to 1804, the incorporated communities regulated the penalty' 
 for drunkenness in the ahscnce of a general law. Usually it consisted in 
 a fine of $5 to 5F10, or imprisonment for one or several weeks.
 
 178 THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 The reduction per 1,000 inhabitants in 1893, as com- 
 pared with the preceding year, was 8.26 per cent., and as 
 compared with 1891, 26.43 per cent. During the first part 
 of 1893, only a fraction of the saloons doing business in 
 the preceding year kept open. The unlicensed traffic did 
 not increase materially when the dispensaries closed ; the 
 authorities did not, as elsewhere, grant beer and wine li- 
 censes ; and in consequence the arrests for May, June, and 
 July, 1894, do not show any increase over other months of 
 the year. From 75 to 80 per cent, of the persons arrested 
 for drunkenness are colored. It is stated that drunkenness 
 among the rural population in the vicinity of Columbia is 
 more common than before. 
 
 For Greenville, the third largest city in the State (esti- 
 mated population in 1891, 6,405 ; in 1894, 7,140), the sta- 
 tistics are : — 
 
 Total arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct in 1891, 
 938; 1892, 1,142; 1893, 651; 1894, 525. 
 
 About one third of the arrests should be deducted, for 
 they are for disorderly conduct not caused by drink. A 
 great improvement is seen to have taken place under the 
 dispensary system (1893) ; this, however, is attributed to 
 the " severe punishment and heavy fines imposed for viola- 
 tion of city ordinances by the present city administration " 
 (which took office in September that year). These are 
 treble the amount of the former penalties, and would, it is 
 asserted, " preserve the same order we have now if the 16 
 barrooms were open, as we had them before the dispensary 
 act became law." But in the two months preceding the 
 present administration the law had been in operation and 
 caused a notable diminution in arrests. 
 
 In other cities of the State, Spartanburg, Aiken, Orange- 
 burg, Florence, Darlington, Georgetown, and the rest, the 
 information collected shows conclusively that the arrests for 
 drunkenness have fallen off from one third to one half 
 under the dispensary law.
 
 GENEEAL SUMMARY OF RESULTS. 179 
 
 It is then, beyond all cavil, true that in the cities and 
 towns formerly under license the dispensary law has pro- 
 moted sobriety and in a truly Avonderful degree. The many 
 evils inseparable from the saloons, and which have been 
 abolished with them, need not be dwelt upon. It is equally 
 self-evident that less drinking means better conduct and 
 greater peace in the community. 
 
 As to the effects of establishing dispensaries in places 
 formerly under prohibition, advocates of prohibition assert 
 that no-license has generally proved a success, while the 
 dispensary advocates assert that the illicit sales in " dry " 
 towns far exceeded the present transactions of the state 
 liquor-shops and were productive of greater evil. 
 
 Judging from the reported sales of some dispensaries, 
 their capacity in distributing intoxicants is far greater 
 than that of ordinary saloons. Thus in one place of less 
 than two thousand inhabitants, which formerly had two 
 bars, the monthly sale of liquor has reached the sum of 
 about $2,700, which would equal $32,400 per year and 
 yield a profit to town and county of about $5,000. The 
 policy of compelling the purchaser to buy more than one 
 drink at the time — never less than one half pint — is a 
 questionable method of encouraging consumption and is by 
 some believed to have stimulated home drinking. The in- 
 crease of drunkenness in many rural districts due to the 
 traveling " blind tigers " has already been noted. 
 
 So far as the cities and large towns are concerned, the 
 dispensary system has already reached the limits of its use- 
 fulness as a temperance agent. Any further addition to 
 the state liquor-shops in the cities where they already exist 
 would be a direct invitation to drink. With the law so 
 generally and rigidly enforced as at present, any multi- 
 plication of dispensaries in semi-rural districts can have no 
 other purpose than to raise revenue and put more wheels 
 into the political machine.
 
 180 THE SOUTH CAROLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM, 
 
 Wliile the unbiased observer cannot fail to be impressed 
 by the changes wrought by a system which has closed the 
 saloons and nearly suppressed the illicit traffic, thousands 
 remain blind to them. The political opponents of the dis- 
 pensary authorities most often deny that aught good has 
 been accomplished. The prohibitionists will frequently 
 not even admit that drunkenness has been reduced ; the 
 system never had nor can have any affiliations with radical 
 temperance reformers. 
 
 1895. 
 
 Since the above was Avritten, the dispensary law has on 
 several occasions figured in the courts, but its constitu- 
 tionality is still to be passed on by the United States 
 Supreme Court. Meantime the barroom, where liquor is 
 retailed by the glass, has been banished from South Caro- 
 lina. The Constitutional Convention of 1895 framed an 
 article on intoxicating liquors, which leaves it optional 
 with the legislature to continue the dispensary system, or 
 to pass a prohibitory law, or to grant licenses for the sale 
 of liquor in packages, not to be consumed on the premises. 
 It is also provided that the State's share of the profits from 
 the traffic shall be devoted to the public schools. 
 
 The business of liquor selling at the dispensaries is 
 flourishing. 
 
 On January 17, 1897, the United States Supreme Court 
 decided that those provisions of the South Carolina dispen- 
 sary law which forbid citizens of the State from importing 
 liquors into the State for their own use are in contraven- 
 tion of the Interstate Commerce clause of the national Con- 
 stitution, and therefore invalid. The decision leaves the 
 question whether it is competent for a State, in the exercise 
 of its police power, to monopolize the traffic in intoxicating 
 liquors and thus put itself into competition with the citi- 
 zens of other States, in abeyance. 
 
 1897.
 
 PRESENT CONDITION OF THE SYSTEM. 180ct 
 
 The dispensary act has been twice reenacted bodily, in 
 1896 and again in 1897, apparently for the purpose of 
 avoiding the effects of previous decisions of the courts by 
 securing a pretext for fresh argument on an alleged new 
 act. Two important changes in the law must be noted : 
 (1) A State Board of Control, of five members, is now 
 elected by the General Assembly, to serve for one, two, 
 three, four, and five years respectively ; formerly the 
 board consisted of the governor, the comptroller-general, 
 and the attorney-general. (2) A provision relative to the 
 importation for private use of liquors from without the 
 State requires samples of such liquors to be analyzed by 
 the State Chemist in advance of their importation, and 
 that his certificate as to '' purity " be attached to each 
 package purchased. By prescribing an impracticable ex- 
 amination of liquors on the ground of public welfare, it 
 was hoped to circumvent the tendency of previous court 
 decisions to allow the importation of liquors for private 
 use. But the United States Supreme Court, in the case 
 of Scott and Donald (17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 265), on the right 
 of a person in South Carolina to purchase wine from Cali- 
 fornia, held that so far as the dispensary act prohibits this 
 it was unconstitutional. Although the court did not pass 
 upon the abstract right of the State to regulate the liquor 
 traffic on the dispensary plan, the language of the decision 
 was construed to imply the doom of the dispensaries. This 
 belief became so universal that " original package " stores 
 were at once opened in great numbers and sold liquors 
 freely. The United States Circuit Court, on trial, held 
 this business to be lawful, and the case of Vance v. Van- 
 dercook Company was carried up on appeal to the United 
 States Supreme Court, all questions being by consent raised 
 in the record. The decision of the Supreme Court (May, 
 1898, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 674) proved a shock to the liquor 
 interest. It so far reversed the decision in Scott and
 
 180^* THE SOUTH CAKOLINA DISPENSARY SYSTEM. 
 
 Donald as to hold that, while persons may import liquor 
 for private use, they may not sell it even in the original 
 packages. 
 
 But of far greater importance was the declaration that 
 the dispensary acts in their essential features are valid, 
 that is, furnish a proper and constitutional method of regu- 
 lating the liquor traffic through the domestic police power, 
 and that the State may take sole charge of the business. 
 For the first time in its history, the dispensary system is 
 no longer hampered by court decisions, but has been left 
 by them in a reasonable and on the whole satisfactory 
 state. 
 
 The present condition of the system in South Carolina 
 may be summed up as follows : — 
 
 The dispensary question is no longer a serious factor in 
 politics. At a State Democratic Convention this year (the 
 white people of the State) the system was indorsed by a 
 very large majority. It is still opposed by the Prohibi- 
 tionists on principle, and by the remnant of the " Straight 
 Out " party (Conservatives) for politics. But the former 
 seem inclined to accept the law, at least as a stepping-stone 
 to more rigid legislation, and the " Straight Out " party is 
 politically dead, party lines being formed«on new issues. 
 
 The liquor interest (the " Blind Tigers " excepted) is de- 
 moralized and has disbanded. In certain localities " Blind 
 Tigers " are still quite numerous, but wield little influence 
 politically and are getting into public disfavor. 
 
 The privilege to import liquors for private use has 
 robbed the " personal rights " people of their chief griev- 
 ance, and thus diminished the opposition to the system. 
 The loss of the patronage of the comparatively few who 
 will go to the trouble of buying liquor out of the State 
 cannot seriously affect the business of the dispensaries. 
 
 1898.
 
 THE EESTEICTIVE SYSTEM IN IVIASSACHU- 
 SETTS, 1875-1894. 
 
 After a trial of prohibition covering several years, 
 Massachusetts, in 1874, returned to a licensing system. 
 
 The law of that year placed the licensing power in the 
 hands of the mayor and aldermen of cities and selectmen 
 of towns, authorizing the appointment of license commis- 
 sions in cities by the mayor, with concurrence of the city 
 council. Six classes of licenses, each license to run for 
 a year, were provided for: Class 1, to sell liquor of any 
 kind, to be drunk on the premises, fee, minimum, $100, 
 maximum, $1,000; class 2, to sell malt liquors, cider, and 
 light wines containing not more than 15 per cent, of alco- 
 hol, to be drunk on the premises, fee $50 to $250; class 
 3, to sell malt liquors and cider, to be drunk on the prem- 
 ises, fee the same as class 2; class 4, to sell distilled 
 liquors of any kind not to be drunk on the premises, fee 
 $50 to $500, in no case less than $300 unless the dis- 
 tiller's annual output was no more than 50 barrels, when 
 the minimum fee was to be charged; class 5, to sell malt 
 liquors, cider, and light wines containing not more than 
 15 per cent, of alcohol, not to be drunk on the premises, 
 $50 to $150, brewers to be charged from $200 to $400, 
 according to the value of business; class 6, license to 
 druggists and apothecaries to sell liquors of any kind for 
 medicinal, mechanical, and chemical purposes. The main 
 conditions of license were that no sales be made between 
 midnight and 6 A. m., nor on Sunday, except by innhold- 
 ers; that only good and unadulterated liquors be vended;
 
 182 THE EESTRICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 no sales be made to a drunkard, or an intoxicated person, 
 or a minor; no disturbance, indecency, prostitution, lewd- 
 ness, or illegal gaming be allowed on the premises licensed 
 or connected thereM'ith by interior communication. Li- 
 censes of the second, third, and fifth classes were made 
 subject to the further condition that only the classes of 
 liquor defined be kept on the premises licensed, and those 
 of the first, second, and third classes to the condition that 
 the licensee should not keep a public bar and should hold 
 a license as an innholder or common victualler, which 
 mayor and aldermen and selectmen were authorized to 
 grant. The licensee was required to provide a bond of 
 $1,000. Penalties for violating the conditions of a license 
 were fixed at a fine of from $50 to $500, or imprisonment, 
 one to six months, or both fine and imprisonment; in addi- 
 tion, the license to be forfeited, and the holder disquali- 
 fied from renewing it for one year; for furnishing liquor 
 to a minor, a fine of $100; for failure to comply with 
 the request of a wife, child, or guardian that liquor be not 
 sold to husbands or parents or ward, a fine of $100 to 
 $500; for selling without a license, fine $50 to $500, 
 or imprisonment one to six months, or both. Delivery of 
 liquor except for a private house was declared to be prima 
 facie evidence of sale. The term "intoxicating liquors" 
 was defined as including ale, porter, strong beer, lager beer, 
 cider, and all wines, as well as distilled spirits. The 
 licensing authorities or any officer authorized by them was 
 empowered to enter licensed premises at any time, to ob- 
 serve the conduct of the business, take samples of liquor 
 for analysis, and so on, and these authorities might declare 
 a license forfeited Avhen conditions were violated. A state 
 inspector and assayer of liquors, to analyze all samples sent 
 him by mayors and others, was provided for. 
 
 The various amendments to this law which were enacted 
 from 1876 to 1880 embodied no radical departure, but
 
 ACTS OF 1876-1880. 183 
 
 wero chiefly designed to strengthen it and to provide pen- 
 alties for any infringement. These amendments, briefly 
 stated, were as follows : — 
 
 In 1876, a search warrant act prescribing minutely the 
 mode of procedure against persons suspected of illegal sell- 
 ing, the warrant to be issued on the complaint of two per- 
 sons provided the justice or court is satisfied of the truth 
 of the complaint. Arrests of persons in the act of selling 
 illegally may be made without a warrant. In case an 
 officer neglects to institute proceedings after being furnished 
 with a written notice of a violation of the law, it is pro- 
 vided that any person thereafter making a complaint shall 
 be entitled to all fines imposed and collected. In 1878, 
 acts to prevent bringing liquor intended for sale into places 
 where licenses for the five classes enumerated are not 
 granted; providing for the recovery of damages by parent, 
 wife, or child, caused by the use of liquors sold; requiring 
 the consent of the owner of the building in which it is 
 proposed to exercise a license. In 1879, an act transfer- 
 ring the licensing power for the city of Boston to the 
 board of police commissioners. In 1880, acts requiring 
 the specification in each license of the first three classes, 
 innholders excepted, of the room or rooms in which liquor 
 may be sold; the removal of screens, blinds, and other 
 obstructions to a view of licensed premises; that no sale 
 be made to a minor for the use of parent or any other per- 
 son, or to a person known to have been intoxicated within 
 the six months next preceding; that in case a judgment 
 awarded for injuries remains unsatisfied for thirty days 
 the license be revoked; and defining intoxicating liquor to 
 be any beverage containing more than 3 per cent, of alcohol 
 by volume at 60° Fahrenheit. 
 
 In 1881 a local option law was passed, providing for 
 the granting of licenses only in cities and towns voting at 
 the annual election or meeting to authorize their issue, the
 
 184 THE RESTRICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 vote to be taken by separate ballot, " yes, " or " no. " Towns 
 voting "no " might grant druggists' medicinal licenses. The 
 same year the severity of the "screen law" was increased, 
 any obstruction to a view from the street being declared 
 a sufficient cause for nullifying a license. 
 
 In 1882 acts were passed reqiiiring sureties on liquor 
 bonds to make sworn statements as to property qualifica- 
 tions; prohibiting the granting of licenses of the first 
 three classes for sales in any building or place rf)n the same 
 street within four hundred feet of a public school] provid- 
 ing that upon written notification to the licensing board of 
 objection by an owner of real estate adjoining premises for 
 which a license is sought, the license shall not issue, or if 
 granted may be revoked. In 1884 additions were made 
 to the conditions of licenses, prohibiting the sale or delivery 
 of liquors to a person known to have been intoxicated 
 within six months, or one known to have been supported 
 by public charity at any time within twelve months. In 
 1885 the licensing power for Boston was vested in the 
 board of police commissioners appointed by the governor of 
 the Commonwealth. Other acts of this year were measures 
 directed against the improper canceling of liquor cases in 
 court; restricting sales to the hours between 6 A. m. and 
 11 p. M., with the exception of sales by innholders, who 
 were allowed to supply duly registered guests ; prohibiting 
 sales on election days, with the same exception ; and em- 
 powering mayors and selectmen to issue notices to dealers 
 not to sell or deliver liquor to a person of intemperate 
 habits, making neglect to comply therewith within a speci- 
 fied time cause for action for damages for the benefit of 
 the relatives or guardians of such person. 
 
 In 1887 and 1888 the acts were many and varied. In 
 the former year tlie issue of special club licenses, revokable 
 at any time by the licensing authorities, were authorized, 
 all places used by unlicensed clubs for the sale or dispensing
 
 ACTS OF 1887 AND 1888. 185 
 
 of liquors being declared common nuisances; the act of 
 1882 withholding license from premises upon the written 
 objection of owners of adjoining real estate was so amended 
 as to admit objections by owners of real estate within 
 twenty-five feet of such premises; mayors or selectmen 
 were empowered to forbid sales by licensees of the first 
 three classes in case of riot or unusual excitement, but not 
 for more than three days at a time, the penalty for failure 
 to obey such order being fixed at a fine of $200 for each 
 offense and forfeiture of license ; conviction of a licensee for 
 violation of any of the liquor laws was declared of itself 
 to make the license void; the seizure of implements or 
 sale of furniture used in selling liquor illegally was author- 
 ized; the granting of a sixth class license to retail drug- 
 gists to sell for medicinal, mechanical, or chemical purposes 
 alone, upon the certificate of the purchaser, stating the use 
 for which the liquor is desired, record, open to inspection, 
 to be kept of each sale, was authorized ; and provision was 
 made for the forwarding of confiscated liquors to the chief 
 of the district police, to be sold by him for the benefit of 
 the State. The acts of 1888 prohibited sales on Fast, Me- 
 morial, Thanksgiving, and Christmas days (or on December 
 26), except by innholders to duly registered guests ; added 
 a further condition of license, that a common victualler 
 shall not sell or give away liquor on election days; prohib- 
 ited the exercise of a license of the first five classes in a 
 dwelling or in any room having interior connection with 
 a dwelling or tenement; limited the number of licenses to 
 one for 1,000 inhabitants, except in Boston, the proportion 
 there to be one to 500 ; and in towns having an increase 
 of resident population during the summer months, the 
 selectmen in such towns being empowered to issue one to 
 each 500, to run from June 15 to September 15, provided 
 the town votes "yes" on the license question; further de- 
 fined intoxicating liquor to be any beverage containing one
 
 186 THE KESTRICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 per cent, of alcohol at 60° Fahrenheit; and increased the 
 license fees: first class, not less than $1,000, second and 
 third classes $250; fourth class, $300; fifth class, $150; 
 and sixth (druggists), $1, 
 
 In 1889 the penalty for violations of the liquor laws 
 was made fine ($50 to $500) and imprisonment from one 
 to six months, a licensee (except druggist) if convicted 
 forfeiting his license and being disqualified for one year. 
 This year, also, acts were passed prohibiting the issue of 
 licenses to druggists and apothecaries not registered phar- 
 macists ; empowering the licensing board to transfer licenses 
 from one location to another in the city or town in which 
 the licenses are in force, such privileges, however, to be 
 granted only to original licensees; prohibiting licenses of 
 the fourth and fifth classes, except wholesale druggists, 
 from selling on election days; and permitting sales during 
 special elections in wards where no election takes place. 
 In 1890 a penalty was fixed for the employment of any 
 person under eighteen years of age to serve liquor in a 
 place where it is sold for consumption on the premises. 
 In 1891 each license of the first, second, and third classes 
 was made subject to the further condition that the licensee 
 shall hold a license as an innholder or common victualler, 
 and shall not serve liquors at table in any room where the 
 exclusive business is liquor-selling; and the issue of tem- 
 porary licenses (taking effect July 1 and expiring October 
 1) in cities and towns voting "yes " was authorized on the 
 basis of one to 500 inhabitants, the enumeration to be 
 made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
 
 In 1894 further provisions were made with respect to 
 sureties, the number of bonds upon which a person, firm, 
 or corporation may be accepted as surety being limited to 
 ten, and each surety being required to make sworn state- 
 ment that he is not surety on more than nine other bonds. 
 This year, also, an act was passed providing for the estab-
 
 ACTS OF 1894. 187 
 
 lishment of boards of license commissioners in cities not 
 having a license commission, or board of police created by 
 special statute or under a charter, or voting at their last 
 election against license: such board to be appointed by 
 the mayor with the concurrence of the council, and to ex- 
 ercise the powers formerly imposed upon the mayor and 
 aldermen relative to intoxicating liquors as well as to inn- 
 holders and common victuallers. In case a city should 
 afterward vote not to grant licenses, it was provided that 
 the obligation as to license commissioners should cease, and 
 the power heretofore exercised by mayors and aldermen 
 revest in them. Other acts of 1894 were relative to illegal 
 sales by incorporated clubs, directing the secretary of the 
 Commonwealth to publish such incorporations as void; and 
 with respect to druggists' licenses, prohibiting the issue of 
 such license to any person not a registered pharmacist ac- 
 tively engaged in business on his own account, or to any 
 registered pharmacist who does not present a certificate 
 from the State Board of Registration in Pharmacy indors- 
 ing him as a proper person to be intrusted with it. In 
 1895 sales were prohibited on the Nineteenth of April and 
 the Fourth of July. 
 
 The results of the present methods of dealing with the 
 liquor traffic (license by statutory limitation, high fees, and 
 so on) may be more clearly apprehended when brought into 
 contrast with those of earlier methods. Two communities 
 were chosen for study: Boston, the chief city and centre 
 of the liquor trade, and North Adams, a town in Berkshire 
 County, in the western part of the State, the latter as rep- 
 resentative of the smaller communities under license.
 
 188 THE EESTEICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 I. THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC IN BOSTON. 
 
 UKDER THE LICENSING COMMISSIONERS, 1875-1879. 
 
 After the enactment of the law of 1875, the authority 
 to grant licenses in Boston was vested in a board of three 
 members apjiointed by the mayor, subject to the approval 
 of the City Council. Since this board had no organized 
 connection with the Police Department, upon which the 
 final enforcement of the liquor laws depends, its functions 
 were generally limited to the distribution of licenses, and 
 to hearing complaints. The board might issue orders, but 
 it had no power to compel their execution. 
 
 The conditions confronting the first boards were peculiar 
 and perplexing. During the later years of prohibition 
 no serious attempts had been made to enforce the law. 
 The commissioners had to deal with persons accustomed 
 to non-interference, and hence not easily brought to heed 
 the restrictions even of a mild license law.* The three 
 principal abuses were deemed to be the sale of impure 
 liquors, the Sunday traffic, and late hours. Much fault 
 was found with the penalties prescribed for illicit sales and 
 with the mode of procedure to secure convictions. 
 
 The earliest amendments (the search warrant act and 
 forfeiture clause) did not appreciably improve the condi- 
 tions. When the next board entered upon office. May 8, 
 1877, the chief of police reported that liquor was sold at 
 2,341 places. But since only 1,055 places were licensed 
 
 1 " Liquor selling in this city is, to a large extent, in the hands of irre- 
 sponsible men and women, whose idea of a license law ends with the simple 
 matter of paying a certain sum; the amount making but little difference 
 as long as they are left to do as they i)l('aso after the payment. Besides 
 the saloons and barrooms which are open publicly, the traflic in small 
 grocery stores, in cellars and in dwellinghouses, in some parts of the city, 
 is almost astounding. The Sunday trade is enormous, and it seems as if 
 there were not hours enough in the whole round of twenty-four, or days 
 enough in the entire week, to satisfy the dealers."
 
 UNDER LICENSING COMMISSIONERS. 189 
 
 during the year, "the law was violated at 1,300 to the 
 knowledge of the police." Among the licensed dealers 
 there was widespread discontent because they were unpro- 
 tected against the unlicensed. "Juries failed to convict 
 persons who proved that they had been willing to take out 
 licenses and live under them." (Report of Commissioners.) 
 The character and standing of the police force had also 
 suffered, for "the opinion was widespread that without the 
 tacit approval, and in some cases the absolute protection 
 of the officers especially detailed to enforce it, so many 
 persons could not live in open violation of the law the 
 police were bound to enforce equally with any other." 
 
 To obviate these evils more licenses were issued. In 
 fact, every person who came to the board "properly recom- 
 mended " was granted a license. In consequence the num- 
 ber was increased by 1,101, giving 149 inhabitants to each 
 license in 1878 against 267 in the preceding year. The 
 measure resulted in compelling most of the liquor-dealers 
 to take out licenses, with large gains to the city treasury. 
 
 The freer granting of licenses was followed by a " marked 
 improvement in the respectability and good order of the 
 places, and a stricter conformity to the law. " While assert- 
 ing this, the commissioners complained of one great obsta- 
 cle — the unwillingness of the public to aid them and fur- 
 nish evidence of violations. Anonymous complaints were 
 not lacking, but "even avowed prohibitionists refused to 
 sign complaints." 
 
 It is interesting to observe that the commissioners be- 
 lieved that the consumption of distilled spirits Avas decreas- 
 ing. Wholesale dealers and distillers reiterated the asser- 
 tion, and on this ground demanded a reduction of license 
 fees. If an actual decrease had taken place, it was of 
 short duration, for later they paid trebled fees without a 
 murmur. 
 
 The following year, 1879, was the last under license
 
 190 THE RESTKICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 commissioners. Their powers were now, by legislative 
 act, vested in a Board of Police Commissioners appointed 
 by the mayor. The license law had been in operation for 
 four years, and some marked changes had been wrought. 
 In December, 1874, the chief of police reported the num- 
 ber of places where liquor was sold to be 3,090, a large 
 proportion of which had facilities for drinking on the 
 premises. In September, 1875, when the law had been in 
 operation four months, there were 1,897 licensed and 586 
 unlicensed places. In May, 1877, the police stated that 
 of the 2,341 places but 1,167 were licensed. In 1878, 
 according to their figures, the number had decreased to 
 180, and in 1879 to 101. This improvement, real though 
 it was in one sense, had been accomplished only by greatly 
 increasing the number of licenses. While many seizures 
 were made, and not a few licensees forfeited their privileges, 
 the task of inculcating thorough respect for the law among 
 licensed dealers had made slight advance. The grossest 
 abuses, such as selling to minors, to intoxicated persons, 
 on Sundays, and after hours, continued much as before. 
 The last board of license commissioners, especially, had 
 evinced much zeal in performing its duties, but it lacked 
 the powers to carry out a lasting reform. 
 
 The causes leading to the abolition of the board appear 
 to have been two: (1) The desire to centre the licensing 
 power in a body with every means of enforcing the laws 
 at its command; (2) dissatisfaction with the last board, 
 which had displayed too earnest a reform spirit to suit the 
 dealers, who hoped for a more lenient regime under men 
 whose actions would largely be determined by political 
 considerations.
 
 UNDER POLICE COMMISSIONERS. 191 
 
 UNDER THE POLICE COMMISSIONEBS, 1880-1884. 
 
 The liquor element had not reckoned amiss. The first 
 two years under the police commissioners as the licensing 
 authority were distinguished by fewer complaints against 
 privileged dealers, a decreasing number of forfeitures of 
 licenses, and less interference with the unlawful traffic, 
 while more licenses were granted than in 1879. 
 
 ISTew legislation had been devised to put the licensed 
 dealers under further restraint. Nevertheless, dealers 
 found it profitable to evade the law on every side. 
 
 The difficulty of regulating the traffic in Boston was 
 perceptibly increased when the local option law went into 
 effect in 1882. Many of the surrounding towns, with 
 large and rapidly increasing population, at once took advan- 
 tage of the new measure, and outlawed the saloon. This 
 not only drove many dealers into Boston, who found there 
 a better opportunity of plying an illicit traffic, but also 
 drew a new class of customers to this city. Licenses were 
 granted with as much liberality this year as before, but a 
 promising activity in enforcing the law is observable in the 
 number of complaints entered against both licensed and 
 unlicensed places. This, however, must mainly be accred- 
 ited to the work of a new organization, "The Citizens' 
 Law and Order League," which had for its sole object 
 to secure compliance with the liquor laws. Backed by 
 some of the most influential men of Boston, this society 
 kept a strict watch over the dealers. Of equal importance, 
 perhaps, was its work in promoting new legislation or in 
 amending that already existing. It was contending against 
 great odds, and "had at first little sympathy and less help 
 from public officers." 
 
 As political appointees, the police commissioners were 
 swayed by political influences. They, as well as those un- 
 der them, could not retain office and ignore party dictation.
 
 192 THE EESTRICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 The dealers knew that their advantage lay in controlling, 
 so far as possible, municipal elections, and bent every en- 
 ergy to that end. Their immediate representatives sought 
 and held important places in the city government, where 
 they could exert a direct influence on the board of police. 
 
 They formed a compact and highly perfected organiza- 
 tion. The small liquor-shop keepers were controlled by 
 their bondsmen, largely brewers and wholesale dealers, and 
 readily did the bidding of the latter for the protection en- 
 joyed or from necessity. In fact, the liquor power was 
 at this time virtually a few men's power. In 1884, for 
 instance, twenty-five wholesale dealers were sureties for 
 1,030 saloon-keepers. Three brewers were on 328 bonds; 
 one more was on 112, others on from 8 to 109 apiece. 
 Twenty-five men had thus assumed a moneyed liability of 
 $2,060,000 — some a liability in excess of the value of 
 their property. Even policemen were accepted as sureties 
 on the bonds of liquor-dealers. 
 
 As a further example of the unremitting labor of the 
 liquor element in municipal politics, in 1884 both the 
 chairman and 73 members of the city central committee of 
 the dominant party were liquor-dealers. 
 
 Some interesting testimony relative to the power and 
 influence of this element appeared at the hearings on the 
 metropolitan police bill. Two extracts follow : — 
 
 "If we were to do our duty we should not retain our places 
 for a single week." (Testimony of policemen.) 
 
 " There are men in the city government whose interests are 
 aifected one way or another by the enforcement of the law 
 (liquor), and these men naturally have much influence with 
 the police commissioners. ... A man cannot rise above the 
 source of his appointment, and if a man is under obligations 
 to men principally engaged in the li(inor traffic lie has got to 
 wink at a great many things." (Testimony of General A. P. 
 Martin.) 
 
 To the policemen the dealers could and did say, "Let
 
 UNDER POLICE COMMISSIONERS. 193 
 
 US alone, or off come your buttons." Knowing that zeal 
 in the performance of his duties would only cost him his 
 place, it was an easy step for the policeman to extend pro- 
 tection to unlicensed dealers for a consideration. That not 
 a few gave way to this temptation is admitted by members 
 of the force at the present time. 
 
 One of the most serious consequences of the influence 
 of the dealers with the police commissioners was the licens- 
 ing of unfit applicants. Notwithstanding the assurances 
 of the authorities that "in all cases careful inquiry as to 
 the fitness of the applicant for a license has been made," 
 remonstrances against certain applicants, on the part of 
 many citizens of good standing, were, as a rule, unavailing. 
 But the authorities could even go to the length of aiding 
 the dealers in escaping from the consequences of uncomfort- 
 able laws. When the " schoolhouse law " was passed in 
 1882, prohibiting the granting of licenses of the first three 
 classes in any building or place on the same street within 
 400 feet of a public schoolhouse or any building occupied 
 in whole or in part by a public school, 150 dealers were 
 affected by it. Many evaded the law by changing the 
 entrances to their saloons to other streets than that on 
 which a schoolhouse fronted. The majority invoked polit- 
 ical aid. The Law and Order League made the never 
 refuted charge that two schoolhouses (one on Harrison 
 Avenue and one on Washington Street) were vacated in 
 order to "save " about a score of saloons. 
 
 The liquor element was, however, far from satisfied with 
 the influence it possessed locally. In the first place, the 
 largest freedom could not be enjoyed even under a pliant 
 police board. Secondly, municipal influence could not 
 guard it from the enactment of more stringent laws. Thus 
 it became necessary to work in state as well as local poli- 
 tics, and by choosing its own representatives to oppose all 
 unfavorable legislation.
 
 194 THE EESTRICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 During 1883 and 1884 there was again an increase in 
 the number of licenses issued. More privileged saloons 
 existed in 1884 than either before or since. The fact 
 that some license fees had been doubled (innholders from 
 $300 in 1883 to $600 in 1884), and others raised propor- 
 tionately, did not deter the applicants, who were as numer- 
 ous as ever.-^ Yet the licensed dealers by no means rep- 
 resented the full extent of the trade. The collector of 
 internal revenue, when asked in 1883 the number of 
 places in Boston which had paid a special liquor tax, re- 
 plied, "We have at least 50 per cent, more than the city 
 authorities." In 1884, 4,000 United States liquor taxes 
 were paid for in Boston, or 1,400 more than the licenses 
 granted. In view of this indisputable evidence, the cir- 
 cumstance that only two complaints were entered against 
 unlicensed places in 1883 indicated a very lax enforcement. 
 An improvement in this respect followed in 1884; but in 
 both years the number of arrests for selling without a 
 license, and of seizures made, showed a falling off as com- 
 pared with 1882. The significance of this becomes the 
 more striking when it is remembered that of the multitude 
 engaged in the liquor traffic not all could hope to make 
 more than a precarious livelihood without artificially stimu- 
 lating the trade. As an instance of this overcrowding, is 
 the fact that in 1883 the small space bounded by Lincoln, 
 
 1 The following may throw some light on the state of the licensed trade 
 in 1884. One condition of the license of the first three classes was that 
 the licensee should not keep a public bar and should hold a license as an 
 iniiholder or common victualer. Under the provisions of the law it was 
 held that every common victualer having a license to sell intoxicating 
 liquor for consumption on the pi'emises niiglit keep open shop from 5 A. M. 
 until 12 M. Yet the sale of liquor was forbidden after 11 p. m. and be- 
 fore 6 A. M. unless he held an innholder's license, but no power could 
 compel him to close the shop. In consequence there were about 250 gen- 
 uine victualing establishments, including hotels, which kept open on 
 Sunday and after 11 i>. m., and with stjuie reason, but no less than 1,358 
 others whicli di<l so in violation of law.
 
 UNDER POLICE COMMISSIONERS. 195 
 
 Beach, Federal, and Kneeland streets — 350 by 600 feet — 
 contained no less than fifty saloons. 
 
 So far the liquor interests had not suffered any serious 
 setback. Licenses were granted without stint, and dealers 
 without them had nothing to fear beyond occasional and 
 passing interference. The conditions of licenses were com- 
 monly violated by sales on Sundays, to minors, and so on. 
 Although the screen law had really done some good by 
 preventing the gathering of minors and girls in licensed 
 places, it was not fully complied with. The fate of the 
 schoolhouse act has been noted. The act giving owners 
 of adjoining real estate the right to object to the issue of 
 licenses had not proved generally effective. Although the 
 Law and Order League distributed notices among dealers 
 calling attention to this law in 1883, Avhile over 2,600 
 licenses were granted, only about 25 owners filed objec- 
 tions. Moreover, objections Avere not infrequently made 
 for the purpose of extorting blackmail, or the law was 
 evaded on flimsy pretexts. Thus partition Avails were 
 erected, the licensee contending that the property in ques- 
 tion Avas no longer adjoining. 
 
 The causes of this state of affairs are perfectly explicable. 
 Some have already been intimated, but may again be sum- 
 marized. The licensing poAver, as well as the authority 
 to enforce the laAV, rested with men moved by the strong 
 political influence of the liquor element. The hands of 
 the police commissioners Avere in a measure tied by the gov- 
 erning poAvers at City Hall, directed in part by the least 
 scrupulous of dealers. The police either dared not imperil 
 their positions by an honest discharge of their duties or 
 surrendered to the temptations ahvays associated with the 
 unlicensed trafiic. Against the fcAV Avho labored to subject 
 the liquor trade to the restraint imposed by law was pitted 
 the phalanx of dealers Avielding Avith concerted action the 
 poAver of a political machine. Successful, hoAvever, as they
 
 196 THE RESTRICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 were in practically nullifying certain paragraphs of the law, 
 their combinations to repeal specific legislation, such as the 
 annual vote on the question of licenses, the schoolhouse, 
 screen, and abutters' objection laws, proved abortive. Yet 
 they were ever a power in the General Court, with which 
 both the leading parties sought to curry favor to the detri- 
 ment of legislation. 
 
 To complete the sketch of the conditions of the liquor 
 traffic at the end of 1884, some extracts from the testi- 
 mony of Mr, Tilly Haynes, of the United States Hotel, 
 given before the committee on a metropolitan police com- 
 mission at the State House, are adduced below. (Mr. Haynes 
 was himself a licensed innholder.) 
 
 " The great trouble in my neighborhood is the insecurity of 
 life and property caused by the gangs of hoodlums who throng 
 about every corner, the disreputable tenement houses which 
 are open and notorious resorts of thieves, and the opportunities 
 for the committal of crime by the liquor-dealers, who violate 
 the law in every conceivable way. On any evening from dark 
 until late at night you will see these roughs on nearly ev^ery 
 corner. . . . They watch for men, generally from the country, 
 who may be going to the depots under the influence of liquor. 
 These they speak to, and if possible induce to go into one of 
 the many barrooms to take just one more drink. These bar- 
 rooms are fitted up with what is called an ofiice, in which is a 
 table and a few chairs. They are perfectly closed with high 
 partitions, curtains, and ground-glass doors, and it is into these 
 the victim is taken. The drinks are brought in, and that is 
 the last the stranger knows about it. When he comes to his 
 senses he finds that he has been robbed and perhaps beaten." 
 
 " Do they drug the liquor ? " 
 
 " I don't know whether they do or not ; the liquor is bad 
 enough anyway. . . . Some parts of my own hotel are rendered 
 practically untenable by the noise and disorder caused by 
 drunken rowdies, and often men are brought into my house 
 wounded by those who entrapped them into low dives." 
 
 "Did you ever make complaints?" 
 
 "Yes, frequently. But when complaints are made to the 
 commissioners, they send you to the superintendent, he sends
 
 UNDER THE METROPOLITAN BOARD. 197 
 
 you to the captain, somebody else sends you to the Board 
 of Health, and all this amounts to nothing ; it is without re- 
 sult. The rows and disturbances are going on all the time just 
 the same." 
 
 UNDER THE METROPOLITAN BOARD, 1885-1893. 
 
 The year 1885 marks the turning-point in the adminis- 
 tration of the liquor laws and general control of the traffic 
 in Boston. The metropolitan police bill was passed in 
 the face of a strenuous opposition, although its far-reaching 
 consequences were hardly foreseen at the time. By this 
 act the licensing authority was placed beyond the blight- 
 ing touch of municipal politics, and those charged with the 
 immediate execution of the laws could no longer be intimi- 
 dated by threats on the part of dealers with a "pull." 
 
 It must not, however, be understood that an all-pervad- 
 ing improvement in the control of the trade followed close 
 upon this change of administration. Far from it. But 
 a definite improvement along some lines may be traced. 
 Certain portions of the city were still chiefly distinguished 
 for the number of saloons they contained. Merrimac 
 Street, for instance, remained "Rum Eow," and the de- 
 scription of conditions in other sections was still applica- 
 ble. Yet a distinct discrimination, unknow^n for years, in 
 the granting of licenses, was noticeable at the very begin- 
 ning of the new order of things. During the first year in 
 which licenses were issued exclusively by the commission- 
 ers appointed by the governor (1886-87), their number 
 was reduced by about 300; and the proportion of inhab- 
 itants to each license rose correspondingly. The next two 
 years show a further, though slight, decline of the licensed 
 places, due in part, perhaps, to the increased fees. 
 
 Although the new board first assumed office in July of 
 1885, more than twice as many complaints for violation of 
 conditions of licenses were lodged with the commissioners
 
 198 THE KESTRICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 as in any single year since 1879, and more licenses were 
 declared forfeited. The earnest work of the new hoard is 
 even more emphasized by the statistics for 1886. Over 
 100 licenses were that year declared forfeited. The prin- 
 cipal offenses of dealers at this time were the opening of 
 illegal doors, the sale of liquor on Sundays and to minors, 
 and carrying on a business not allowed by the license, 
 usually that of selling distilled liquor under a malt liquor 
 license. These were the most obvious abuses, and easiest 
 of complete proof. A new class of licenses was created, 
 giving the right to sell malt liquors, cider, and light wines 
 for a fee of $125, it having been urged that it was in the 
 interest of temperance to encourage the use of malt liquors, 
 and thereby decrease the consumption of distilled spirits. 
 (Report of Board of Police.) Sixty-two such licenses 
 were granted. There is no evidence of this measure hav- 
 ing promoted temperance. A crusade of unwonted vigor 
 against unlicensed dealers was also instituted, the arrests 
 for selling without a license and the number of seizures 
 more than doubling in the course of the year. The strong 
 movement in favor of an impartial enforcement of the laws 
 naturally brought out the full opposition of the dealers, 
 who in 1886 again combined for renewed work in politics 
 — to control nominations and secure elections. The new 
 association made the following declaration, as reported in 
 the public press : — 
 
 " We offer to protect the dealers in towns and cities where 
 no license rules, as well as those in licensed places, by furnish- 
 ing them the best counsel in the State and paying all lawyers' 
 fees." 
 
 Notwithstanding their opposition, further restrictive leg- 
 islation was formulated, including the amendments of the 
 act of 1882, permitting owners of adjoining property to 
 object to the licensing of premises, so as to allow objections 
 of owners of real estate within 25 feet. Formerly a house
 
 UNDER THE METROPOLITAN BOARD. 199 
 
 owner living opposite the proposed place of a saloon could 
 not remonstrate against the licensing of the premises.^ 
 During this year (1887) both complaints against dealers 
 and the forfeitures of licenses were numerous. Prosecu- 
 tions for selling without a license, as well as seizure, were 
 of almost daily occurrence. 
 
 With the passage of the limitation act in 1888, restrict- 
 ing the number of licensed places to one per 500 inhab- 
 itants in Boston and one per 1,000 in other places, a new 
 epoch in the history of Massachusetts liquor legislation 
 began ; and the increase of the minimum fee for a first-class 
 license to $1,000, prohibiting the exercise of licenses of 
 the first five classes in dwellinghouses, aimed to diminish 
 Sunday sales, which could easily be effected so long as 
 licensed premises had interior communication with a dwell- 
 ing or tenement. The definition of intoxicating liquor as 
 any beverage containing more than one per cent, of alco- 
 hol stopped the sale of the three per cent, beer ("Berlin 
 beer ") by unlicensed venders, which had caused much 
 drunkenness. 
 
 No less than 1,042 places licensed in 1888 were forced 
 to close in 1889. The proportion of licensed places was 
 one to 567 inhabitants (estimated population) as against 
 one to 240 in 1888. The new measures had a double 
 effect: they enabled the commissioners (1) to weed out the 
 more objectionable licensees, (2) they made the remaining 
 dealers, fearful of losing their costly privilege, observe the 
 conditions of licenses with more care. 
 
 The changes wrought in one part of Boston by the limi- 
 tation law with respect to the number of are licenses clearly 
 
 1 It is a question whether the law as amended has met the expectations 
 of its framers. While every opportunity is given owners to file objections, 
 too many are moved by pecuniary considerations. The willingness of 
 dealers to pay liberal "damages" to secure an eligible site is well known. 
 For this reason few objections are made, or if made are frequently with- 
 drawn.
 
 200 THE RESTRICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 shown in the diagram opposite. Yet the changes were not 
 so marked until 1890. The complaints against dealers for 
 violating the conditions of their licenses had, to be sure, 
 decreased much in 1889, but they still maintained a high 
 figure. Many licenses were also forfeited for the same old 
 offenses, — selling on Sundays, in violation of license, and 
 so on. "Pool for drinks" was still advertised. Much 
 difficulty was experienced in making certain innholders con- 
 form to the requirement not to sell liquor after hours to 
 any but bona fide guests. While, formerly, few complaints 
 and a small number of forfeitures were a safe indication of 
 lax work by the licensing board and police officers, the 
 reverse is true after 1890, for reasons already given. 
 
 The extent to which the illicit traffic received an im- 
 petus when so many persons were forced to retire from the 
 legalized trade cannot be estimated. The arrests for sell- 
 ing liquor without a license reached the highest figure thus 
 far known in 1889. However, this may have been because 
 the laws were more vigorously enforced. 
 
 Since the return to the license system in 1875, a provi- 
 sion had remained on the statute book forbidding licensees 
 (innholders and common victualers) to keep a public bar. 
 In 1890 the board of police, at the instance of some 
 friends of temperance, reinforced by the Law and Order 
 League, demanded full compliance with this provision. 
 Accordingly the bars were partitioned off, but not removed, 
 and drinks were now served at tables instead of at coun- 
 ters. The legality of this new practice was as doubtful as 
 that of the former, since the clause forbidding the keep- 
 ing of a public bar, in its original sense, clearly did not 
 permit the sale of liquor except with meals. The change 
 did no perceptible good. From October 1, 1889, to Maj'- 
 31, 1890, eight months, 16,234 arrests were made for 
 drunkenness, and from June 1 to September 30, 1890, 
 the four months following the revival of the law against
 
 z 
 o 
 
 0) 
 
 o 
 
 CD 
 
 cove ST. 
 
 HUDSON Q 
 
 'z 
 
 TYLER ST. 4 
 
 i\ 
 
 HARRISON Ul 
 
 z 
 
 ■ ■ J uiLm 
 
 AVE 
 
 "«nr 
 
 Washington 
 
 ■ ■ 
 
 JX. 
 
 ST. 
 
 I- 
 < 
 
 COVE ST. 
 
 SOUTH ST. 
 
 3 
 
 UTICA ST 
 
 ALBANY ST. 
 
 
 nr 
 
 HUDSON 
 
 ST. 
 
 I- 
 
 o 
 
 Tyler St j 
 
 < 
 
 Harrison iu ave. 
 u 
 
 z 
 
 Washington St. 
 
 1 
 
 MM 
 
 TREMONT ST. 
 
 "o 
 
 (3 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 o
 
 202 THE RESTRICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 public bars, there were 8,279 arrests. This Avas, if any- 
 thing, an unfavorable showing, for the arrests are usually 
 more numerous during the winter months than in summer. 
 The dealers, as a matter of course, were up in arms against 
 the enforcement of a law which had so long remained a 
 dead letter. A sum of money was raised to secure its 
 repeal. In 1891 the so-called Donovan bill, making it a 
 condition of license that innholders and victualers shall not 
 serve liquor at tables in any room where the exclusive busi- 
 ness is liquor-selling, was passed. 
 
 Two of the measures of 1894 were of more than ordi- 
 nary interest : that relative to the sureties on liquor bonds, 
 and that requiring the appointment by mayors of license 
 commissioners for cities voting license, with the exception 
 of those otherwise provided for in their charters or by 
 special statutes. Properly enforced, the former will in 
 some degree curtail the power of brewers and wholesale 
 dealers over the smaller retailers. The latter, as may be 
 surmised, cannot affect a divorce of the licensing question 
 from local politics. On the contrary, the efforts of the 
 liquor element now centre about the election of a mayor of 
 their choice, in the cities affected, who will either appoint 
 a board of commissioners to their liking or remove the 
 one already existing if it is objectionable to them. The 
 possible usefulness of license commissioners is seriously 
 impaired by the circumstance that they do not exercise any 
 direct control over the police. The execution of their 
 orders and the general enforcement of the liquor laws de- 
 pend on the good-will of other officials. 
 
 The total amount received in fees in Boston at different 
 periods is given in the following table : —
 
 THE TRAFFIC IN BOSTON IN 1894. 
 
 203 
 
 Years. 
 
 License Fees. 
 
 Expenses of Enforcing 
 Liquor Laws. 
 
 1876 
 
 $173,323 
 
 $29,387.91 
 
 1877 
 
 274,865 
 
 25,-595.73 
 
 1878 
 
 223,388 
 
 25,107.39 
 
 1879 
 
 272,474 
 
 25,047.66 
 
 1880 
 
 242,474 
 
 « 
 
 1881 
 
 258,865 
 
 31,361.79 
 
 1882 
 
 260,838 
 
 Not known. 
 
 1883 
 
 279,813 
 
 (( 
 
 1884 
 
 305,551 
 
 « 
 
 1885 
 
 543,390 
 
 (( 
 
 1886 
 
 608,113 
 
 (( 
 
 1887 
 
 588,480 
 
 « 
 
 1888 
 
 618,018 
 
 « 
 
 1889 
 
 888,308 
 
 « 
 
 1890 
 
 1,012,600 
 
 « 
 
 1891 
 
 1,033,872 
 
 « 
 
 1892 
 
 1,058,146 
 
 « 
 
 1893 
 
 1,064,033 
 
 « 
 
 1894 
 
 1,084,194 
 
 « 
 
 The revenue from this source is about equal to the cost 
 of the maintenance of the Police Department. In the mat- 
 ter of increasing the fees, the question of revenue has 
 doubtless been a ruling motive; it also affects the annual 
 
 vote on licensing. 
 
 THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC IN BOSTON IN 1894. 
 
 Open and flagrant violations of the liquor laws by- 
 licensed dealers are no longer of frequent occurrence. 
 This is the testimony, not only of the police, but of pri- 
 vate organizations directly interested in the question. The 
 licensees realize, better than before, the nature of their priv- 
 ileges, and know that failure to observe the conditions im- 
 posed is likely to result disastrously. Sunday sales by
 
 204 THE RESTRICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 saloons are practically unknown. Innholders may be 
 found, however, who resort to peculiar methods of register- 
 ing guests in order to sell liquor after hours, under a guise 
 of legality. Those who are bolder are pretty sure of pun- 
 ishment when found out. Few liquor-shops would now 
 dare to sell to minors where their minority is obvious. 
 Sales to intoxicated persons occur commonly as a matter 
 of course; and any one can obtain, without the slightest 
 difficulty, enough drink to produce intoxication. On the 
 other hand, numerous dealers persistently refuse persons 
 visibly under the influence of liquor. The closing hours 
 are promptly observed. Especially of the common saloons 
 it must be said that the screen law is fully complied with. 
 As a rule, whatever takes place in a saloon may be viewed 
 from the sidewalk. The condition of licenses with respect 
 to the kind of liquor sold is said to be fully met. But 
 the sale of poor and adulterated intoxicants goes on, and 
 little is done to prevent it. For years no report of analyses 
 of liquor has been made public. 
 
 The other restrictive features of the law have little direct 
 bearing on the manner in which the traffic is conducted. 
 
 On the -whole, it can be said that the efficient division 
 of the police ("liquor squad") charged with the immediate 
 supervision of the licensed shops experience but little 
 difficulty with them. Were the officers lax in performing 
 their duties, a flood of complaints would surely pour in, 
 and the unlicensed dealer become defiant. Neither has 
 happened. Comparatively few of the illegal venders dare 
 longer to protect themselves to the extent of paying the 
 United States special tax on liquor-dealers. So late as in 
 1883 and 1884, the number of those paying this tax ex- 
 ceeded the number of licenses issued by the municipality 
 by from one third to one half. In 1894 1,404 persons in 
 Boston paid a special tax as retailers of spirituous or malt 
 liquors. Assuming that all the innholders, victualers,
 
 THE TRAFFIC IN BOSTON IN 1894. 205 
 
 •wholesale dealers, grocers, retail druggists, and the steAvards 
 of the 48 clubs sell liquor in less quantity than five gal- 
 lons, only 1,172 of the special taxes have been accounted 
 for, leaving an excess of 232, which must represent so 
 many illegal dealers. The liquor-dealers of Boston must 
 still be counted as factors in politics; but in matters apper- 
 taining to the supervision of their business and the grant- 
 ing of licenses, their influence is practically insignificant. 
 In other words, they can no longer, as before, make them- 
 selves felt in local politics to the detriment of the commu- 
 nity. Such has been the effect of the high license and 
 limitation laws, and, above all, of the metropolitan police 
 act. This is conceded by some of the lifelong opponents 
 of these measures. But in state politics the dealers can 
 and still do work to their great advantage, chiefly in the 
 line of thwarting the enactment of new liquor laws. 
 
 Since nearly all dealers apply for a renewal of their priv- 
 ilege each year, the work of the police commissioners is 
 light. The changes made in the course of a year have 
 rarely numbered more than twenty-seven. If a licensee 
 has complied with the conditions imposed, he may be 
 pretty sure of permission to continue business at the old 
 stand. At the same time it is officially stated that it has 
 been the endeavor of the officials to centre as many of the 
 liquor licenses as possible in the "business district of the 
 city." It is well known that some of the purely residen- 
 tial wards object to the presence of saloons, and bring 
 much pressure to bear on the licensing board to secure 
 their wishes. But since the licenses are granted in propor- 
 tion to the population, those driven out of one locality 
 must find an abiding-place in some other. In consequence, 
 the wards containing a population either lacking influence 
 to oppose the opening of more liquor-shops -witliin their 
 limits, or displaying indifference, or even welcoming the 
 accession of new "social centres," are sure to get them.
 
 206 THE KESTRICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 In other words, the majority of liquor-shops (hotels, whole- 
 sale houses, aud some restaurants excepted) are found 
 precisely where they can do most harm. Saloons outlawed 
 in Dorchester (this ward had fifty some years ago, now 
 four) will reappear in the poor quarters — in South Boston, 
 perhaps, or at the North End. 
 
 That some of the wards mustering the greatest number 
 of saloons are parts of the centre of trade in Boston, is 
 quite true. But the ordinary saloon is not found on 
 prominent business streets unless there be a large tenement 
 population in the rear, or the situation is especially 
 adapted to tempt the coming and going workmen. If we 
 take Ward Six as an example, we find most of the saloons 
 on Xorth Street, in the heart of a tenement district of the 
 worst character; no less than twenty along the lower part 
 of Hanover Street, with thickly inhabited courts and alleys 
 in the rear, on both sides of the thoroughfare. Again, 
 on Atlantic Avenue, in the same ward, we find the saloons 
 huddled together where the greatest number of sailors con- 
 gregate, and directly in front of the prominent steamboat 
 landings. In Wards Seven and Twelve, the saloons seek 
 position as near the railway stations as possible. A multi- 
 tude of instances may be given. W^ard Nineteen, which 
 ranks sixth in point of saloons (South End), and Ward 
 Thirteen, which ranks eighth, cannot be said to belong to 
 the business district proper; both are conspicuous for bad 
 sanitary conditions and a shiftless class of inhabitants. 
 
 ARRESTS AND PROSECUTIONS. 
 
 Reference has been made to the great extent of the illegal 
 traffic during tlie first ten years of license. At times, as 
 has been seen, tlie number of unlicensed places almost 
 equaled the licensed ones. The police were not alone to 
 blame for the demoralized state of the traffic. It is true, 
 they were often corrupted, or at least cajoled, by dealers
 
 ARRESTS AND PROSECUTIONS. 207 
 
 with political influence, who, if licensed, not infrequently 
 sought shelter with the licensing authorities or, if unli- 
 censed, relied upon the aid of their privileged brethren. 
 But the officers were, first, embarrassed by the common 
 difficulty of obtaining sufficient evidence to secure convic- 
 tions, and, secondly, experience had taught them that 
 oftentimes the strongest evidence would not even secure 
 the trial in court of a liquor case. 
 
 After 1885 the illicit traffic still flourished, but now the 
 officials could attack it without personal risk. The num- 
 ber of arrests increased materially. The limitation and 
 high license laws seem at once to have stimulated the un- 
 lawful trade and placed it on a difl^erent footing. Some 
 of the many persons who had lost their privileges would 
 naturally resort to illegal means, but the smaller number 
 and improved character of the saloons made both control 
 and supervision easier. Besides, the licensed dealers man- 
 ifested jealousy of any encroachment upon their privilege 
 by persons who had little to lose, and paid less. Since 
 1889 the unlicensed traffic has been driven more and more 
 into secret places. Formerly — as late as ten years ago — 
 the police could report with some degree of accuracy the 
 number of places where liquor was sold contrary to law; 
 now such an estimate would be impossible. So soon as 
 knowledge of the existence of a "kitchen bar" reaches the 
 police, or so soon as evidence has been secured, a descent 
 upon the place is made. 
 
 The kitchen-bar trade is now almost wholly confined to 
 Saturday evenings and Sundays. As a rule, the stock on 
 hand is small and intended only for immediate consump- 
 tion. Large seizures are occasionally made. The liquor 
 sold is of the poorest quality, but brings the average prices, 
 which again means great profits ofl'setting the many risks 
 involved. The kitchen bars are not confined to any par- 
 ticular locality. They abound chiefly in the poorer sec-
 
 208 THE RESTRICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 tions of the city, but may be found almost everywhere. 
 The large number of persons coming in from the surround- 
 ing no-license towns on Saturday evenings and Sundays 
 for the avowed purpose of obtaining drink, are, according 
 to the police, the best customers of these bars. The 
 keepers rarely admit customers unknown to them. Some 
 move about from place to place. It frequently happens 
 that the premises suspected of harboring a kitchen bar are 
 vacated before a seizure can be made. 
 
 Notwithstanding the many obstacles encountered, the 
 officers of the "liquor squad" express confidence in their 
 ability to stamp out the illicit trade in the course of time, 
 or at least confine it within very narrow limits. It is of 
 interest to note that the police now cooperate with such 
 an organization as the Law and Order League in the war- 
 fare against unlicensed traders. 
 
 Complaints are frequently made that druggists sell liquor 
 in violation of their licenses. Some carry a considerable 
 stock of beer. Detection of their illegal doings is diffi- 
 cult, both because apothecary shops are not under the 
 same surveillance as other licensed places, and because the 
 proprietors are careful about supplying none but customers 
 known to them with drink. 
 
 Statistics of the arrests for violations of the liquor laws, 
 classified according to sex, nativity, and residence, be- 
 tween the years 1880-1894, exhibit two remarkable facts. 
 First, that a large and increasing percentage of the unli- 
 censed venders are women. In 1885 women constituted 
 17. 57 per cent of the total number arrested (239) ; in 
 1889, 43.56 per cent, (total arrests 808); in 1891, 49.01 
 per cent, (total 612) ; in 1893, 45.76 per cent, (total 638); 
 and in 1894, 46.60 per cent, (total 648). Not a few of 
 these were keepers of disreputable houses. Secondly, that 
 more than one half of the persons arrested are classed as 
 foreigners. Of late their number appears to diminish. It
 
 ARRESTS AND PROSECUTIONS. 209 
 
 is also noteworthy that more minors and non-residents are 
 prosecuted for liquor offenses than formerly. 
 
 The mere arrest for a violation of the liquor laws carries 
 of itself no terror, and may be but the beginning of a long 
 legal process in which the defendant has an excellent 
 chance of escaping without harm. Commonly, it is neces- 
 sary to have two full trials of every liquor case. The 
 defendant is arraigned in the lower court, and the case 
 fully heard, so far as the government side is concerned. 
 If convicted, the defendant is allowed to appeal; for there 
 is no jury in this court, and he is entitled to a trial by 
 jury. It may be inconvenient for the appellant to pay 
 the fine imposed in the lower court; he may put his trust 
 in a sympathetic jury ; or when, after many months, the 
 trial finally comes on, important evidence may have van- 
 ished, or the principal witnesses may no longer be at hand. 
 
 Previous to 1885, and to some extent later, the main 
 reliance of the accused dealer was on his own political 
 "pull," or the "pull" of his friends. The prosecuting 
 officers of the county, being elected by the people, and 
 hence susceptible to local political influence, were in the 
 habit of disposing of liquor cases without trial. 
 
 The following statement of the disposition of cases of 
 violation in the Superior Court of Suff"olk County, 1881- 
 1884, reveals plainly the strong hopes of a final dismissal 
 of their cases which might be entertained by appellants to 
 that superior court : — 
 
 PERCENTAGE OF LIQUOR CASES. 
 
 
 Pending at 
 the begin- 
 ning of 
 the year. 
 
 Begun 
 
 during 
 
 tlie year. 
 
 Brought 
 to trial. 
 
 Nol. pros'd. 
 
 Placed on 
 file. 
 
 1881 
 
 249 
 
 — 
 
 2.40 
 
 1.61 
 
 38.15 
 
 1882 
 
 120 
 
 194 
 
 3.50 
 
 4.14 
 
 53.150 
 
 1883 
 
 49 
 
 248 
 
 8.73 
 
 13.46 
 
 49.15 
 
 1884 
 
 42 
 
 295 
 
 — 
 
 38.87 
 
 39.16
 
 210 THE RESTEICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 Under such conditions it is evident that the law could 
 have no terror for evildoers. It might be predicted with 
 safety that considerably more than half the liquor cases 
 appealed would be nol. pros' d or placed on file, usually on 
 the payment of costs. If brought to trial, the chances of 
 an acquittal were better than ever, for it was a common 
 thing to have liquor-dealers for jurymen. 
 
 That the leniency of the district attorneys toward the 
 liquor men was a direct bid for their votes cannot be 
 doubted in face of the fact that in the lower court, where 
 no political influences could be brought to bear, judgment 
 was swift and sure. As an instance, taking in regular order 
 the prosecutions instituted by the Law and Order League 
 from June 2 to December 5, 1884, we find that thirty-five 
 cases were tried before the Municipal Court, and in each 
 one fines ranging from $50 to $100 were imposed. Two 
 of the defendants paid, thirty-three appealed. Of these 
 thirty-three cases, the district attorney placed eighteen on 
 file on the payment of costs and nol. pros'd the remaining 
 fifteen. 
 
 At last the pigeonholing of liquor cases by the district 
 attorney had become such an abuse that the General Court 
 in 1885 saw fit to pass the act providing that no case for 
 the violation of liquor laws shall be placed on file or dis- 
 posed of except by trial and judgment according to the 
 regular course of procedure in criminal cases. That this 
 act produced good results is evident from the next two 
 tables, which show the disposition of liquor cases tried be- 
 fore the municipal and superior courts of Suffolk County ^ 
 from 1885 to 1892. 
 
 1 The returns cif the Superior Court include li(|uor eases from the city 
 of ("helsea (poiuilation 27,909) and the towns of Winthrop and Kevere 
 (population 11,394), all in Suffolk County. For this reason the cases com- 
 ing from those places are given in the returns of the municipal courts. 
 Of the latter, those for South Boston in 1885 and 1880 are incomplete.
 
 ARRESTS AND PROSECUTIONS. 
 
 211 
 
 DISPOSITION OF LIQUOR CASES IN THE MUNICIPAL COURTS 
 OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, 1885 TO 1892. 
 
 
 Pending at the 
 beginning of 
 the year. 
 
 be 
 
 c 
 
 Percentages. 
 
 Tears. 
 
 3 . 
 
 |2 
 
 — o 
 
 o 
 
 1 u 
 
 C d 
 
 Ap- 
 pealed. 
 
 1885 
 
 49 
 
 362 
 
 74.20 
 
 1.06 
 
 .26 
 
 57.00 
 
 54.11 
 
 1886 
 
 42 
 
 621 
 
 75.41 
 
 1.76 
 
 6.57 
 
 54.96 
 
 37.01 
 
 1887 
 
 40 
 
 509 
 
 76.50 
 
 2.20 
 
 — 
 
 56.20 
 
 33.20 
 
 1888 
 
 37 
 
 652 
 
 74.89 
 
 .93 
 
 2.96 
 
 52.88 
 
 35.72 
 
 1889 
 
 49 
 
 1,012 
 
 90.38 
 
 3.00 
 
 2.30 
 
 53.85 
 
 28.92 
 
 1890 
 
 102 
 
 721 
 
 88.69 
 
 1.10 
 
 2.49 
 
 66.89 
 
 31.30 
 
 1891 
 
 101 
 
 816 
 
 85.49 
 
 3.11 
 
 3.61 
 
 62.88 
 
 37.64 
 
 1892 
 
 104 
 
 753 
 
 84.83 
 
 .26 
 
 .53 
 
 64.04 
 
 30.06 
 
 DISPOSITION OF LIQUOR CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT, 1885 
 TO 1893, BEGUN BEFORE THE GRAND JURY OF SUFFOLK 
 COUNTY AND COMING TO THE SUPERIOR COURT, 1885 TO 
 1893. 
 
 
 
 he 
 
 
 Percentages. 
 
 
 
 Pending at 
 beginning 
 the 3'ear. 
 
 he » 
 
 a. xi 
 
 
 
 
 Years. 
 
 Placed 
 on file 
 before 
 trial. 
 
 
 Sen- 
 tences 
 imposed. 
 
 Placed 
 on file 
 after 
 trial. 
 
 1885 
 
 15 
 
 216 
 
 13.85 
 
 20.34 
 
 20.34 
 
 
 1886 
 
 73 
 
 319 
 
 2.29 
 
 — 
 
 55.10 
 
 — 
 
 1887 
 
 27 
 
 205 
 
 14.22 
 
 — 
 
 42.67 
 
 - 
 
 1888 
 
 30 
 
 233 
 
 17.11 
 
 2.66 
 
 41.82 
 
 — 
 
 1889 
 
 41 
 
 363 
 
 43.31 
 
 1.23 
 
 42.57 
 
 — 
 
 1890 
 
 39 
 
 260 
 
 9.69 
 
 .33 
 
 49.16 
 
 — 
 
 1891 
 
 25 
 
 230 
 
 6.60 
 
 1.32 
 
 35.68 
 
 66.66 
 
 1892 
 
 41 
 
 279 
 
 2.43 
 
 .34 
 
 45.29 
 
 11.25 
 
 1893 
 
 61 
 
 201 
 
 3.00 
 
 .41 
 
 48.76 
 
 12.21
 
 212 THE RESTRICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 The work done on liquor cases in the different municipal 
 courts of the city is very unequal. Some of these courts 
 are distinguished for the many cases left untried at the 
 end of the year, others for the numher of cases nol. pros'd. 
 The percentages given indicate a smaller number of appeals 
 than formerly ; still, more than one half of the defendants 
 are not content to abide by the decision of the lower courts. 
 During the last three years there has been a notable in- 
 crease in percentage of sentences imposed. 
 
 The percentage of those made to suffer the heavier pen- 
 alty of imprisonment in addition to fine, provided in 
 1889, is very small, nor is it a frequent occurrence that 
 the maximum fine is imposed. A reason for this may be 
 that the greater the penalty, the more likelihood that a 
 second trial of the case will be necessary. By a compari- 
 son of the above percentages with those on page 209, the 
 effect of the law of 1885 prohibiting the placing on file of 
 liquor cases except on motion made in open court, is clearly 
 seen. Since 1889 few cases have been placed on file be- 
 fore trial, but many were disposed of in this manner after- 
 ward, for which the work of probation officers is in a meas- 
 ure responsible. It will be observed, however, that in 
 1889 44.54 per cent, of the liquor cases were placed on 
 file or nol. pros'd. The act has thus not entirely destroyed 
 the tendency to favor accused liquor-dealers. So long as 
 the office of district attorney remains elective, the tempta- 
 tion is likely to linger. 
 
 But however faithfully the liquor cases are handled be- 
 fore the Superior Court, the defendants may still not be 
 without strong hope. On an average, sentences are im- 
 posed in less than 50 per cent, of the cases heard by that 
 tribunal, and a still smaller percentage of the trials results 
 in verdicts of guilty. The reason for this may often be 
 that the evidence is insufficient, but it is a common obser- 
 vation that juries are disposed to treat alleged offenders
 
 ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS. 213 
 
 against the liquor laws with peculiar leniency. The full 
 statutory penalty is rarely if ever imposed. A fine ranging 
 from $50 to $100, with costs added, is the usual punish- 
 ment. In less than 15 per cent, of the cases a sentence of 
 imprisonment is imposed and usually only when the con- 
 victed person is an old offender, or when other complaints 
 have been entered against him. In the opinion of men 
 conversant with the matter, convictions would be less fre- 
 quent than now, were imprisonment made the penalty in 
 all cases. 
 
 ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS. 
 
 In the absence of trustworthy statistics of consumption, 
 the question Avhether, under the many measures introduced, 
 and the increasing stringency of the laws governing the 
 liquor traffic, there has been a corresponding improvement 
 in public sobriety in Boston, is an exceedingly perplexing 
 one. Numerous factors must be reckoned with, the precise 
 influence of which is not easily gauged. The laws under 
 which arrests are made have been so amended at different 
 periods, and even radically changed, as to affect directly 
 the number of arrests. While the regulations issued to 
 the police, relative to the manner of making arrests, have 
 been tolerably constant, they have been differently inter- 
 preted under different administrations. The methods of 
 recording arrests have varied, and the statistics have not 
 been compiled on a uniform plan. Public sentiment as re- 
 gards the toleration of public drunkenness has not ahvays 
 been the same — at times lethargic, at others aroused and 
 making greater demands. Lastly, the immense suburban 
 population of Boston living under no-license in their homes 
 has added quota to the Boston lists of arrests difficult at 
 all times to estimate, yet singularly and even visibly af 
 fecting the state of sobriety in this city. 
 
 For the six years previous to 1870, the records of the
 
 214 THE KESTEICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS, 
 
 police stations were kept in such a manner as to make it 
 appear that persons arrested for drunkenness and discharged 
 when sober, without being taken before a magistrate, were 
 lodgers, and the letter " D " was attached to their names 
 to distinguish them from those who applied for lodgings. 
 For example, in 1869 the arrests for drunkenness are put 
 down as 9,954, and the lodgers marked "D" are given as 
 9,492, which indicates that the number of arrests for 
 drunkenness in that year was 19,446. At the beginning 
 of 1870 instructions were issued to record all persons sent 
 to court for drunkenness as "drunk," and all who were 
 more or less under the influence of liquor when taken into 
 custody, and discharged when sober, as "disorderly." 
 The only object of these methods was to conceal the actual 
 number of arrests for drunkenness. The police had no 
 more authority in law to discharge on their own responsi- 
 bility a person arrested for being disorderly than they had 
 to discharge one arrested for intoxication. Yet these 
 methods prevailed until 1879, when an order was issued 
 instructing officers to enter on the records of all cases the 
 actual cause of arrest — instructions which have since pre- 
 vailed without any significant modification. But it always 
 must remain a matter of greater or less choice with the 
 officer making the arrest, what kind of complaint is en- 
 tered. Some discrepancies in the statistics of drunkenness 
 appear in the official publications, which have arisen, no 
 doubt, in part from the confusion of the terras "drunk" 
 and "disorderly." Not until 1886 and 1887 were persons 
 charged with drunkenness properly classified. 
 
 At the close of the period of prohibition, things were 
 running so loosely, perhaps owing to the anticipation of 
 a change, that even a mildly enforced license law could 
 hardly help resulting in some improvement. During the 
 first year of license the arrests per 1,000 inhabitants de- 
 creased 5.43 (a total, as recorded, of 18,645 in 1875
 
 ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS, 215 
 
 against 18,090 in 1874). From that time on until 1880, 
 the statistics indicate a growing sohriety in the city. The 
 arrests for drunkenness fell off year by year in proportion 
 to the population. But in the light of the exposition 
 above made of the method of recording arrests, there seems 
 little ground for giving the figures implicit credence. 
 Moreover, the licensing boards displayed anxiety to prove 
 the value of a license system by the statistics of drunken- 
 ness. It was, however, undeniable that all indications 
 pointed to an improvement over 1874. 
 
 In 1880 the arrests for drunkenness per 1,000 inhab- 
 itants rose suddenly from 38.68 to 44.67 (total in 1880, 
 17,329, in 1879, 14,691), while the number of arrests for 
 all offenses had not increased in anything like the same 
 proportions ; and they continued to multiply in 1881, reach- 
 ing 19,360, or 49.57 per 1,000 inhabitants. The causes 
 ascribed were (1) the reduction of the fine to one dollar on 
 a first conviction, " which rendered men more reckless than 
 before ; " (2) the prosperous condition of the laboring 
 classes; and (3) the "stricter mode of arrests near the rail- 
 road stations." 
 
 Some of the largest suburban places, — Quincy, Newton, 
 Maiden, Somerville, — and smaller towns as well, had at the 
 earliest opportunity taken advantage of the local option 
 law, passed in 1881. As in later years, in this the out- 
 •lawing of the saloon in the suburbs at once swelled the lists 
 of arrests for drunkenness in Boston. Yet under the same 
 lenient drunk law the arrests in 1882 to 1884 fell off as 
 compared with those for 1881 (18,811 in 1882, 18,635 
 in 1883, 18,842 in 1884), while the number of arrests 
 for all offenses took an upward turn. From evidence 
 elsewhere given, it is plain that the liquor element during 
 this period was running things with a high hand. Chiefly 
 on account of the poor work of the police, the rate of arrests 
 remained relatively low.
 
 216 THE RESTEICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 In 1885, when the former penalty of a maximum fine 
 of $5 for the first offense was restored, and, of far greater 
 moment, the Metropolitan Board of Police was created, 
 the arrests numbered 16,399, or 38.94 per 1,000 inhabit- 
 ants. The results of the special efforts to stop the Sun- 
 day trade were visible in the thinning out of the municipal 
 docks on Monday mornings. In 1886 the Sunday arrests 
 decreased over 17 per cent, as compared with the preceding 
 year. The arrests per 1,000 inhabitants reached the lowest 
 figure yet known — 38.17, or 9.81 less than in 1875. In 
 1887 the pendulum swung to the other side : the arrests 
 for drunkenness increasing from 38. 17 per 1, 000 inhabitants 
 to 44.46, and constituting a greater percentage of the total 
 number of offenses for which arrests were made. The city 
 of Cambridge (population 70,000) had voted no-license, 
 which helped to fill the Boston saloons, and augment the 
 apprehensions for insobriety. Of the total arrests for 
 drunkenness this year (19,213), 40 per cent. Avere non-resi- 
 dents. Other places near Boston adopted the no-license 
 policy in 1888. The percentage of non-residents arrested 
 increased a little, while the whole number of arrests for 
 drunkenness (23, 121) advanced 8.38 per 1,000 inhabitants; 
 so far as can be ascertained, this was out of proportion to 
 the known outside influences. 
 
 The first year of high license and statutory limitation 
 disappointed the advocates of these measures, so far as 
 arrests for drunkenness were concerned. That year they 
 took a further upward course (total, 25,098), equaling 
 3.81 per 1,000 inhabitants in excess of the preceding year. 
 Furthermore, fewer outsiders were apprehended. Dissatis- 
 faction with the changes and a disposition to evade them 
 are said to have caused more drunkenness. With a greatly 
 reduced number of saloons, and these under better control, 
 other results were naturally looked for. In 1890 the 
 number of arrests declined 3.08 per 1,000 inhabitants, while
 
 ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS. 217 
 
 fewer arrests of non-residents were made. The vigilance 
 of the police had not relaxed. 
 
 On the 1st of July, 1891, a new law ^ on intoxication 
 went into effect, a measure of so radical a nature that the 
 work of the police for the years 1892-1894 in making 
 arrests for drunkenness cannot in fairness be compared 
 with that of former years. Although the new law was 
 operative for only five months of 1891, the arrests in- 
 creased 6.85 per 1,000 inhabitants, with no corresponding 
 increase in the percentage of non-residents. During this 
 short time, 10,442 persons were released by the police. 
 In the next year, the arrests reached the remarkable 
 figure of 73.45 per 1,000 inhabitants, or 23 per cent, 
 more than in 1891. A slight increase of non-residents 
 was also noticeable. In the belief that the law tended 
 directly to encourage men to recklessness in their dissi- 
 pation, it was amended in 1893 so that persons arrested 
 for drunkenness can no longer be released except by order 
 of the courts after the investigation of their cases by pro- 
 bation officers. A fine of $15 may be imposed and, in 
 default of payment, imprisonment for thirty days. Per- 
 haps chiefly in consequence of these changes, the arrests 
 for 1893 show a diminution of 7.14 per 1,000 inhabitants. 
 A further decline for 1894, which is common to the whole 
 State, appears largely due to the "hard times;" yet the 
 fact that wholesale discharges without any penalty have 
 ceased may have contributed to it. 
 
 The question as to what extent the many changes of law 
 and administration have produced greater visible sobriety, 
 may receive an approximate answer by reducing the statis- 
 tics of arrests for, drunkenness to averages for five-year 
 periods, as below : — 
 
 1 Tliis law pave police officers power to release -without order of court 
 a person arrested for drunkenness, and no offense was punishable by tine.
 
 218 THE RESTRICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 AVERAGES OF ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS. 
 
 Periods. 
 
 Average 
 
 population 
 
 (estimated). 
 
 Average 
 No. of 
 arrests. 
 
 Average No. 
 of arrests 
 per 1,000 
 
 inhabitants. 
 
 1875-79 
 
 363,302.2 
 
 15,079.2 
 
 41.56 
 
 1880-84 
 
 401,199.6 
 
 18,595.4 
 
 46.45 
 
 1885-89 
 
 432,056.2 
 
 20,023.2 
 
 46.21 
 
 1890-94 
 
 459,423 
 
 28,224.4 
 
 61.41 
 
 The first five-year period includes the years under the 
 board of license commissioners ; the second those under the 
 municipal board of police; in the third is contained one 
 year of high license and statutory limitation, and in the 
 last, one year under the old drunk law. 
 
 The averages obtained should, from the manner of divid- 
 ing the periods, present the matter in as favorable a light 
 as possible; still they form no basis for the conclusion that 
 there is less public intoxication in Boston than formerly, 
 while there is reason to believe that intemperance was more 
 rampant from 1880 to 1884 than indicated by the average. 
 The improvement in the next period is offset by conditions 
 since 1890. The high average for the last five years can- 
 not be ascribed simply to late changes in the drunk law, 
 nor is there any tangible evidence to prove that high 
 license and statutory limitation have helped materially to 
 reduce the number of arrests for drunkenness. Such 
 would perhaps be the effect of the present laws, provided 
 the kitchen-bar trade could be wholly exterminated. The 
 latter continues to be a fruitful source of drunkenness. A 
 significant fact not to be overlooked is disclosed by statis- 
 tics for 1887-1894, namely, that more than 50 per cent, of 
 the persons arrested for drunkenness in' Boston are of for- 
 eign birth. Were it possible to group the latter and tlie 
 non-residents together, it would probably be found that 
 not over 25 per cent., probably less, of those annually filling 
 the police stations of Boston are native residents of the
 
 DISPOSITION OF "drunk" CASES. 219 
 
 city. It further appears that the number of females ar- 
 rested for intoxication does not decline perceptibly, but 
 only fluctuates in proportion to the total number. 
 
 DISPOSITION BY THE COURTS OF CASES FOR INTOXI- 
 CATION. 
 
 Until the latter half of 1891 persons arrested for drunk- 
 enness were, or should have been, sent to court for trial. 
 Unless the culprit happened to be an accidental oftender, 
 or there were extenuating circumstances in the case, a 
 small fine was imposed, usually five dollars. Common 
 drunkards were generally sent to jail. In an aggravated 
 case, or where other complaints could be alleged in connec- 
 tion with drunkenness, both penalties would perhaps be 
 imposed. Only a small percentage could hope to escape 
 punishment altogether until the act of 1891 was passed. 
 
 A few cases are annually appealed to the Superior Court. 
 The reason for such action is not so much the expectation 
 of final discharge as the wish to stave otf the time for sen- 
 tence, in the hope of getting money to meet the fine, and 
 thus escape commitment. Of the number committed to 
 the various penal institutions, the largest by far are sent 
 to the Boston House of Industry, and includes persons 
 unable to pay fines and costs, as well as confirmed drunk- 
 ards. Sentenced to the House of Correction are those 
 who, it appears in the evidence, have been guilty of other 
 offenses than drunkenness. To the jail are sent those who 
 have appealed their cases and await trial. Statistics of 
 persons sentenced to pay a fine, and who actually pay, are 
 not at hand. It is a conservative estimate to say that 
 more than 50 per cent. pay. 
 
 The police returns contain lao special record of the num- 
 ber of times the same individual may be arrested for drunk- 
 enness in the course of one year. How frequently old 
 off'enders are brought before the courts may be gathered
 
 220 THE EESTKICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 from the recommitments to the House of Industry. Pre- 
 vious to 1892, from 61 to 65 per cent, of the males com- 
 mitted during one year had before been inmates of the 
 institution. Many had served more than fifty sentences. 
 Not a few spent half their time "on the Island." One 
 man is known to have served eleven out of twelve months 
 on eleven convictions. Of the females a still larger per- 
 centage was recommitted, which seems to indicate that 
 women addicted to drink are less corrigible offenders than 
 men. 
 
 One of the complaints against the former drunk law was 
 that many persons who were not confirmed drunkards, and 
 who found themselves unable to pay the fines and costs, 
 were sent to an institution wholly lacking in reformatory 
 influences. Merely the stigma attached to a person for 
 having " done time at the Island " must, it is said, hasten 
 on a downward course. The new law does not appear to 
 have brought about a signal improvement in this respect. 
 While the total number annually committed to the House 
 of Industry has been reduced, a relatively greater propor- 
 tion are sent there for the first time. A curious fact is 
 that the greatest number of recommitments is of persons 
 who have been sentenced more than five times. It is said 
 to be official experience, which apparently is borne out by 
 statistics, that after a fifth commitment a man may be 
 given up as lost. 
 
 n. THE TRAFFIC IN NORTH ADAMS. 
 
 The town ^ of North Adams afi'ords a fair illustration of 
 the working of the liquor laws in the smaller communities 
 of Massachusetts. With the exception of one year, it has 
 consistently voted to license the sale of liquor. North 
 Adams is remote from large centres of population, without 
 having extensive rural districts tributary to it. But the 
 1 North Adams has since become a city.
 
 THE TRAFFIC IN NORTH ADAMS. 
 
 221 
 
 drink problem here is made the more diflicult by the prox- 
 imity of towns (notably Williamstown) and villages which 
 as a rule do not tolerate saloons, yet furnish a considerable 
 portion of the consumers of liquor charged to North Adams. 
 The population is largely made up of factory operatives, 
 nearly all of foreign birth or extraction. Still the Amer- 
 ican-born element is preponderating. Some of the princi- 
 pal occupations of the inhabitants, as given by the United 
 States Census of 1890, are appended : — 
 
 Bookkeepers and clerks 
 
 Merchants and dealers 
 
 Steam and railway officials and employees 
 
 Boot and shoe makers 
 
 Cotton operatives 
 
 Bleachery operatives 
 
 Pi-intwork operatives . 
 
 Woolen mill operatives 
 
 Carpenters . 
 
 Cigar-makers . 
 
 Bartenders . 
 
 155 
 
 187 
 280 
 403 
 370 
 201 
 584 
 288 
 168 
 161 
 21 
 
 In general North Adams does not present any character- 
 istics, in marked contrast to those of other communities in 
 western Massachusetts, of special importance to a consider- 
 ation of the liquor traffic. 
 
 Ten years ago licenses were granted Avith much free- 
 dom. The fees were low, and the licensees were not held 
 to strict account. They were numerous and Avealthy enough 
 to wield a strong influence in politics, making themselves 
 especially felt in the election of state representatives. In 
 return for their services to others, they enjoyed a non- 
 interference with their business of sad consequences to the 
 community. The police did little to restrain the sale 
 within legal limits. Minors and children were permitted 
 to frequent barrooms, and illegal selling flourished. In 
 1888, the year before the high license and limitation laws 
 went into eff"ect, 34 licenses, including druggists' licenses,
 
 222 THE KESTKICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 were issued, or, exclusive of the latter, one to about 550 
 inhabitants. They were distributed as below : — 
 
 Of the first class, 26, fee .|800 
 
 Of the fifth class (brewers), 1, fee 200 
 Of the fifth class (bottlers), 2, fee 150 
 Of the sixth class (druggists), 5, fee 1 
 
 Ever since, the number of licenses has been regulated 
 by law — one to 1,000 inhabitants. At present sixteen, 
 exclusive of druggists', are issued annually by the Board of 
 Selectmen. 
 
 LIQUOR LICENSES AND FEES IN 1893-94. 
 
 First, fourth, and fifth classes combined, 4, $2,300 each. 
 First and fourth classes combined, 12, 1,800 each. 
 
 Sixth class (druggists), 9, 1 each. 
 
 The sudden reduction of licenses presented an opportunity 
 for getting rid of some of the most objectionable dealers. 
 But already, about a year earlier, a strong movement was 
 under way, led by the chairman of the Board of Selectmen, 
 to place the liquor traffic under better control. To-day all 
 the saloons, with one exception, are situated in about two 
 blocks on the same street, facing the police station, in the 
 heart of the town. This is, of course, an intentional 
 arrangement, with a view to easy supervision at all times, 
 as well as in order to remove the sale of drink as far as 
 possible from the homes. Perhaps in no mean measure, 
 as a result of this arrangement, the saloons are unusually 
 orderly. If disturbances arise, they are quickly quelled. 
 The general provisions of the law, such as those against 
 maintaining screens and selling after hours, are well ob- 
 served. Sunday sales by licensed dealers even in hotels 
 are practically unknown. The revocation of licenses for 
 this cause has had a wholesome effect. 
 
 A system of posting intemperate persons in saloons is 
 in vogue, and admirable results are claimed for it. The 
 notice served reads as follows : —
 
 THE TRAFFIC IN NORTH ADAMS. 223 
 
 " This is to notify you tliat my has the habit of drink- 
 ing spirituous or intoxicating licjuors to excess, and you are 
 hereby requested not to sell or deliver to him any liquors, nor 
 permit him to loiter about the premises occupied by you, known 
 as , in said North Adams." 
 
 On the reverse is a copy of the statutes on which the 
 notice is based and explanations of the liability of dealers 
 who fail to heed it. The notice ends thus : — 
 
 " If good citizens, who have the weKare of their fellow-men 
 at heart, will only aid in this effort to help those who are suf- 
 fering from the liquor traffic, the management of town affairs 
 will soon be taken from the rum fraternity, who rather destroy 
 than advance its best interests." 
 
 The work of posting drunkards is done chiefly through 
 the medium of the chief of police. 
 
 THE ILLICIT TRAFFIC AND PROSECUTIONS. 
 
 In spite of the vigilance of an efficient chief of police, 
 liquor is illegally sold at eight or ten places. This would 
 correspond to the number of United States special taxes 
 paid for by residents of North Adams who are not licensed. 
 It is a fact well known to the authorities, who are often 
 "compelled to let good cases go by for lack of sufficient 
 evidence." The lawbreakers are emboldened by the 
 knowledge that, should they ever fall under the law, the 
 chance of a final discharge is excellent. In the Municipal 
 Court they are almost sure of being convicted, but they 
 generally appeal. The mere fact that the Superior Court 
 of Berkshire County is about two years behind on liquor 
 cases would of itself lend substantial cheer to the indicted 
 dealer. At the expiration of such a length of time, the 
 once strong evidence may have been dissipated. But poli- 
 tics also enter into the question. The office of district 
 attorney is elective, and that official knows it to be dis- 
 tinctly advantageous to him at the polls to deal leniently
 
 224 THE EESTRICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 with the liquor element. Not long ago political pressure 
 was brought to bear upon a district attorney in an unusual 
 way by citizens of North Adams. The town is nominally 
 Republican by 800 votes; but the Democratic district at- 
 torney of the county was assured of reelection by means of 
 these votes, on the promise that he would pay more atten- 
 tion to liquor cases coming from North Adams. He was 
 reelected and fulfilled his pledge. By dint of hard work 
 and pressure it has been possible to secure convictions in- 
 volving even imprisonment as a penalty. Occasionally 
 defendants in the lower court are induced to pay a fine on 
 the promise of escaping imprisonment. It is estimated 
 that more than half of the liquor cases go up to the higher 
 court on appeals. 
 
 In connection with the foregoing, it is of interest to note 
 that in Berkshire County United States internal revenue 
 collectors have refused to testify in liquor cases and to give 
 information about persons having paid a United States 
 special liquor tax. It is asserted that politics have deter- 
 mined this action. 
 
 The statistics of arrests for violations from 1883-84 to 
 1893-94 show a smaller number during the first three 
 years of this period than in any single year following, not 
 because the illicit traffic was unknown, but owing to the 
 inactivity of the police. In the one year of no-license 
 (1886-87) the apprehensions for illegal sales reached the 
 highest figure in the history of the town (85). The pub- 
 lic had now become aroused to the necessity of a more 
 energetic policy, the police department was completely reor- 
 ganized, and a chief selected, with a special view to the 
 suppression of the illicit trade. 
 
 Unlawful sales were still common in 1887-88, and the 
 rate of arrests showed but slight diminution (82), The 
 heaviest penalty imposed in that year for illegal selling 
 was a fine of $350 and imprisonment for eight months.
 
 THE TRAFFIC IN NORTH ADAMS. 225 
 
 In 1888-89 the number of persons arrested was 57, of 
 "whoai thirteen were sentenced to imprisonment, and fines 
 were collected to the amount of $2,600. In 1890-91, 
 twenty-four persons were arrested, of whom five were sent 
 to jail, twelve paid fines, two defaulted, and five were dis- 
 charged. The year following convictions were secured in 
 every case (eighteen in all) prosecuted.^ Since 1887-88, 
 the number of kitchen bars has diminished notably, owing 
 to the persistent work of the police in making arrests and 
 following up the cases in court. 
 
 ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS. 
 
 How considerately the police treated drunken persons 
 during the period 1883-84 to 1886-87, the year of no- 
 license, is plain from the sudden rise in the number of 
 apprehensions in 1887-88 (from 242 in 1883-84, 306 in 
 1884-85, 213, 1885-86, 198, 1886-87, to 446 in 1887-88). 
 To be sure, new brooms were at work in the police de- 
 partment; yet in commenting upon the work of the year, 
 the chief of police could say, " The figures for drunkenness 
 barel}' represent that portion who have come under the 
 eye of the police so drunk and disturbing the peace that 
 it was best they should be arrested." The succeeding 
 three years show a slight decline in the rate of arrests per 
 1,000 inhabitants. Then came the new drunk law, which 
 here, as elsewhere, caused a greater frequency of arrests 
 (total number in 1891-92, 571; 1892-93, 572; 1893-94, 
 616), and is a confusing factor in any attempt at forming 
 conclusions from statistics of drimkenness. 
 
 Public opinion inclines to the belief that drunkenness 
 has diminished to some degree since the high license law 
 went into effect, but trustworthy evidence is lacking. It 
 is probably safe to say that the late legislation has not 
 
 1 Reference here and above is to the outcome of liquor cases in the 
 Municipal Court.
 
 226 THE RESTRICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 affected the state of sobriety in North Adams to any ap- 
 preciable extent. The new drunk law is not looked upon 
 with favor. Under it 313 persons were released by the 
 police without trial between July 1, 1891, and February 
 1, 1892. In 1892-93, 379 were so released and 193 taken 
 to court; in 1893-94 the figures stood 165 and 451 re- 
 spectively. Persons who, it is said, ought to be fined or 
 confined for drunkenness are discharged by probation offi- 
 cers. Here again politics enter into the question. Of the 
 number annually arrested for drunkenness, it is estimated 
 that over 60 per cent, are non-residents. The number of 
 persons arrested more than once for drunkenness was, in 
 1892-93, 11.51 per cent, of the total number of arrests, 
 and in 1893-94, 13.34 per cent. 
 
 That the sale of liquor is as well regulated in all the 
 other large cities and towns of Massachusetts as in Boston 
 and North Adams, is much to be doubted. In most of 
 the license cities the bane of the influence of the liquor 
 element in local politics is strongly felt; as a result, en- 
 forcement is lax, and defiance of express provisions of the 
 law common. 
 
 III. LOCAL OPTION. 
 
 GROWTH OF A NO-LICENSE POLICY, 
 
 Comparatively few of the towns voted at the March 
 meetings in 1881 on the question of granting licenses, since 
 the local option law did not take effect until March 3 of 
 that year; the cities voted in December. Just to what 
 extent the liquor traffic had been sanctioned in preceding 
 years is not known. Many towns, and some cities, had, 
 however, long taken advantage of the express provision of 
 the law, that it shall not be compulsory for selectmen or 
 mayors and aldermen to grant licenses. A no-license policy 
 was in vogue in many places long before the local option
 
 LOCAL OPTION. 227 
 
 principle was embodied in the law. While it seems a 
 reasonable assumption that the traffic was not materially 
 checked during the first year of local option, it would be 
 improper, in the absence of complete records, to contrast 
 earlier conditions with those prevailing in 1881. Yet it 
 should be noted that more United States special liquor 
 taxes were paid in 1881 than in the preceding year. It 
 should also be remarked that not a few places which were 
 without saloons in 1881 have since almost continuously 
 voted for license. 
 
 The greatest victories of the no-license advocates were 
 won in 1885, 1886, 1888, and 1891. For the purpose of 
 estimating the growth of the no-license policy, a comparison 
 between the years 1881 and 1894 seems fair; the number 
 of communities voting for license in the latter was below 
 the average. In 1881, 63.28 per cent, of the inhabitants 
 of the State lived in cities and towns granting licenses or 
 voting "yes;" in 1894, 57.43 per cent, of the population 
 (census of 1890) Avere found in cities and towns voting 
 "yes." The gain of no-license in thirteen years is thus 
 represented by 5.85 per cent, of the population. The next 
 census will, however, probably show that there has been 
 no gain, since the increase in population in the last four 
 years has been largely in the populous centres, Avhich are 
 nearly always under license. Furthermore, it should be 
 remembered that the greater number of persons now living 
 under a no-license regime is solely attributable to the action 
 of cities and towns within a radius of twelve miles or less 
 from the centre of Boston; in other words, of places where 
 a no-license vote removes the drinker a short and not seri- 
 ously inconvenient distance from the base of supplies. 
 Then, deducting from the total population that of the no- 
 license places, — Cambridge, Everett, Maiden, Melrose, 
 Stoneham, Somerville, Wakefield, Watertown, Newton, 
 Brookline, Hyde Park, Quincy, Chelsea, and Revere, giv-
 
 228 THE EESTEICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 ing a total of 269,283 inhabitants (census of 1890), — it is 
 found that 65.39 per cent, of the whole population of the 
 Commonwealth lived in cities and towns voting "yes" in 
 1894. This estimate is conservative, since it by no means 
 includes all places influenced in the matter of voting 
 against the saloon by the proximity of Boston. 
 
 Setting aside the question of the effect of the local 
 option act in 1881, it appears that much ground was lost 
 during the ensuing four years. Towns and cities which 
 had formerly prohibited the sale of liquor Avithout a vote 
 on the question again returned to license. Since 1885 
 the temperance side has made some permanent gains. Still, 
 if one excludes the populous centres belonging naturally 
 to the "Greater Boston," as well as those — for instance, 
 Beverly, Marblehead, and Peabody — in the immediate 
 neighborhood of habitual license cities, very few among the 
 larger towns remain, and but one city, which can be said 
 to have banished the saloons for good under the local option 
 law. 
 
 The vote on the license question usually falls below that 
 of the vote for mayors and selectmen. Where the senti- 
 ment is overwhelming against license, it is frequently 
 found that only enough votes have been brought out on 
 that side to overcome the known license votes. In places 
 generally favoring the sale of liquor, the full strength of 
 the pro-license vote is rarely seen, unless special eff"orts 
 are made to shut out the saloon. That the growth of the 
 no-license vote must not be considered as equivalent to a 
 growth of a full-fledged prohibitory sentiment is apparent 
 from the fact that the former is most pronounced in subur- 
 ban Boston and in towns holding the same relation to 
 license cities as does Cambridge to Boston.
 
 LOCAL OPTION. 229 
 
 EFFECTS OF NO-LICENSE. 
 
 The vote on the license question exhibits one character- 
 istic common to all communities where the policy in regard 
 to the liquor traffic changes from year to year, or at irregu- 
 lar intervals: this is that the majority carrying a city or 
 town against license is nearly always small, and is followed 
 by a large adverse majority at the succeeding election. 
 
 The benefits of no-license in the smaller towns contain- 
 ing an overwhelming temperance vote are obvious ; but not 
 quite so in more important centres, although they may 
 never legalize the liquor traffic. The sale of liquor may 
 be reduced to a minimum, but importation cannot be 
 stopped, nor the formation of drinking- clubs. In the case 
 of cities, the benefit of an occasional triumph of the no- 
 vote is open to grave doubt. Some responsibility for this 
 rests with the law itself. A city may vote no-license in 
 December, but the " dry " period cannot begin until the 
 following ]\Iay. The dealers who have lost their privileges 
 will, of course, continue to sell so long as they are not 
 seriously interfered with. Efi'ective enforcement of the 
 lav/ cannot be had at once, sometimes not at all, for it may 
 be that the police favor the saloon element. In December 
 again the city returns a large majority for license. The 
 vigilance of the officers of the law slackens or ceases com- 
 pletely; public sentiment no longer demands it, so they 
 reason. The result is that for a few months only — six at 
 most — during the no-license year have the saloon doors 
 been closed tightly. Eemarkable fluctuations of the vote 
 on the license question observed in some communities admit 
 of but one explanation: no-license is sometimes obtained 
 as the consequence of a manufactured public sentiment, as 
 unfruitful of good results as it is fleeting. 
 
 The value of an annual vote on the license question is 
 supposed to lie in the fact that it keeps alive the agitation 
 for temperance. On the other hand, no measure seems
 
 230 THE RESTKICTIVE SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 better calculated to force the liquor element into political 
 activity. The victory of the latter is certainly not a vic- 
 tory for public morality and a purer administration of 
 municipal affairs. 
 
 Considering the State as a whole, the number of licenses 
 has not been reduced under the local option law. A 
 marked falling off in 1889 was wholly due to the limita- 
 tion law which then took effect. From 1881 to 1888, 
 inclusive, the licenses increased. The disproportionate 
 growth of druggists' licenses can hardly be taken to repre- 
 sent simply the legitimate demand for intoxicants for me- 
 dicinal purposes in no-license towns. 
 
 The statistics of arrests do not support the common 
 assumption that Massachusetts has become more sober since 
 the adoption of the local option law. An increase of 
 arrests independently of changes in the drunk law is quite 
 observable. Moreover, the towns, where no-license is 
 supposed to have worked the greater salvation, are respon- 
 sible for this increase equally with the cities. It is incon- 
 ceivable that a general and steady growth of sobriety 
 throughout the State should not be indicated in the police 
 returns. This is said with a full understanding of hoAV 
 conservatively statistics of arrests should be interpreted. 
 
 The large foreign element added to the population since 
 1882 has, of course, not helped to make no-license a suc- 
 cess, but it must be remembered that only a small minority 
 of immigrants find their way to the towns. Public intoxi- 
 cation does not appear to decrease materially in consequence 
 of an occasional year of no-license. 
 
 Note. In 1896 new and stringent regulations governing the sale of 
 liquor by druggists were adopted. In 1897 the so-called "express " law 
 was passed. It requires packages containing intoxicating liquors that are 
 carried into no-license places to be plainly marked with the names of seller 
 and purchaser and with a statement of the amount and kind of liquor 
 they contain. Common carriers must keep a record of the receijit and 
 delivery of liquor to residents of no-license places, the record at all 
 times to be open to the inspection of mayors and aldermen, boards of 
 license commissioners, selectmen, constables, police officers, justices of 
 the peace, etc.
 
 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 Previous to the high license law of 1887 (the " Brooks 
 law "), systematic and uniform regulation of the sale of 
 liquor in Pennsylvania had not been effected. New con- 
 tingencies, as well as demands for more stringent measures, 
 were met from time to time by special local acts. But all 
 these local laws have been stricken from the books except 
 those pertainmg to prohibition and local option in certain 
 communities. 
 
 One of the features of the Pennsylvania law peculiar to 
 this Commonwealth has been preserved from the earliest 
 times: that of vesting the authority to grant licenses in 
 the judiciary. Under the Duke of York's laws, promul- 
 gated in 1676, and the laws of the proprietary government 
 of William Penn, the licenses to sell liquor were issued 
 by the governor to those who were recommended "in order 
 thereto by the justices in open court." This practice con- 
 tinued until the law of 1815 conferred directly upon the 
 Mayor's Court of Philadelphia, and upon the Courts of 
 Quarter Sessions of the several counties, the power to grant 
 tavern licenses. The act of 1834 renewed the authority 
 of the Courts of Quarter Sessions to issue licenses on peti- 
 tion, provided for the hearing of remonstrances, and left 
 the courts discretion to act in the matter "according to the 
 necessity of the case."- By special acts of the legislature, 
 other licensing bodies were provided for the cities of Phil- 
 adelphia and Pittsburgh, which will be referred to later. 
 
 Until 1856 the liquor laws were fragmentary. The 
 legislature of the previous year was of strong temperance
 
 232 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 proclivities. It passed what has become known as the 
 "Jug Law," under which no dealer could sell liquor in 
 quantities less than one quart, and denied licenses to tav- 
 erns and restaurants. The law succeeding it revived sev- 
 eral former acts, and remained in force, variously amended 
 at nearly every sitting of the legislature, until 1887. 
 The high license measure then enacted embodies no new 
 principle not inherent in previous legislation. It was 
 simply built up of earlier acts into a more harmonious 
 whole, and with some modifications in detail. The license 
 fees Avere raised, penalties for illegal selling increased, the 
 restrictive features made more stringent, and all its provi- 
 sions made equally applicable to all parts of the Common- 
 wealth, except that the special local option or prohibitory 
 acts were not repealed. 
 
 A summary of the law of 1887 follows : — 
 
 Licenses to be granted only by the Court of Quarter Sessions 
 of the proper county for one year at the time. 
 
 Applicants for licenses to file their petitions with the clerk 
 of the Court of Quarter Sessions at least three weeks previous 
 to the session of the court. A list of the names of the appli- 
 cants, their residences, and the places for which application is 
 made, to be published three times in two newspapers. 
 
 The petition to state among other things : the name of owner 
 of jiremises; that the place to be licensed is necessary for 
 the accommodation of the public ; that none of the applicants 
 is in any manner pecuniarily interested in the profits from the 
 sale of liquor conducted at any other place in the county ; that 
 the applicant is the only person pecuniarily interested in the 
 business, and that no other person shall have any money in- 
 terest therein during the continuance of the license ; whether 
 the applicant held a license during any part of the year and if 
 the license was revoked ; and it must contain the names of at 
 least two reputable freeholders of the ward, borovigh, or town- 
 ship where the liquor is to be sold, who will be the applicants' 
 sureties in the penal sum of $2,000. The bondsmen must not 
 h(\ engaged in the manufacture of liquors (an amendment of 
 1891 provides that, when any person is surety on more than
 
 THE HIGH LICENSE LAW OF 1887. 233 
 
 one bond, he shall certify that he is worth $4,000 over and 
 above all incumbrances, and over and above any previous bonds 
 he may be surety on) ; the petition to be verified by affidavit 
 of applicant ; a certificate to accompany the petition, signed 
 by at least twelve reputable qualified electors of the ward or 
 township, and stating that they know the applicant, believe all 
 his statements to be true, and therefore ask that the license 
 prayed for issue. 
 
 The Court of Quarter Sessions to hear petitions from resi- 
 dents of the ward, borough, or township, in addition to that 
 of the applicant, in favor of or remonstrance against the appli- 
 cation ; and to refuse the license whenever, in its opinion, it is 
 not necessary for the accommodation of the public and enter- 
 tainment of the traveler, or the applicant is unfit. Upon 
 proper notice that the licensee has violated any of the liquor 
 laws, the court to revoke the license. 
 
 The license not to be issued until the applicant has executed 
 a bond to the Commonwealth, and a warrant of attorney to 
 confess judgment in the penal svim of $2,000, conditioned for 
 the faithful observance of all the laws relating to the sale of 
 liquor, and to pay all damages which may be recovered in any 
 action against him, as well as all fines, costs, and penalties im- 
 posed on conviction for violation of any of the liquor laws. 
 
 License fees : licensees resident in cities of the first, second, 
 and third class to pay $500 ; in other cities, $300 ; in boroughs, 
 $150; and in townships, $75. 
 
 In cities of the fii'st class, four fifths of the fees to go to the 
 city and county, and one fifth to the Commonwealth ; in cities 
 of the second and third class, two fifths to go to the city, two 
 fifths to the proper county, and one fifth to the Commonwealth ; 
 in other cities and boroughs, three fifths to the city or borough, 
 one fifth to the county, and one fifth to the State ; in townships, 
 one half to the township, one fourth to the county, and one 
 fourth to the State, the share falling to the townships to be 
 applied to keeping the highways in repair. 
 
 The mercantile appraisers to furnish a sworn statement to 
 the clerk of the Court of Quarter Sessions, in January of each 
 vear, of all licensed and unlicensed places where liquor of any 
 kind is sold. A list, containing the name of each licensee and 
 the amount of fee paid, to be published, as well as a list of all 
 unlicensed places. The district attorney also to be supplied 
 with a list of persons selling liquor without a license, and forth-
 
 234 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 with to prosecute the offenders according to law. The identi- 
 cal duty with regard to making returns, under oath, of all places 
 where liquor is sold, except at drug-stores, enjoined upon the 
 constables of wards, boroughs, or townships in each county. 
 Judges of the Court of Quarter Sessions to see that such re- 
 turns are faithfully made in the first week of each term of 
 court. A constable found willfully neglecting to make full 
 returns to be susjjended by the court from office, and the dis- 
 trict attorney directed to indict and try him ; the penalty a fine 
 not exceeding $500 and imprisonment for not more than two 
 years, both or either, at the discretion of the courts. 
 
 Among the minor provisions are these: that licenses be 
 framed under glass, and conspicuously hung on the premises ; 
 vending liquor in a room where groceries are sold, either at 
 wholesale or retail, is forbidden ; no licensee selling liquor by 
 less measure than one quart to trust or give credit therefor 
 under penalty of forfeiture of such debt. 
 
 Penalties ranging from $500 to |5,000 and twelve months' 
 imprisonment were imposed for selling without license, and 
 from $100 to $5,000 and from three to twelve months' impris- 
 onment for violating the law governing licensed places ; and the 
 license could be revoked if a disorderly place were kept. 
 
 Druggists are not required to take out licenses, but they are 
 allowed to sell intoxicating liquor only upon the written pre- 
 scription of a regular physician. Alcohol, however, or any 
 preparation containing the same, may be sold for scientific, 
 mechanical, or medicinal purposes. But liquor must not be 
 furnished more than once on any one prescription of a physi- 
 cian. 
 
 By an act of 1891 persons licensed to sell liquor at retail, 
 resident in cities of the first and second class, must pay $1,000 ; 
 in cities of the third class, $500 ; in all other cities, $300 ; in 
 boroughs, $150 ; in townships, $75. 
 
 THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 
 
 Philadelphia is singularly fortunate in its territorial con- 
 ditions. Its population is scattered over an area of 129^ 
 square miles — nearly twice the area of Brooklyn, which 
 contains nearly as many inhabitants. The city lines stretch 
 for twenty-two miles along the Delaware, and run from
 
 THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. 235 
 
 five to ten miles inland. Of the nearly one million and 
 a quarter inhabitants, only about one third are found 
 within the confines of the old city, or within a radius of 
 about two miles from its heart. The others have been 
 drawn farther and farther out, to what were formerly 
 county villages, which even to-day are like distinct com- 
 munities, acres of unoccupied land separating them from 
 the city proper. Abundant room, facilities of transporta- 
 tion, and financial enterprises to meet the needs of the 
 masses have helped to make Philadelphia a "city of homes." 
 The tenement and the apartment house are almost un- 
 known. The city's 1,046,964 inhabitants are housed in 
 187,052 dwellings (census of 1890), an average of 5.60 
 persons to each as against 18.52 in New York, 8.60 in 
 Chicago, and 8.52 in Boston. Not in a single ward is the 
 average higher than 7.48, while in New York it reaches 
 38.50, in Chicago 14.52, and in Boston 13.79. 
 
 In no other one of our great cities is the workman so well 
 and comfortably housed. But the city has its quota of the 
 vicious and shiftless, who persist in huddling together in 
 what are termed the "slums;" yet the quarters so desig- 
 nated are not so isolated, or of such an extent, that they 
 present serious obstacles to the enforcement of the liquor 
 laws, nor are they by any means inhabited exclusively by 
 a drinking class. The strongly represented foreign element 
 in these quarters belong to nationalities noted for compara- 
 tive sobriety. Philadelphia lays claim to the title of the 
 " most American " of our large centres. Its foreign-born 
 population constitutes but 25 per cent, of the total, the Irish 
 ranking first, with 10 per cent. ; the Germans next, with 
 only 7 per cent. ; the English with 3 per cent. It has, 
 however, assimilated a foreign immigration of larger dimen- 
 sions than perhaps any other city. And the process has 
 been thorough. While racial types and characteristics still 
 linger, the foreign customs, habits, and standards have not
 
 236 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 been perpetuated, or, at most, have left but faint traces. 
 The colored population in 1890 numbered 39,371. 
 
 To the large commercial and second or third rate mari- 
 time interests of the city are added those of one of the 
 greatest manufacturing centres. In its immense establish- 
 ments, and in a host of lesser ones, the workmen are of a 
 higher grade than the ordinary. 
 
 The schemers for local liquor legislation made Philadel- 
 phia their chief object of solicitude. In 1849 a special 
 act was passed for this city permitting any man to sell 
 liquor who could pay for a license. This law worked its 
 own undoing, and in 1854 Philadelphia gave a large major- 
 ity for prohibition; but this was overcome by an adverse 
 majority in the rest of the State. The laws of 1856, 
 which, as has been said, variously amended, remained in 
 force until the passage of the Brooks bill, did not affect 
 Philadelphia in some of their main provisions. The licens- 
 ing authority was not allowed to remain in the hands of 
 the judiciary, but was vested in a Board of Licensers. The 
 licensers, however, performed their duties so conscientiously 
 that the liquor element brought about a repeal of the meas- 
 ure, and also secured amendments, the principal one in 
 1864, which removed all restrictions in the matter of 
 granting licenses, but left the courts power to revoke them. 
 An Excise Commission of four members was appointed. 
 They were not expected to, nor did they, exercise further 
 authority than to require a formal compliance with the 
 provisions of the laAV. While a mass of red tape had to 
 be unwound before a man could get a license, the privilege 
 was cheap and eagerly sought. The method of fixing a 
 license fee in proportion to the sales was not conducive to 
 honesty. So late as in 1886 no less than 6,016 saloon- 
 keepers out of 6,059 stated that their annual gross receipts 
 did not exceed $4,000, and so escaped with the minimum 
 fee of $50.
 
 THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. 237 
 
 In addition to the legalized drinking-places, liquor was 
 disjiensed, during the regime of the license commissioners, 
 at numerous groceries, so called, and at other shops. In 
 fact, the violators of the law in the early eighties ran hut 
 little risk of serious interference hy the authorities. The 
 license commissioners of that period have left no record of 
 their work, but how they performed it may be gathered 
 from some instances of public knowledge. The act of the 
 Assembly creating Fairmount Park forbade the sale of 
 liquor within its boundaries. Nevertheless, licenses for 
 the park were issued, the park commissioners refusing to 
 enforce the law and their own regulations. I^otwithstand- 
 ing the express prohibition of the law, retail licenses were 
 freely granted to wholesale dealers. The provisions of the 
 act of 1881 making it illegal to license the sale of liquor at 
 theatres and other places of amusement were systematically 
 ignored. Saloons might be planted alongside churches and 
 schoolhouses ; protests went unheeded. Saloons and beer 
 gardens were open on Sundays. In a few instances, when 
 the abuses became too flagrant, the licenses were revoked by 
 the courts, but only through the persistent effort of the Law 
 and Order Society, not by any exertion of the authorities. 
 Numerous indictments were found by grand juries for sell- 
 ing liquor without a license ; but " owing to the great press 
 of business in the courts only a few were tried." Not 
 until 1885 could it be reported as a "no longer uncommon 
 thing to have liquor-dealers convicted in our courts by 
 petit juries." If, however, the person convicted belonged 
 to the class of unlicensed dealers, he usually escaped by 
 paying a fine equal in amount to the cost of a license, or 
 by promising good behavior in the future. As a matter of 
 course, resulting from the indiscriminate mode of licensing, 
 the retail traffic was largely in the hands of the least re- 
 sponsible of dealers, dives flourished on every hand, and 
 public intoxication was too common to excite much com- 
 ment.
 
 238 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 It were unjust to say that this state of things was simply- 
 owing to the moral apathy of the community. The Gen- 
 eral Assembly had repeatedly been memorialized to furnish 
 some relief, but the restrictive measures enacted remained 
 unheeded. It is nearer the truth to state that the liquor 
 interest fettered the hands of those in power by threatening 
 them with political annihilation. The license commission- 
 ers were chosen at the bidding of the trade. The public 
 prosecutors held elective offices, the police magistrates 
 were generally ward leaders. The judiciary could not be 
 asked to interfere, and its power to revoke licenses had not 
 been fully established. Under the old city charter there 
 was no centralization of municipal authority, the police 
 force was a part of the political machine, its organization 
 imperfect, and the mayor, its virtual head, could not com- 
 pel it to secure obedience to the laws. 
 
 Party considerations superseded all others. To reach 
 office and keep it required votes, and the saloons com- 
 manded the suffrages of many. 
 
 The strength of the liquor traffic in Philadelphia in 
 1886 may be illustrated by the following figures : — 
 
 The number of licensed saloons was 6,059; for the 
 whole city there was one saloon to 26 voters; one public 
 schoolhouse to 644 votes; one church to 244 votes; and 
 the average number of inhabitants to each saloon 139.82. 
 
 It must not be inferred that the conditions in Philadel- 
 phia were typical of those prevailing throughout the State. 
 This city and Pittsburgh suffered under local laws guaran- 
 teeing in fact the liquor trade a non-interference, which it 
 had not, with a few exceptions, secured elsewhere. From 
 these cities, accordingly, issued the most urgent appeals for 
 restrictive and more uniform legislation. The high-license 
 law of 1887 may properly be called a Philadelphia measure, 
 being draughted and urged by citizens of this municipality. 
 It was not really a matter for surprise, as so frequently
 
 THE BROOKS LAW. 239 
 
 remarked, that, with a liquor interest so strongly intrenched, 
 the law of 1887 could be passed. 
 
 The leading dealers were shrewd enough to see that the 
 retrenchment of the privileges of the trade, necessarily 
 growing out of the proposed changes, would, to the fortu- 
 nate ones, mean a golden harvest, regardless of the higher 
 fee to be paid. The true significance of giving the entire 
 power to deal with liquor licenses to the judiciary was not 
 apparent to the trade in general. 
 
 THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC UNDER HIGH LICENSE. 
 
 The "Brooks law " went into effect in 1888. The first 
 license court in Philadelphia sat from the last days of Feb- 
 ruary until the middle of May, 1888. No less than 3,426 
 applicants appeared before the judges anxious to pay the 
 fee. The courage and high sense of duty of the new 
 licensers was a revelation to many. The character of each 
 applicant was closely inquired into. Maps had been pre- 
 pared showing the location of all the places petitioning for 
 licenses with a view to their better distribution. Of the 
 great number of applicants, the court refused licenses to 
 more than 1,340. "Many bold and defiant lawbreakers 
 were rejected." Much of the credit for the reduction of 
 licenses was due to the Law and Order Society, which sup- 
 plied the needed information and prepared remonstrances. 
 The rigid censorship of applications, and the demonstration 
 that the court discharged its licensing functions without 
 fear or favor, had a subduing effect on the liquor-dealers. 
 The license became a valuable franchise not to be jeopard- 
 ized by gross violations of the law. Still offenses were 
 common. While the municipal authorities devoted some 
 attention to the suppression of the illegal traffic, the task 
 of keeping the licensed dealers within legal bounds was 
 left mainly to the private organization, the Law and Order 
 Society.
 
 240 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 Tlie new law, as has been shown, had not made any 
 special provision for the wholesale liquor trade. In 1889 
 and 1890 there was a large increase of applications from 
 this class of dealers, the Supreme Court having decided 
 that the Court of Quarter Sessions lacked discretionary 
 power to refuse them. In 1890 nearly a thousand whole- 
 sale licenses were granted, and in some instances to persons 
 who had previously been denied retail licenses. Although 
 the acts of 1891 doubled the fee for retail trade, and placed 
 the wholesale traffic under the same restrictions as to the 
 method of obtaining licenses, the scramble for the coveted 
 prizes was not diminished. There was no marked falling 
 off in the number of applicants until 1894. With the 
 expansion and growth of the city, however, the list of 
 retailers has been increased to provide for the "necessary 
 accommodation of the public ; " but the number of whole- 
 salers, under the act of 1891, was cut down nearly one 
 half, and it has since remained about stationary. Spas- 
 modic efforts, usually originating in Philadelphia, to bring 
 about the abolishment of the license court and a return to 
 an excise commission, have always failed. These efforts 
 have not even had the undivided support of the trade. 
 Dealers having a firm hold on their licenses could not be 
 expected to relinquish any part of their monopoly,^ and 
 the creation of an excise board would be tantamount to 
 diffusing the trade. 
 
 JUDGES AS LICENSERS. 
 
 There is a manifest reluctance among members of the 
 bar to continuing the judges as licensers. This is not 
 based only on the general ground that judicial and execu- 
 
 1 The profits of a few saloons are estimated to ranjje from .'8!20,000 to 
 $50,000 a year. About 70 average from $10,000 to $12,000 apiece. In 
 the middle northern section the value of a license is placed at about 
 $5,000 a year. One saloon catering to mill hands and salt-work laborers 
 make* an annual j)ro(it of $15,000.
 
 JUDGES AS LICENSERS. 241 
 
 tive functions should be kept distinct; it rests on far more 
 special grounds. Under the Pennsylvania system, applica- 
 tions for licenses are of course acted upon in open court, 
 (In Philadelphia the license court sits for several days in 
 the month of March of each year.) The judges are re- 
 quired to receive petitions for and remonstrances against 
 the applications. Although in the performance of their 
 ordinary duties no one would venture to try to influence 
 the decisions of the judges by word of mouth or by letter, 
 it is very different in license cases. The feeling is not 
 easily avoided that judges may be approached in these 
 cases. It is a physical impossibility for them to acquaint 
 themselves thoroughly with the merits of each application, 
 the character of the petitioner, and to inspect the place to 
 be licensed, and they must act, and do act, largely on out- 
 side advice. Accordingly persons feel at liberty to write 
 to the court, and an application may be decided upon ad- 
 versely without the applicant's knowledge of the power 
 defeating him. While it has been declared more than 
 once by judges that they will not receive either petitions 
 or remonstrances except in open court, the circumstance 
 that they feel impelled to make this declaration is signifi- 
 cant. And notwithstanding the fact that these judges 
 are men of the highest standing, whose work as licensers 
 also merits high commendation, the feeling is widespread 
 among certain classes that they can and must be approached 
 in license cases. A number of so-called "shyster" law- 
 yers, who make it a business to look after the affairs of 
 liquor-dealers, do not scruple to spread the belief that it 
 is necessary to influence the court; and they make it a 
 source of profit. It was knowledge of such proceedings 
 which led a judge to remark, " Should it come to the know- 
 ledge of the court that any amount has been paid or prom- 
 ised in excess of a fair compensation for legal services ren- 
 dered, it will be considered a satisfactory reason for refusing 
 a license."
 
 242 THE LIQUOE LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 It seems beyond doubt that in some quarters confidence 
 in the judiciary has been impaired through the medium of 
 the license court, although fair-minded men have nothing 
 but unstinted praise for its actions. 
 
 The position of the judiciary is further embarrassed by 
 the circumstance that it is elective. The judges of the 
 Court of Quarter Sessions are chosen by the people for a 
 term of ten years. Election to a judgeship may often be 
 equivalent to a life tenure; yet the fact that the office is 
 elective necessitates the identification of the candidate with 
 party politics. Where the liquor element is a strong factor 
 in politics, it is difficult for him to steer clear of it — at 
 all events it is a source of temptation, especially in the 
 smaller counties. Generally speaking, citizens are natu- 
 rally prone to suspect a judge, hard pressed in an electoral 
 contest, of reaching out for the liquor vote, and trimming 
 his actions accordingly. Many judges are anxious to be 
 relieved of all executive responsibilities, and particularly 
 of those appertaining to liquor licenses. 
 
 To return again to the work of the Philadelphia license 
 court, it is, beyond cavil, performed impartially and with a 
 view to public interests. 
 
 The law is explicit on the point that the number of 
 licenses to be issued shall be conditioned by public "neces- 
 sity," and the position taken by the Philadelphia court 
 appears from the following remark made by one of the 
 judges in 1894: "It will be understood that the court 
 must be satisfied of the public necessity for an increase of 
 the number of licenses before the merits of the particular 
 applicants will be inquired into." 
 
 The petitioners therefore bend every energy to con- 
 vince the court of the necessity for the license prayed for, 
 when the good character of the applicant has been estab- 
 lished, and other formalities have been observed. To this 
 end they rely, not merely on the persuasiveness of their
 
 THE LICENSE SYSTEM IN POLITICS. 243 
 
 advocates, but upon the indorsements of residents of their 
 neighborhood and on general petitions, as required by the 
 law. The eventual refusal of a license depends mainly on 
 the remonstrances presented. But citizens are generally 
 reluctant to file objections, or secure signatures to remon- 
 strances ; and if it were not for the persistent work of the 
 Law and Order Society in this respect, formidable opposi- 
 tion to the numerous applications annually presented would 
 be out of the question, at least at present. 
 
 While the rule is followed to renew licenses without 
 question, provided no specific remonstrance is lodged against 
 the licensees, and while many petitions receive no attention 
 whatever, because the court always finds that " enough " 
 licenses have been granted before the list of applicants is 
 exhausted, much original work remains to be done. Be- 
 sides, the question of license transfers comes up frequently 
 throughout the year. 
 
 In order to gain a clear comprehension of the power be- 
 hind the license applications advocated in the court, as well 
 as of the operations of the laws themselves, the part played 
 by the liquor element in city politics must be considered. 
 
 When, in 1886, the number of voters to each saloon, 
 based on the gubernatorial vote of that year, averaged only 
 twenty-six, it required no keen insight to understand the 
 hopeless case of the political aspirant who had gained 
 the ill-will of both the licensed and unlicensed dealers. 
 The special legislation for Philadelphia previous to 1887 
 reveals the extent of the influence wielded by the liquor 
 trade. Under the outgrown city charter then in force, 
 the management of municipal affairs was certainly open to 
 grave criticism. Under the Bullitt charter (of 1887), the 
 municipal service has been improved, but the activity of 
 the saloon in politics has not diminished. Bossism has 
 been the ruling element in municipal life, accompanied by 
 the usual "rings" and "combines;" and where these exist
 
 244 THE LIQUOE LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 vote-getting and vote-holding become the supreme neces- 
 sity of the hour, which again brings the saloon to the 
 front as a centre of ward politics. Every application for a 
 license must be accompanied by a certificate, signed by at 
 least twelve reputable electors of the wards, boroughs, or 
 townships, indorsing the applicant, and praying that the 
 license be issued. The signing of a certificate does not 
 necessarily mean that the signer is a spokesman for the 
 liquor interest in general. A choice may arise between 
 applicants of widely different characters, one of whom is 
 pretty sure to obtain a license. A signer who gives his 
 influence in favor of the better applicant is not compro- 
 mised. An applicant in seeking indorsements naturally 
 turns to those upon whom he has, or fancies he has, a 
 hold, and whom he regards as particularly influential. He 
 seeks out first the politicians and office-holders. 
 
 The lowest rung on the political ladder is represented in 
 Philadelphia by the office of school director. On an aver- 
 age about thirteen of these officials are elected for each 
 ward. While nominally of a non-political character, the 
 office is much sought as a stepping-stone to higher honors. 
 Of 496 school directors in the thirty-seven wards, 146 
 signed certificates of license applicants in 1894, and 411 
 licenses were signed for, an average of 2.81 by each school 
 director. 
 
 The lower branch of city councils, which took office in 
 April, 1894, consists of 123 members. With one ward 
 left out, the records of the license court ^ show that eighty- 
 one of them appeared as signers, bondsmen, or counsel — 
 one, both, or all three — for from one to twenty licensees 
 apiece. In fifteen wards every member signed certificates; 
 ftt least five of these are liquor-dealers. Of the thirty- 
 seven members of Select Councils, the upper house, twenty- 
 
 1 Thu writer is indebted to Mr. James F. Daily, of the Philadelphia 
 Ledger, for the statistics of the license court.
 
 THE LICENSE SYSTEM IN POLITICS. 245 
 
 seven became sponsors for licensees by signing or bonding 
 for from one to twenty-five. Of the twenty-eight police 
 magistrates in the city, twenty-three are signers or bonds- 
 men for license applicants. Policemen are frequently 
 found as signers. Seven clerks of the Court of Quarter 
 Sessions (the license court) sign for from one to thirty 
 licenses apiece. A like number of employees in the sher- 
 iff's office, and that official himself, sign for from one to 
 fifteen applicants. To this already long list could be added 
 the names of many other city officials — even prosecuting 
 officers — who interested themselves in liquor licenses in 
 1894. Of the eight Philadelphia state senators whose 
 terms expired in November, 1894, the names of six are 
 found among the signers, counselors, or bondsmen for 
 liquor-dealers in the last license court. Of the thirty-nine 
 members for Philadelphia in the state House of Represen- 
 tatives, thirty signed license applications or liquor bonds 
 in 1894. In August of the same year a city district com- 
 mittee met to decide upon a congressional candidate. This 
 committee included one court official who had signed for 
 thirty license applicants, one member of councils who had 
 signed or bonded for fourteen, and one state senator who 
 had signed eight applications. The candidate agreed upon, 
 and who was elected, had identified himself with the inter- 
 ests of five saloons in his own ward. 
 
 The Philadelphia delegation of 1894, which helped select 
 the successful candidate for governor, consisted of sixty- 
 three members. Among these were two liquor-dealers, 
 two directors of breweries, and thirty-eight who were sign- 
 ers or counsel or bondsmen for from one to thirteen license 
 applicants apiece. 
 
 From a cursory examination of the records of the last 
 license court, it appears that officials of some thirty Prot- 
 estant churches attached their signatures to license applica- 
 tions or certificates. That they should do so, notwith-
 
 246 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 standing the fact that the ecclesiastical bodies with which 
 they affiliate have declared in favor of an anti-saloon pol- 
 icy, is explained on the ground that they dare not refuse 
 the requests of the liquor-dealers. This is in harmony 
 with the remark of one of the highest authorities on the 
 subject, "Few men, least of all those connected with poli- 
 tics, dare refuse requests to aid applicants for licenses." 
 That men do not always lend their services cheerfully is 
 patent from the anxiety evinced by many lest their names 
 as signers and bondsmen appear in the newspapers. 
 
 The indorsement of a license application may be a mat- 
 ter of formality only when it concerns a dealer who is 
 already established in business, and against whom no objec- 
 tion is filed. Yet this does not affect the principle in- 
 volved, nor the fact that the political strength of the 
 liquor traffic finds expression in the character and position 
 of the men who act as its spokesmen before the license 
 court, whether by letter or by personal appearance. 
 
 At the present time it is not supposed that the signa- 
 tures attached to a license application determine the issue, 
 for the necessity of the place applied for is made the co7i- 
 ditio sine qua non. But when no choice exists as to the 
 characters of two aspirants, the one who can show indorse- 
 ments of "a police captain, police lieutenant, member of 
 the councils, and member of the legislature " would natu- 
 rally be favored before the other, whose signers are persons 
 of a less accepted standing in the community. 
 
 The intimate relation of the liquor element to local poli- 
 tics aff'ects the police department in a peculiar manner. It 
 was an open secret under the old regime that the police 
 force was recruited at the bidding of politicians. The new 
 city charter provided for appointments on a civil service 
 basis, but the evidence is strong that a "pull" is still tlio 
 main dependence of candidates. So pernicious has the 
 political activity of city employees become, that not long
 
 THE LICENSE SYSTEM IN POLITICS. 247 
 
 ago the attention of the State was invited to it, in a guber- 
 natorial message, in the following words : — 
 
 " The new charter of Philadelphia was granted upon the ex- 
 press stipulation and provision that the vast powers conferred 
 upon the executive should be absolutely free from political 
 interference and control . . . and yet at the last city election 
 the city employees were repeatedly assessed upon official ap- 
 proval. . . . Many of the powers of the municipality, notably 
 that of the police, were used with virulence against the rights 
 of the minority." (Message of Governor Pattison, 1891.) 
 
 Citizens have lately protested against the interference of 
 the police in local contests. But the force remains a part 
 of the political machine. Its superior officers are best 
 described as "shrewd, hard-working politicians." As such 
 they are forced to take account of the liquor interest. The 
 bearing of this on the enforcement of the liquor laws is 
 plain. 
 
 Whatever care may be exercised in distributing the 
 licenses, the general result, regardless of their number, has 
 not been to provide simply for the "necessary accommoda- 
 tion of the public." The proportion of licenses to the 
 population points in this direction. It is rather a common 
 thing to find two or more saloons on opposite corners, and 
 that in the largely residential quarters of the city. Ap- 
 parently no systematic effort is made to centralize the sale 
 in the business section, although the trade naturally gravi- 
 tates towards it. The isolated situation of some of the 
 wards enhances, perhaps, the difficulty of such a plan. 
 The method now followed brings the saloons into all neigh- 
 borhoods. So far as is known, there is no concerted action 
 in any ward to have them excluded. Yet at least two 
 wards could do so by virtue of old local option laws, which 
 were passed before the districts were annexed to Philadel- 
 phia, and have not been repealed. Late attempts at reviv- 
 ing these laws have failed for want of public support. In
 
 248 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 general, it may be said that the saloons keep pace with the 
 movement of population. The average number of inhab- 
 itants to each license is at present about 5G2. The number 
 of licenses granted has been greatly reduced since 1887. 
 In that year the number of retail licenses granted was 
 5,773; in 1890, 1,173 out of 2,921 applications; in 1894, 
 1,667 out of 2,729 applications. 
 
 Reference has been made to the transfers of licenses. In 
 other States a liquor license is regarded as a personal privi- 
 lege like the temporary commission of an official. In 
 Pennsylvania both local and personal transfers of liquor 
 licenses are recognized. The latter kind is effected, sub- 
 ject to the approval of the court, only on the payment of 
 a sum approximating the value given to a place by the fact 
 of its being licensed. In so far the license is regarded as 
 property, but it is not held as a part of a person's estate 
 which can be attached for debt or devised to others upon 
 his death. Usually transfers are allowed only upon the 
 plea of advanced age, ill health, or similar conditions. In 
 all cases the person to whom the license is transferred 
 must comply with all the formalities prescribed for original 
 applicants, except, of course, that he is not required to pay 
 an additional fee. This transfer business has grown rap- 
 idly of late, and easily leads to abuse. 
 
 A classification of the licenses operated in 1894, and the 
 fees paid by them, follow : — 
 
 61 brewers . . . . . . . $61,000.00 
 
 187 wholesalers 187,000.00 
 
 263 bottlers 78,900.00 
 
 1 distiller 1,000.00 
 
 1,664 retailers 1,664,000.00 
 
 City and appraisers' fees .... 7,300.56 
 
 Total $1,999,200.56 
 
 The restraints resulting from the present laws which 
 best serve to hold the dealers in check are the discretion
 
 THE LAW AND ORDER SOCIETY. 249 
 
 exercised by the courts in granting licenses and the know- 
 ledge tliat the license may bo revoked if sufficient cause 
 is shoAvn, the licensee then becoming forever debarred from 
 obtaining a new privilege in any part of the Common- 
 wealth. The judges, however, appear reluctant to resort 
 to so extreme a measure. It has even been held that one 
 or two violations of the law, unless of the gravest charac- 
 ter, are not sufficient cause for revoking a license. When 
 a case of this kind arises, it is not referred to a jury. 
 The complainant applies for a rule of court citing the de- 
 fendant to show cause why the license in question should 
 not be revoked. In 1894 no licenses were thus canceled. 
 The judges prefer to punish oifenders by refusing a re- 
 newal of their licenses. For various causes, twenty-three 
 bottlers and seven retailers lost their privileges at the last 
 license court. 
 
 In consequence of the valuable franchise, regardless of 
 its cost, which the liquor license has become, the tone of 
 the whole trade has been raised. The improved character 
 of the saloon is remarked upon by all observant citizens. 
 Sunday selling has ceased, and minors are usually kept out 
 of the saloons. The wholesale dealers have stopped sell- 
 ing liquor to be consumed on their premises. In many 
 places great care is taken not to sell to persons already vis- 
 ibly under the influence of liquor. 
 
 The fear of the dealers, however, is not so much of in- 
 terference on the part of the municipal authorities as of 
 the Law and Order Society. By common consent, the 
 closer observance of the law is to be credited chiefly to 
 the unremitting labor of this organization. With it the 
 complainants file their statements, and they look to it for 
 action. But with the means at its command it cannot 
 keep the large number of saloons scattered over so vast an 
 area under constant surveillance. Infractions of the law 
 are by no means uncommon. Latterly, a number of dealers
 
 250 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 have shown unusual boldness. Since the last license court, 
 at least fifteen saloons have violated the law by introducing 
 vocal and other entertainments, to which women and chil- 
 dren have been drawn in large numbers. 
 
 The absence of any law prohibiting screens and other 
 obstructions to a view of the bar traffic from the street is 
 a protection to the unscrupulous dealer. Policemen, Avere 
 they generally so disposed, cannot see what is going on 
 within, without leaving their beats, and they are not sup- 
 posed to enter saloons except for special reasons. Wher- 
 ever it is profitable to do so, the saloons are kept open 
 from shortly after twelve o'clock Monday morning until 
 the same hour Sunday morning, except on election days. 
 It is not uncommon in certain sections of the city to see 
 a string of men waiting for a saloon to open as soon as the 
 last hour of the legal Sunday is over, some of them carry- 
 ing the inevitable "growler." 
 
 The law does not provide for analysis or for any inspec- 
 tion of the liquor retailed, and many saloons are known to 
 sell an article of the most injurious kind: the so-called five- 
 cent whiskey, which is often nothing but a chemical com- 
 pound prepared from day to day. 
 
 The provision of the law, that the licensee shall be the 
 only person pecuniarily interested in the business of a 
 saloon, and that one man may not control more than one 
 license, is evaded, and, doubtless, to-day, as formerly, 
 numerous retail places are owned by brewers and distillers, 
 the nominal licensee being simply the manager. The 
 obligations of the retailer to the persons who furnish sup- 
 plies may put him practically in their power. They ad- 
 vance the license money, trust him for goods, take a mort- 
 gage on the fixtures. The. many judgments executed by 
 manufacturers of liquor against those who sell their goods 
 are proofs of this. It is commonly reported that "com- 
 bines" exist for the purpose of controlling a number of
 
 THE ILLICIT TRAFFIC. 251 
 
 saloons. One such, with a police magistrate at its head, 
 is said to own sixteen shops. 
 
 THE ILLICIT TRAFFIC. 
 
 Under the old law, selling without a license was not 
 infrequent, but the easy access to legalized establishments, 
 every hour of the week, prevented such selling from be- 
 coming very profitable. After the introduction of the 
 high license law, the " speak-easy " became a regular insti- 
 tution in Philadelphia. At the present time, liquor is sold 
 without license at the "speak-easies," or " kitchen bars " 
 proper, at chartered and unchartered clubs, at houses of 
 ill fame, and by some druggists. Only an approximate 
 estimate of the extent to which the law is violated can be 
 given. The United States special taxes paid do not fur- 
 nish a clew. Apparently little effort is made to collect 
 the revenue except from those Avho hold a city license, 
 from prominent clubs, the "speak-easy" keepers who are 
 brought into court for violating the law, and from drug- 
 gists. A thorough examination of the internal revenue 
 records confirms this. A policeman having an intimate 
 acquaintance with all sections of the city, questioned as to 
 the number of "speak-easies," replied unhesitatingly, 
 "There are at least six thousand." While this statement 
 must be regarded as exaggerated, it is beyond doubt that 
 the illegal places exceed by not a little the number of 
 licensed retailers. The " speak-easies " are not confined to 
 any particular localities, but naturally abound in the dis- 
 tricts inhabited by the less well-to-do people, and in the 
 so-called "slums." The investigation did not extend to 
 the latter places. Most of the illegal venders restrict their 
 business to the Sunday hours, and carry it on in private 
 houses. Custom is sought exclusively among acquaint- 
 ances. No strangers are admitted unless vouched for by 
 friends. On a Sunday afternoon or evening, one may, in
 
 252 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 certain sections, wander from block to block, and find from 
 one to half a dozen " speak-easies " in each. None appears 
 to lack trade, nor is heavy drinking the exception. A 
 dozen persons seems a small gathering in a "speak-easy;" 
 frequently from twenty to thirty, both men and women, 
 are found crowding the narrow quarters. Neither the 
 proprietors — often women — nor their guests are always 
 of that brutal type one involuntarily associates with the 
 illegal liquor traffic. Exceptions, however, are not want- 
 ing. Other vices than that of drunkenness find a congen- 
 ial soil in the "speak-easies." Another class of "speak- 
 easies " continues operations throughout the whole week. 
 They are commonly run under the guise of cigar stores or 
 news-stands. The multitude of small tobacco-shops in 
 Philadelphia attracts the attention of the observant visitor. 
 Closer inspection shows that many of them do not depend 
 upon a legitimate trade. The sale of liquor in a rear room, 
 accompanied by gambling of various kinds, is the main 
 source of profit. Again, men who have been employed in 
 large mills or factories establish "speak-easies" "for the 
 accommodation of friends," as one of them remarked, for 
 mill-owners and manufacturers sometimes object to the 
 proximity of saloons to their works. 
 
 The question, Do not the police try to suppress the 
 illegal selling 1 must be answered both with a yes and no. 
 Raids are made, in some years a good many, but never 
 unless there is full evidence of guilt and always \ipon 
 warrant. On the other hand, there is proof that the small 
 fish are caught and the big let go. Instances have ap- 
 peared where detectives detailed to collect evidence about 
 " speak-easies " have reported their non-existence, in direct 
 contradiction to the testimony of reputable citizens. When 
 a ward leader undertook to defy the law, he was permitted 
 to run an establishment difi"ering but little in appointments 
 and size from an ordinary saloon. When the complainants
 
 THE ILLICIT TRAFFIC. 253 
 
 grow too clamorous, it often happens that the police will 
 warn the offender, and give him time for exit. The 
 friendly relations between police officers and "speak-easy" 
 keepers is shown by the fact that strangers may be intro- 
 duced to the resorts of the latter by policemen in person. 
 It is vain to deny that the police profit from the illicit 
 trade. It is not understood that blackmail is levied sys- 
 tematically or on a large scale. Weekly stipends of from 
 $5 to $25, according to the business of the particular 
 place and the other illicit practices accompanying the sale 
 of liquor, are mentioned as being paid, but in a round- 
 about way. The police are repeatedly assessed by their 
 superiors, and it is but a part of the system that the for- 
 mer should seek to recoup themselves. The temptation, 
 as well as the opportunity, is daily at hand. Whether this 
 kind of protection is extended by others than the rank and 
 file of the force is not positively known. Those highest 
 in command are certainly above suspicion, but they are too 
 much entangled by party consideration to act in the matter, 
 even if aware of the true state of things. 
 
 Illegal liquor-selling goes on in a multitude of clubs, 
 so-called. There is no provision in the law under which 
 a club may be licensed. The right of a chartered organi- 
 zation to dispense drink to members has never been seri- 
 ously challenged until of late years. The rule has com- 
 monly been held by the courts that the high license law 
 does not apply to clubs when selling is restricted to mem- 
 bers. There is, however, a diversity of opinion on this 
 subject. Lately a decision was rendered declaring all club 
 sale of liquor illegal. The question is likely to remain in 
 dispute until an opinion has been rendered by the Supreme 
 Court. Since the high license law went into operation, 
 the number of the so-called social clubs has increased pro- 
 digiously. Some of them are recognized political factors, 
 and have other purposes than the sale of liciuor for profit.
 
 254 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 It is apprehended, however, that liquor-selling is the prin- 
 cipal motive of these mushroom organizations. The regu- 
 larly chartered associations of a distinctive club character 
 are not more than seventy-five in number, if so many, and 
 represent only a fraction of the " clubs " where liquor is 
 sold. Some of the latter have obtained charters from the 
 Court of Quarter Sessions, but the majority have none, or 
 masquerade under the charters of disbanded societies of 
 which they have come into possession. 
 
 Members are usually admitted to the rooms by key. 
 The discrimination as to membership is not severe, pro- 
 vided the visitor is considered "safe." Some clubs draw 
 exclusively on workingmen, who pay weekly dues of 
 twenty-five cents each, which entitles the member to bring 
 a friend. The business done in one of these establishments 
 may be inferred from the fact that bar receipts of nearly 
 $650 Avere shown for a single Sunday. It was hardly 
 surprising that not one of the members was sober. The 
 colored residents have their own drinking-clubs. When 
 a club of this description has a political tinge, especially 
 when ward leaders are enrolled among the members, — no 
 matter how low its order, — it is not interfered with. Clubs 
 where gambling is the chief diversion, next to drinking, 
 thrive under the shadow of the Public Buildings. Yet it 
 must be conceded that, under the existing conditions, the 
 authorities cannot very well meddle with the chartered 
 clubs without acting arbitrarily. 
 
 The legal provision enjoining the ward constables to 
 report to the courts the number of licensed and unlicensed 
 liquor-shops within their respective bailiwicks is a dead 
 letter. 
 
 Of the 740 druggists in Philadelphia, some are known 
 to do a lively trade in spirits other than alcohol, which 
 latter may be sold for special purposes without a license. 
 The best informed persons, however, hold that compara- 
 tively few druggists offend in this respect.
 
 ARKESTS AND PROSECUTIONS. 255 
 
 ARRESTS AND TROSECUTIOXS. 
 
 Infractions of the law by licensed dealers do not always 
 lead to their arrest. More commonly, as already remarked, 
 a rule of court is applied for to show cause why the license 
 of the offender should not be revoked, or the matter is 
 allowed to rest until the next sitting of the license court, 
 when renewal of the license is refused. The difficulty of 
 obtaining sufficient evidence to convict in liquor cases has 
 also been referred to. The statistics of arrests for viola- 
 tions for the last ten years show the following totals: In 
 1884, 15; 1885, 15; 1886, — ; 1887, 103; 1888, 195; 
 1889, 203; 1890, 235; 1891, 523; 1892, 363; 1893, 
 280; 1894, 270. The largest number of arrests for selling 
 on Sunday were, in 1887, 75; 1888, 50; 1892, 90; 1894, 
 80; the smallest were in 1885, 8; 1891, 5. The largest 
 number for selling to minors, in 1887, 22; 1888, 21; 
 smallest in 1884 and 1894, 1 each. The marked increase 
 in arrests after the introduction of the high license law 
 points no less to an increase of illicit selling than to more 
 vigorous efforts to enforce the law. The large number 
 reached in 1891 was chiefly due to a change in the police 
 department, resulting in unwonted zeal in rooting out 
 "speak-easies," which, however seems to have subsided. 
 
 There are several halting-places before the arrested 
 offender is finally brought to trial. He is first arraigned 
 before one of the police magistrates. The office of magis- 
 trate, it should be remembered, is elective, the term being 
 for five years. Although really representing the lowest 
 branch of the judiciary, it is not necessary that those 
 sitting in magistrates courts should be members of the bar 
 or even be versed in the law. They are frequently found 
 to lack both of these qualifications. They reach and hold 
 office by means of political scrambling. "Ward leaders" 
 is the epithet often applied to them by the press. As such,
 
 256 THE LIQUOK LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA, 
 
 peculiar duties sometimes confront them; for instance, 
 Avhen a " ward heeler " is brought before them to be ar- 
 raigned. It is not intended to convey the impression that 
 all the magistrates are embarrassed by political obligations, 
 or that all are unfitted to properly discharge their great 
 responsibilities; but it is a significant fact that some of 
 those who have been most vigorous in dealing with liquor 
 cases have been "turned down" when seeking a renomi- 
 nation. One listens in vain for an expression of thorough 
 confidence in the magistrates as a body. They keep no 
 record of the warrants issued by them, nor is any but the 
 scantiest information regarding their work given to the 
 general public. Whether their leniency is accountable for 
 the discrepancy between the number of persons arrested for 
 violations and of those brought to trial is not known posi- 
 tively ; but they have it in their power to grant more than 
 one favor. 
 
 If held, the trial of the accused is not yet a matter of 
 certainty. The action of the grand jury must first be 
 awaited. A disposition to regard violations of the liquor 
 law as essentially diifering from other misdemeanors is 
 known to manifest itself in that body. If an indictment 
 be found, it remains for the district attorney to bring the 
 accused to trial. The time intervening may, however, be 
 long, and this is a distinct gain to the defendant. Besides, 
 liquor cases appear to be handled with greater reluctance 
 than others, and it is difficult to get direct evidence. The 
 fact, too, that the prosecuting officer holds an elective posi- 
 tion is fateful to more than one liquor case. When the 
 trial takes place the chances of the defendant may be mate- 
 rially improved by the manoeuvring of his counsel. Not 
 all judges take the same view of offenses against the liquor 
 laws. Some regularly suspend the sentence of first offend- 
 ers, although a bond must be given to insure good behav- 
 ior for the future. " It has now become a settled practice
 
 TRIALS FOR ILLICIT SELLING. 
 
 257 
 
 of these men (the defendants in li(juor cases) to have their 
 cases continued whenever they happen to be brought be- 
 fore a judge ^ who, it is believed, will impose both the fine 
 and imprisonment provided by statute." (Keport of the 
 Law and Order Society, 1894.) 
 
 The hoped-for clemency of the court doubtless explains 
 why so many of the defendants plead guilty. It should 
 be noted that the persons discharged under bond cannot, 
 as held by some judges, be resentenced after the expiration 
 of one year. In jury trials, a verdict of "not guilty" is 
 rendered in more than one half of the liquor cases. An 
 analysis of the statistics of the trial and disposition of cases 
 for violation of the liquor law in 1892, 1893, 1894, yields 
 the following results : — 
 
 1894. 
 
 Of the persons brought before the 
 court, the plea of guilty was 
 made by 
 
 Of the persons actually tried, were 
 acquitted 
 
 Of the persons actually tried, were 
 convicted 
 
 Of the persons pleading guilty or 
 convicted, were sentenced to 
 fine and imprisonment . . . 
 
 Sentences of persons pleading 
 guilty or convicted suspended . 
 
 1892. 
 
 1893. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 69 
 
 39 
 
 77 
 
 54 
 
 23 
 
 46 
 
 78 
 
 45 
 
 21 
 
 54 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 66 
 60 
 40 
 
 47 
 53 
 
 In a majority of cases, the jury trials result in acquit- 
 tals, partly, perhaps, because violation of the liquor law is 
 an offense more easily condoned by the public than others, 
 and partly because of the diificulty in producing over- 
 
 1 The Court of Quarter Sessions in Philadelphia is composed of twelve 
 judges.
 
 258 THE LIQUOK LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 whelming evidence. Should a verdict of "guilty " be ren- 
 dered, there is more than an even chance that sentence 
 may be suspended. Only in rare cases is the full term of 
 imprisonment allowed by law imposed; never, it is said, 
 the maximum fine. Still, sentences to a year's confine- 
 ment and the payment of a fine of $1,500 or $2,000 are 
 sometimes recorded. A judge may reconsider the sentences 
 imposed within his term of court. In this way the offend- 
 ers occasionally escape a part of the punishment. 
 
 The law of Pennsylvania gives prison inspectors the 
 right to discharge prisoners who have not paid their fines, 
 upon their making oath to a statement that they do not 
 possess money or property of any kind. This relieves the 
 prisoners from waiting three months to take advantage of 
 the insolvent debtor's act. Within a short time after the 
 introduction of the high license law, fines to the amount 
 of $38,850 were imposed for illegal selling, but only the 
 sum of $100 was paid (this by a woman). Later, seventy- 
 two persons were released in one year without having paid 
 their fines. In 1893 and 1894, 111 violators of liquor 
 laws were sentenced in Philadelphia, and fines imposed 
 aggregating $78,340, not a cent of which has been collected, 
 except in a few cases the costs ($16.75). 
 
 ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS. 
 
 The laAV governing arrests for drunkenness formerly im- 
 posed a fine of five dollars, which in 1858 was reduced to 
 two dollars, but later again restored to the old limit. The 
 large powers conferred upon the authorities by this act — 
 any person seen intoxicated could be fined by mayor, alder- 
 man, or justice — have been impaired by a decision of the 
 Supreme Court to the efi'ect that a police ofiicer has no 
 right to arrest a citizen merely because he is under the in- 
 fiuencc of liquor, if he is not guilty of a breach of the peace. 
 The penalty imposed is now usually a fine of four dollars
 
 AKRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS. 259 
 
 and costs, and, in default of payment, imprisonment. 
 There is no system of probation. Officials in the penal 
 institutions assert that magistrates are often arbitrary in 
 dealing with intoxicated persons, and that the latter do 
 not always get a proper hearing. 
 
 The decreased number of arrests since the high license 
 law went into operation is so universally put forward as 
 proof of its benefits that the subject merits special exami- 
 nation. Data seemingly warranting the assumption that 
 the reduction of licensed places is followed by a proportion- 
 ate diminution of consumption is not of a kind to be ac- 
 cepted unreservedly. In Philadelphia, as elsewhere, beer 
 drinking appears to be on the increase, and supplanting 
 to some extent the consumption of distilled spirits. The 
 brewing interest of Philadelphia has grown enormously, 
 and now represents a capital of over thirty million dollars. 
 
 Prior to the high license law the drinking classes re- 
 sorted almost exclusively to the saloons, which Avere 
 everywhere near at hand, and open at all times. The 
 sellers had nothing to fear from selling to persons on the 
 verge of intoxication or wholly drunk. Ordinarily they 
 had no reason to shield such customers, and upon becom- 
 ing obnoxious these were probably thrust into the street, 
 only to fall into the arms of some policeman. Where 
 intoxication was largely public in its origin the list of 
 arrests would inevitably be swelled in some proportion. 
 With the sweeping reduction of saloons in 1888 began the 
 illicit selling by " speak-easies " and clubs which has as- 
 sumed such magnitude, and necessarily affected consump- 
 tion; still the intoxication resulting from it is not gener- 
 ally traceable in the police returns. Personal investigation 
 has led to the conclusion that habitues of " speak-easies " 
 are not limited as to the quantity of liquor they may ob- 
 tain, but that great care is taken to prevent them, if intox- 
 icated, from falling victims to arrest. They are not ejected
 
 260 LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 even for cause, but are permitted to sleep off the debauch 
 on the premises. For should it appear that the place was 
 a prolific source of drunkenness, neighbors might complain, 
 if the police took no action, or it might result disastrously 
 to the "speak-easy " keeper should the arrested person, from 
 revengeful motives or under compulsion, divulge where he 
 became drunk. 
 
 The class of the drinking population which furnishes 
 inmates for prisons and workhouses are no more deterred 
 from getting liquor when the saloons are closed than for- 
 merly, for the unlicensed places are open. 
 
 All available information indicates that home drinking 
 has grown. Many intelligent workmen consulted are 
 agreed on this point, and they deplore the frequency of 
 drunkenness among women. "The beer does it," one of 
 them remarked. Beer is cheap, and supplies are easily 
 obtained. The fact is noteworthy that Philadelphia has 
 only 187 wholesale dealers, but 263 bottlers, who pay a 
 lower fee. The wares of the botlers are often sold directly 
 from the wagon without previous orders. In this manner, 
 not only saloons are supplied, but private houses as well. 
 The traffic (the legality of it has not been tested) amounts 
 in some cases almost to peddling beer. 
 
 When comparisons of the statistics of arrests for drunk- 
 enness are made with those of other cities, it should be 
 remembered that Philadelphia, considering her area, is not 
 properly patrolled. The longer the beat to be covered, 
 the less the disposition of the officer to meddle with in- 
 toxicated persons, and the better opportunity for the latter 
 to go undetected. With a larger police force, and one less 
 touched by outside influences, it is obvious that the arrests 
 would have been larger both before and since the high 
 license law. 
 
 Statistics for the ten years (1884-1894) show the follow- 
 ing totals of arrests for drunkenness, the number including
 
 ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS. 
 
 261 
 
 tlie three classes, — common drunkards, drunk and disor- 
 derly, and intoxicated persons : — 
 
 AUUESTS FOU DRUNKENNESS IN PHILADELPHIA, 1884-189-1. 
 
 1884 
 1885 
 1880 
 1887 
 1888 
 1889 
 1800 
 1891 
 1892 
 189:5 
 1894 
 
 25,898 
 27,346 
 29,278 
 29,204 
 
 Arrests per 
 
 1,000 estimated 
 
 Population. 
 
 31.69 
 32.14 
 
 35.88 
 25.86 
 20.50 
 24.76 
 24.27 
 25.15 
 26.45 
 23.80 
 
 Although the arrests per 1,000 inhabitants have decreased 
 perceptibly since the enactment of high license, they have 
 not fallen so much below those of the years previous to 
 1887. The upward tendency from 1892 to 1893 is ex- 
 plained by some persons as the consequence of an increase 
 in the number of licenses. The arrests in 1894 were 
 numerically greater, but not in proportion to the growth 
 of population. Stringent times have of late crippled the 
 purchasing power of many drinkers. The fact remains 
 that arrests for intoxication have diminished under high 
 license, but this is not conclusive proof of actually greater 
 sobriety. Prison officials incline to the view that there is 
 but little difference in the amount of drunkenness. The 
 fact that fewer persons are charged with disorderly conduct 
 while being drunk must be credited to the better character 
 of the saloons. The number of habitual drunkards has
 
 262 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 not fluctuated much, but what constitutes the off"ense of 
 habitual drunkenness is not clearly defined. The charge 
 of vagrancy may often be preferred against a person origi- 
 nally arrested for being drunk, that he may receive a 
 longer term of confinement. The somewhat arbitrary mode 
 of dealing with this poor class of humanity makes it im- 
 possible to determine with any degree of accuracy the 
 nvimber of recommitments for intoxication in the course of 
 a year. In 1888-89 a reduction of licenses was followed 
 by a decrease of arrests for drunkenness, but the next year 
 the arrests increased, though the licenses were decreased. 
 But during the last two years the number of arrests has 
 not kept pace with the increase of saloons. 
 
 The best evidence of a law-abiding spirit among the 
 licensed dealers is the statistics of Sunday arrests, which 
 show a falling oflf from 2,101 in 1886-87, and 1,263 in 
 1887-88, to 628 in 1892-93, and 541 in 1893-94. 
 
 DELAWARE COUXTY. 
 
 One need but look across the city line into Delaware 
 County to find a license policy in vogue utterly different 
 from that pursued in Philadelphia. Much of this sec- 
 tion is suburban to Philadelphia. With the exception of 
 Chester, there is no city here of any magnitude, the popu- 
 lation (74,683 in 1890) being strictly rural where not 
 domiciled in small villages or boroughs. Under the pres- 
 ent county judge — he has held office for twenty years — 
 a license regime of the most liberal type has existed. A 
 brief review of the doings of the last license court will 
 serve to illustrate the possible workings of one provision 
 of the Pennsylvania law. 
 
 The annual license court for 1895 was held on the 
 2d of January. All the old applicants, seventy-six in 
 number, had their licenses renewed, none being remon- 
 strated against. Of the thirty-nine new applications, five
 
 DELAWARE COUNTY. 263 
 
 were granted, thirty-three were held under advisement after 
 being argued at length, and but one was refused outright. 
 A long contest ensued over an application for a hotel license 
 in the borough of Darby (population 2,972), which is 
 within a few minutes' walk of the Philadelphia line, and 
 no farther from licensed saloons. The remonstrance was 
 signed by 1,270 adult residents of Darby borough and 
 vicinity, of whom 670 were adult residents of the borough; 
 297 resident tax-payers, and thirty-four non-resident; forty- 
 five of the fifty-five business men of the borough ; the bur- 
 gess, president, and five of the six councilmen ; five of the 
 six school directors; 267 adult male residents of the bor- 
 ough from a registry list of 510; the whole clergy and a 
 number of educators. The court refused to consider the 
 names of women signers. The petitioners presented a list 
 of signatures of about the same length. The court stated 
 that, if a majority of the resident tax-payers were in favor 
 of a license at Darby, he would grant it. Two hours were 
 spent in pruning the lists, each side trying to prove a ma- 
 jority. The court figured up a majority of four for the 
 license advocates, but a number of names remained in dis- 
 pute. Decision was reserved. Five days later, the judge 
 began his third successive term on the Delaware County 
 bench. His first duty was to dispose of the new license 
 applications left over from the regular license court. Nine- 
 teen were granted, and among them the Darby license. 
 In rendering his opinion, the court said that a small ma- 
 jority seemed to be in favor of license. This was one rea- 
 son, but there was a better one. 
 
 " The remonstrants admit that a house is needed for trav- 
 elers and strangers, but also say there is no necessity for a 
 public liouse. The opposition here shows the necessity. The 
 Supreme Court has ruled that where tlie necessity is estab- 
 lished beyond doubt, no matter how large the remonstrance, 
 the license must issue. It would have made no difference if tlie 
 remonstrance had been signed by every man, woman, and child
 
 264 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 in Darby, after the necessity had been shown by the minimum 
 number of signers. Those who signed the remonstrance did 
 so because they believe it morally wrong to sell intoxicating 
 liquor. They may be morally right, but the law is against 
 them." 
 
 For the first time in eight years Darby has a liquor license. 
 A few minutes after the license was granted, it was trans- 
 ferred to another person, who had but fifty-four names on 
 his petition, and who filed his application a week later than 
 required by law. But that made no difference. 
 
 In another instance, the court, being assured by an at- 
 torney that it was the "wish of every officer in this court- 
 house " that the license in question should be granted, said 
 he would do so, and added, "While I can't see that the 
 place is necessary now, I hope it will be." 
 
 The following is taken from a press report of the work 
 of the last Delaware County license court : — 
 
 "Fernwood, that never before had a licensed house, will 
 now have two (population 619) ; ]\Iarcus Hook will have two 
 more ; Clifton Heights, one in addition to two old ones (popu- 
 lation of the latter place, 1,820) ; and there will be new hotels 
 (with bars) at Leiperville and Tinicum. Little Tinicum, with 
 less than 100 voters (population 221), now has three hotels. 
 Eight new ones have been granted in Chester and four in 
 South Chester,^ in districts where there was already one almost 
 in every square. In Chester City there is one drinking-place 
 to every 125 voters, and in the county at large one to every 160, 
 and 746 inhabitants to each." 
 
 Further evidence of the close alliance between the licens- 
 ing authority and the liquor trade in Delaware County is 
 not needed; it is a matter of notoriety throughout the 
 State. The question of granting as well as of refusing 
 licenses is purely one of politics. 
 
 1 On the day that three new saloon licenses were granted for South 
 Chester, three grocery stores were closed b^' the sheriff.
 
 HARRISBURG. 265 
 
 HARRISBURG. 
 
 The inland cities of Pennsylvania present a marked 
 diversity of conditions with respect to population, occupa- 
 tions, interests, and local sentiment. This circumstance 
 must be taken closely into account when the operation and 
 effects of the liquor laws are inquired into. 
 
 The city of HarrisLurg in some ways stands in a class 
 by itself. As the capital of the State, it is subject to 
 peculiar influences. Every two years there is a large influx 
 of strangers, the legislators and their followers. As the 
 seat of government, it attracts many visitors throughout 
 the year, and it is the favorite place of meeting for conven- 
 tions. All this leads to an unusual degree of hotel life, 
 both high and low, which exerts a direct influence on the 
 drink question. 
 
 Of the total population of 39,385 (census of 1890), only 
 2,517, or 6 per cent., are European born; of the latter, 47 
 per cent, are Germans, the Irish ranking next. Harrisburg 
 is also the chief market and base of supplies for a large 
 rural population. Its manufacturing interests are not so 
 extensive, but within ten miles are towns given over to 
 large steel and iron industries — foremost Steelton — easily 
 accessible by electric cars. Were a rough element wanting, 
 it would thus be supplied from outside. 
 
 Neither Harrisburg nor the county of Dauphin was under 
 local liquor laws when the Brooks law went into effect. 
 Both at that time, and earlier, the licensing authority 
 was exercised by the judges of the Court of Quarter Ses- 
 sions. With no new powers or limitations under the new 
 law, their policy in granting licenses has not been percep- 
 tibly modified. So far as Harrisburg is concerned, they 
 follow the rule of renewing the privileges of all former 
 licensees against whom no specific remonstrance is entered 
 on account of violations. With regard to original applica-
 
 266 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 tions, the necessity for more drinking-places is considered 
 first. Some attention is also paid to the locality in which 
 the petitioner Avould open shop. But on the whole the 
 work of the license court is light. Although a temper- 
 ance sentiment is by no means lacking in the community, 
 there is not, as in Philadelphia, any systematic endeavor 
 by outsiders to bring about a reduction of licenses by filing 
 remonstrances, and by other means. 
 
 It appears to be a requirement here that the barrooms 
 must combine a restaurant business with the sale of liquor. 
 In consequence, two kinds of retail licenses are issued, — 
 one for taverns and one for restaurants. Of the former, 
 some are hotels only in name, although presumably they 
 can provide the tavern accommodations prescribed by the 
 law. The wholesale licenses are of the usual order. 
 Numerically there has been no diminution worth mention- 
 ing in applications and in licenses granted since 1886 — 
 two years before the high license became operative. In 
 the slight difference between the number of inhabitants to 
 each license in the last year under low license and in 1894 
 (511.05 in 1887, 586.80 in 1894) it is impossible to trace 
 a marked change as to the extent of the traffic. But the 
 capacity of many saloons has increased. The tone of the 
 saloons is said to be better. The licensees observe the law 
 with some care, for it pays to observe it, the licenses being 
 more valuable than formerly, chiefly because new licenses 
 are so sparingly granted. Still it is not uncommon to see 
 persons under the influence of liquor being served with 
 more, and the term " minor " is very loosely interpreted. 
 Sunday selling is almost unknown. It would be difficult 
 to show any valid reason why whatever improvement has 
 developed in the liquor trade in this city should not be 
 ascribed as much to other causes as to the operations of the 
 higli license laAV. The "speak-easies " are few, and not 
 of a permanent character. Illegal selling is confined mostly
 
 DAUPHIN COUNTY. 2G7 
 
 to clubs, of which there are at least fifteen, the majority 
 of them maintained for drinking purposes. 
 
 From the statistics of arrests for drunkenness, no satis- 
 factory deductions can be drawn. There were four years 
 during the period from 1884 to 1893 in which no police 
 reports were niade. The force is entirely inadequate to 
 the needs of the city. It is the opinion of the present 
 chief that drunkenness has not diminished under the 
 Brooks law. It is estimated that at least fifteen per cent. 
 of the persons held for intoxication are non-residents, 
 mainly iron and steel Avorkers coming in from the sur- 
 rounding towns. The mayor acts as police magistrate, and 
 usually imposes a fine as penalty for drunkenness, following 
 impulse rather than any well-defined rule. 
 
 DAUPHIX COUNTY. 
 
 A hasty survey of the county of Avhich Harrisburg is 
 the centre does not disclose any particular change wrought 
 by the high license law, except that of increasing the 
 revenue. The rural districts, now as formerly, are well 
 supplied with licensed places. To cite some instances: in 
 Hummelstown borough there is one drinking- place to 495 
 inhabitants ; in Williamstown borough, one to 581 ; in 
 Lykens borough, one to 408. None of these places has 
 a population of over 3,000. In the city of Steelton (owned 
 almost exclusively by a corporation, and Avith a population 
 of about 10,000), there is one bar to 770 inhabitants. 
 
 Licensed places are found in two cities, eleven boroughs, 
 and ten townships, leaving only thirteen small divisions 
 without license. For the whole county the traffic is left 
 pretty nearly where it was ten years ago. While the 
 saloons have not increased in proportion to the population, 
 there is still one license to every 652 inhabitants in the 
 whole county. It is said that, in some places, license 
 applications are encouraged on account of the additional 
 revenue to the townships.
 
 268 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 PITTSBURGH AND ALLEGHENY COUNTY. 
 
 Allegheny County stands commercially and politically in 
 the same relation to western Pennsylvania that Philadel- 
 phia County holds to the eastern half of the State; yet 
 in other respects it presents some strong contrasts. Its 
 development, or rather the development of its chief muni- 
 cipalities, Pittsburgh and Allegheny, has been rapid. But 
 its industrial growth has not proved wholly a blessing. 
 The mines and mills have drawn hither a heterogeneous 
 population containing elements difficult to absorb. Of the 
 total population of 551,959 in 1890, 153,078, or 27.73 
 per cent, were of foreign birth, and 190,821, or 34.57 pSr 
 cent., of foreign-born parents. The Slavonic races are 
 strongly represented. The character of the un- Americanized 
 element has displayed itself in numerous labor troubles of 
 which some, latterly the Homestead strike, have become 
 historic. 
 
 In Pittsburgh and Allegheny the character of the popu- 
 lation has been somewhat modified within late years by 
 the removal of great manufacturing plants to suburban 
 towns — Homestead, Braddock, McKeesport, and others. 
 Of the total number in Pittsburgh, according to the census 
 of 1890, 238,617, or 30. 71 per cent. , are classed as foreign- 
 born; 10.63 per cent, being German, 8.84 per cent. Irish, 
 4.25 per cent. English, 1.05 per cent. Welsh, .95 per cent. 
 Russian, 1.15 per cent. Polish, and 88,266 classed as na- 
 tive-born but of foreign parentage, or 36.99 per cent, of 
 the total. Allegheny contains much the same elements of 
 population (total in 1890, 105,287), and in similar propor- 
 tions. 
 
 Whatever its origin, the " tough " element in the muni- 
 cipalities of Allegheny County, although less conspicuous 
 than formerly, is yet renowned beyond the borders of 
 Pennsylvania. But it is not this alone which makes diffi-
 
 ALLEGHENY COUNTY. 269 
 
 cult the solution of important local social problems. Speak- 
 ing particularly of the larger municipalities, it is but a 
 repetition of a remark frequently made by the natives 
 themselves, to say that the material prosperity has been 
 achieved at the cost of higher things. Money-making and 
 money-getting have absorbed the activities of men to the 
 exclusion of other pursuits. Few of the better class of 
 citizens have found time for participation in municipal 
 affairs, and these, as well as political matters generally, 
 have been left to professional politicians. 
 
 In the petition of citizens of Pittsburgh drawn in Octo- 
 ber, 1895, and addressed to the "Senate committee ap- 
 pointed to investigate municipal affairs in this Common- 
 wealth," it was declared that "our city government . . . 
 is practically a close corporation, controlled and managed 
 in the interest and for the benefit of a coterie of politicians, 
 the people being recognized chiefly for purposes of assess- 
 ment." It was asserted that "the Department of Public 
 Safety arrogates to itself the authority to suspend the laws 
 of the Commonwealth at pleasure, and to disregard the in- 
 terpretation of the court;" that under its policy "crime is 
 practically licensed in defiance of law and of decent public 
 sentiment," and " intoxicating liquors are sold in hundreds of 
 places throughout the city seven days in the week without 
 license, and disorderly houses flourish unmolested ; " that 
 the fact "that police officials have been enriched by rev- 
 enue from this source is a matter of public scandal ; " that 
 "this department also assumes to control the elections 
 through the machinery of the police and fire departments," 
 the members of which " dare not exercise the right of free 
 speech and free ballot, and are bound to carry out the 
 behests of their superiors under penalty of dismissal ; that 
 " the payment of political assessments, regardless of circum- 
 etances, is compulsory under the same penalty." 
 
 The authors of this vigorous denouncement were not
 
 270 THE LIQUOK LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 challenged to prove their assertions, nor did it meet con- 
 tradiction. The discredit for the management of municipal 
 affairs complained of seems pretty equally divided between 
 the two great political parties. The balance of power is 
 held by the Eepublicans, but the Democrats are pacified by 
 obtaining a share of the offices. The mayoralty is usually 
 theirs, while the heads of the departments, as Avell as the 
 legislative branch, are from the other party. Thus friction 
 within the city government, while not unknown, is pre- 
 vented from growing into disruption by mutual interests. 
 
 So long as the State Constitution gave permission, it was 
 a matter of course that Allegheny County, which contained 
 an urban population only second to that of Philadelphia, 
 should be regarded with special solicitude by the promot- 
 ers of local laws. The uncompromising Sabbatarians and 
 the liquor-dealers appear to have taken turns in securing 
 enactments to meet their requirements. Both won signal 
 success. But while the former were able, among other 
 things, to put on the statute-books strict provisions against 
 Sunday liquor-selling, the latter made sure that the law 
 should remain inoperative by getting a firm grip, not only 
 on those concerned with the enforcement of them, but on 
 the licensing authorities. At the instance of the liquor- 
 dealers the power to grant licenses had been taken from 
 the judiciary of Allegheny County and given to certain 
 commissioners. As in Philadelphia, these commissioners 
 served with little credit. The public opprobrium which 
 they merited and received was in turn visited upon their 
 successors, the county commissioners. The official con- 
 duct of the latter caused scandal. The next and last piece 
 of special liquor legislation was comprehensive, in fact, a 
 complete new law, dating from April 10, 1872. A sum- 
 mary of the principal features of this measure will servo to 
 show by whose hands it was fashioned, and that its actual 
 results were anticipated.
 
 ALLEGHENY COUNTY. 271 
 
 The Allegheny County liquor law of 1872 repealed all 
 previous special acts. The granting of licenses was vested 
 in the county treasurer, who was allowed to charge one 
 dollar for each license issued. Only keepers of hotels, 
 taverns, inns, and eating-houses could engage in a retail 
 liquor business. The annual license fee was fixed at $300 
 in cities and boroughs, and $100 in townships. For each 
 $1,000 worth of liquor sold above the sum of $3,000 in 
 one year, an extra fee of $50 was to be charged, the licensee 
 being required to make a sworn statement as to the volume 
 of his business. Eating-houses could be licensed to sell 
 malt liquors only for a fee of $100. In the country dis- 
 tricts a special malt and wine license could be issued, fee 
 $50. Retail dealers were prohibited from selling in quanti- 
 ties exceeding one quart, sales in excess of this quantity 
 being accounted wholesale. The wholesale business was 
 divided into nine classes, and fees fixed in proportion to 
 the estimated sales : a dealer of the first class, supposed to 
 sell to the value of $300,000 or more annually, to pay a 
 fee of $1,000; a dealer of the ninth class, selling below 
 $25,000, a fee of $200. Sales of wine and cider at whole- 
 sale were permitted without license. Manufacturers and 
 producers of domestic wines and bottlers of cider and malt 
 liquors, not otherwise engaged in the sale of intoxicants, 
 or keeping restaurants or places of amusement, were per- 
 mitted to sell malt drinks by the bottle and domestic wine 
 and cider by the gallon, not to be drunk on the premises, 
 without a license. Sales of liquor to minors, apprentices, 
 and intemperate persons Avere prohibited, under penalty of 
 fine of $100 and imprisonment not exceeding six months. 
 Bars were asked to be closed on Sundays, and at midnight 
 the rest of the week. Liquor-selling in violation of this 
 law was made punishable by fine of from $50 to $200, 
 and costs for the first offense, and for subsequent convic- 
 tions, confinement in the workhouse for from two to six
 
 272 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 months, in addition. The conviction of a licensee rendered 
 liis license void, and debarred him from procuring another 
 for a year. Constables were required to report unlicensed 
 places and violations of this act. The license moneys were 
 to go, one fourth to the State, and three fourths to the 
 county, to meet the expenses incident to granting licenses 
 and in building the Allegheny County workhouse. 
 
 On the date of the approval of this law, ten townships 
 in the county were authorized by the legislature to vote 
 on the question of granting licenses. 
 
 Whatever merit lay in the new law, it was not seriously 
 intended to execute it. The machinery for this purpose 
 was lacking. But little discretion could be exercised by 
 the county treasurer. He had no power to revoke li- 
 censes, nor could he direct any officials to enforce the law. 
 His work was largely of a routine character. Moreover, 
 he had a pecuniary interest in the nvimber of licenses 
 granted. He rarely found occasion to deny applications. 
 Whosoever could pay the stipulated fee, and give the 
 necessary security, got a license. Political considerations 
 also kept this official from limiting the saloons. Both 
 political parties were eager to propitiate the liquor ele- 
 ment, for it controlled, or rather by it were controlled, the 
 elections. The aspiring office-holder soon recognized the 
 expediency of securing for the dealer a full measure of non- 
 interference, and contributing liberally to his coffers in 
 return for political service. "This was a fearful drain on 
 the pockets of the politicians," says one who has had long 
 experience in public life. 
 
 Notwithstanding the ease with which a license could be 
 obtained, hundreds scorned to seek legal protection, and 
 sold without pretense of concealment. So commonly was 
 this done, that the county found it profitable to employ a 
 man on salary to collect evidence against illegal dealers and 
 thus induce them to apply for license. This was purely a
 
 ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 273 
 
 business matter, and had no view to the vindication of law 
 and order. A beer license, which could be made to cover 
 the whole traffic, did not cost much, and to pay for it 
 saved the expense of going to court. The licensed dealers 
 paid no heed to the restrictive provisions of their own law. 
 The few attempts to bring them to justice ended inglori- 
 ously almost without exception, in spite of overwhelming 
 evidence against them. 
 
 In the last year before the Brooks law went into effect, 
 about 3,000 liquor licenses were granted in Allegheny 
 County, and about 1,500 of these were in Pittsburgh. In 
 round numbers there were 164 inhabitants to each license 
 in the whole county, and 142 in Pittsburgh. The magni- 
 tude of the unlicensed traffic cannot be estimated. All 
 who can speak authoritatively on the subject agree that 
 it was enormous. 
 
 However, it must not be understood that the whole 
 community was disposed to let the liquor element have 
 full sway. During the two and a half years preceding the 
 enactment of the Brooks law, various Law and Order 
 Leagues were formed in Pittsburgh. Confined at first to 
 different wards, their members have always expended their 
 energy in guarding against violations of Sunday laws. In 
 1888 the Eleventh Ward Law and Order League brought 
 thirty-two cases against saloon-keepers for Sunday selling, 
 and secured many convictions. Another league, founded 
 in 1886 by citizens of the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth 
 wards, seemed more bent on stopping the Sunday sales of 
 cigars than of intoxicants; seventeen were prosecuted for 
 the former offense against three for the latter. A third 
 league, formed the same year, had j)repared twenty liquor 
 cases for the March term of court (1887); but "owing to 
 the composition of the grand jury it was thought advisable 
 to present only two test cases, in one of which three mem- 
 bers of the league, in addition to the agents employed,
 
 274 THE LIQUOK LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 testified. The cases were twice heard at length by the 
 grand jury, and then ignored. Hence the other suits were 
 not entered." 
 
 Undaunted by their meagre success, the members of 
 these organizations resolved to form a league embracing the 
 entire city. They were doubtless cheered on in their 
 efforts by the knowledge that they would soon receive a 
 powerful ally in the Brooks law, for its final passage was 
 no longer a matter of doubt. A reference to the work of 
 this league, and of the events accompanying it, will throw 
 some light on the state of the liquor traffic during the last 
 months of the old regime. It matters not that in the 
 judgment of some sober-minded men the league at times 
 displayed a zeal not dictated by wisdom. The springing 
 up of such an association is a telling commentary on the 
 conduct of the sworn officials. For some weeks after its 
 formation the only work that could be done on liquor cases 
 was to collect evidence against violators of the law. Legal 
 complications had arisen. The Brooks law was approved 
 May 13, 1887, and the questions arose, "Did it go into 
 effect on that date, or on June 30, or not until May 1, 
 1888? And was it constitutional, and, if so, did it 
 apply to Allegheny County 1 " Until it was known upon 
 which law suits should be based, prosecutions could not 
 be brought. The decision of the Court of Common Pleas 
 to grant licenses under the new act opened the way to an 
 attack at least on the Sunday sellers. Strenuous opposi- 
 tion was encountered from two quarters: the prosecuting 
 attorney for the State made the trial of liquor cases as dif- 
 ficult as possible, and the grand jury refused to consider 
 the most positive evidence. 
 
 A few days after the drawing of the first grand jury 
 with which the league had to deal, one of the jury com- 
 missioners declared, "We have got this grand jury fixed." 
 Suljsequent events showed that he was right. Not a sin-
 
 ALLEGHENY COUNTY. 275 
 
 gle true bill was returned against illegal liquor-dealers. 
 It made no difference that some unwilling constables had 
 furnished evidence, and that the witnesses were of respec- 
 tability. To crown their work, the jury in each case im- 
 posed the costs on the prosecution, even in one where the 
 accused person was unknown to the agent of the league. 
 The actions of this grand jury are best described in the 
 words of one of its members which reached public print : — 
 
 " ' I was one day acting foreman of the last grand jury. We 
 were given 31 informatious from the Law and Order League 
 against saloon-keepers and cigar-dealers. Of the 31 we ignored 
 
 29. I was actually afraid to look up at Judge for fear I 
 
 would blush. I tell you, you could not pick out 24 other men 
 in the county who would have had the gall to do as we did in 
 those and other cases.' 
 
 " ' How about the costs ? ' asked one of the auditors. 
 
 " ' Put every d — d cent of them on ' (agent of the Law 
 
 and Order League) ; ' he will have to pay or go to jail.' " 
 
 At the next term of court, two test cases were submitted 
 after the grand jury had been specially charged by the pre- 
 siding judge as to its duties. Both cases were ignored. 
 The court reversed the finding and sent the cases to the 
 grand jury of the March term, 1888. The judge pointedly 
 instructed the jurors, Avarning them against the mistakes 
 of their predecessors. The two cases were submitted to 
 them the next day and again ignored, while the costs were 
 imposed on the prosecution. One member of this jury 
 had been convicted three times of violations of the liquor 
 law; another had been fined once for selling liquor on 
 Sunday; a third was bartender for a dealer who had twice 
 been convicted of selling liquor on Sunday ; a fourth was 
 on the bail bond of the saloon-keeper whose case was con- 
 sidered by the grand jury and ignored. 
 
 Meanwhile the first license court had completed its 
 work, which, however, was only of a preliminary nature.
 
 276 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 The licenses which it granted were to run only for half 
 a year. Yet the fact that 171 applications out of 240 (in 
 the whole county) had heen denied, made the liquor-deal- 
 ers feel that they were in dire straits. The political cam- 
 paign of the autumn of 1887 gave them hope of retrieving 
 their waning power. The election of a judge to the Court 
 of Common Pleas was pending. Backed by the Democratic 
 party, the liquor faction supported a candidate who was 
 pledged to interpret the law from the saloon point of view. 
 The literature of the campaign justifies this statement. 
 This is from a handbill circulated on the eve of the elec- 
 tion : — 
 
 "Vote for the repeal of obnoxious laws! Vote for a free 
 Sabbath and free whiskey ! Vote for Judge ! " 
 
 And this from a confidential circular : — 
 
 " The action of the last license court is in itself a lesson 
 worth all that can be said on the subject ; and the impertinence 
 
 and opprobrium cast upon a legitimate business by Judges 
 
 and will bear fruit, the extent of which will make mani- 
 fest the indignation of an outraged community. The terrific 
 
 cleaning out which Judge promises for next May leaves 
 
 no other course open but one of inveterate hostility ; and the 
 men who remain neutral, depending upon the eloquence of a 
 lawyer or the justice of this honorable crank, will merit uni- 
 versal contempt." 
 
 The "personal liberty " argument did not win the day. 
 
 Shortly after the election, the Supreme Court decided 
 that the Allegheny County liquor laAV was repealed, and 
 the act of 1855 authorizing civil suits for penalties against 
 Sunday liquor-sellers reinstated. Under the latter act, 
 the league had brought its suits, and from June 12, 1887, 
 to March 18, 1888, it secured convictions in 539 cases for 
 Sunday liquor-selling, carrying a penalty in fines aggregat- 
 ing $27,000 (about $50 and costs in each case).
 
 ALLEGHENY COUNTY. 277 
 
 THE LICENSE COURT. 
 
 The extent and character of the liquor power in Alle- 
 gheny County had not intimidated the first license court. 
 In 1888 the law became fully operative. The court sat 
 from March 19 until May 1. Its determination to weed 
 out the saloons was evident from the outset. Maps were 
 prepared showing the location of each place applying for 
 license in the first eighteen wards of Pittsburgh, and the 
 recent career of every applicant was closely inquired into. 
 Men who appeared to have forgotten their own history 
 were confronted with a record of their misdemeanors. For 
 instance, witnesses were on hand to prove that fifteen 
 applicants in one ward had been in the habit of selling 
 distilled liquors on beer licenses. 
 
 The mass of remonstrances, prepared on private initia- 
 tive, materially lessened the labor of the court. But the 
 " terrific cleaning out " of the saloons, which had been 
 promised and was referred to with such bitterness during 
 the campaign of the preceding year, was mainly the work 
 of one judge. Regardless of malignant abuse, threats of 
 personal violence, and the prospect of losing his seat on 
 the bench, he had from the first set himself the task of 
 reducing the number of drinking-houses to the lowest lim- 
 its. He went to an extreme where no other judge dared 
 to follow. This was especially the case in 1889. 
 
 The general attitude of the judges on the license ques- 
 tion should be noted. Where nine men take turns in the 
 license court, a wholly consistent policy is not to be ex- 
 pected. In the absence of statutory limitations, as we have 
 seen, the court has but one rule to follow in determining 
 the number of places to be licensed — the necessity of the 
 place for the accommodation of the public. How to inter- 
 pret this phrase is a matter of individual opinion deter- 
 mined by liberal or stringent views of the drink question
 
 278 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 in general. Where the latter prevail in marked degree, a 
 somewhat arbitrary construction of the law is natural. 
 The policy of the Allegheny County license court has been 
 shaped to a considerable extent by the act of the first pre- 
 siding judge — a man of strong prohibitory convictions. 
 While his impregnability to every outside influence and 
 undisputed honesty have won for him the respect of the 
 better class of liquor-dealers, he has been led to go farther 
 than the law, as generally accepted, intends. For exam- 
 ple, the refusal of a license to an applicant admitting 
 having sold liquor to women, or to be carried away in 
 buckets, or because he provides free lunches, is without 
 warrant in law. On the other hand, his rigid examina- 
 tion of every applicant, no matter if already a licensee, 
 his refusal to accept wholesale dealers, brewers, policemen, 
 and city officials as bondsmen, and his endeavor to prevent 
 liquor-selling near the mills have, more than anything else, 
 helped to put the saloons on a law-abiding footing. While, 
 chiefly through the work of this one man, the Allegheny 
 license court has won a reputation of dealing severely with 
 the liquor men, there are conspicuous instances of the 
 appeal to influence in the license court. 
 
 Although no one would venture to suggest that judges 
 have laid themselves open to the charge of corruption, it 
 is equally certain that, if an applicant comes armed with 
 strong political indorsements, some of them will not in- 
 quire minutely into his antecedents. So long as the judi- 
 ciary remains elective, it is but human nature that judges, 
 even if they are not all politicians, should remember the 
 political service of others when sitting in the license court, 
 l^ut nothing seems better calculated to inspire the appli- 
 cants for license with the idea that a "pull" is necessary 
 than the fact that some judges allow their sons or partners 
 to appear before them in liquor cases. Whatever else 
 may be said about this practice, it is one of long standing.
 
 ALLEGHENY COUNTY. 279 
 
 It has proved very profitable to those engaged in it, for 
 they are sure to retain the same clients from year to year. 
 And the fee is of liberal size — $250 for each license — 
 according to the statement of some dealers. 
 
 However true it may be that the license court has been 
 free from public scandal, and that as a rule the better class 
 of applicants have been selected, the wielding of the licens- 
 ing power has not added dignity to the bench. The 
 feeling that "influence" is needed in license cases, which 
 prevails so strongly among liquor-dealers, springs in lar^ 
 part from two sources : the imprudence of some judges and 
 the unprincipled actions of members of the bar. 
 
 License transfers are not permitted except in case of the 
 death of the licensee. Formerly, when saloons were sold 
 out by the sheriff, the license was purchasable also. 
 
 UNDER THE BROOKS LAW. 
 
 One of the effects of the new regime has been to subdue 
 the dealers. They know themselves to be on sufferance, 
 and this has curtailed their political power. "While in 
 Philadelphia the applicant for a license finds that he has 
 a hold on politicians, office-holders, and others in influen- 
 tial positions, who readily indorse his papers or sign his 
 bond, this is not the case in Pittsburgh; at any rate, not 
 in like degree. Naturally a number of dealers, if not 
 actively engaged in municipal affairs, still possess consider- 
 able influence in their respective wards. Tliese the politi- 
 cians would be loath to off'end; and men in mercantile life 
 Avho seek their custom are ever ready to testify to their 
 good character. Put it is now more frequently the politi- 
 cian who makes the small dealer tremble by intimating 
 that in return for certain services he will see him safely 
 through the dreaded license courts, usually but an empty 
 promise. The old-time arrogance of the liquor element 
 has disappeared, but it remains a factor in politics, both
 
 280 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 directly and indirectly: it uses every means to strengthen 
 itself, and is used by others. 
 
 The care bestowed on the selection of applicants for 
 license has not resulted in excluding brewers and wholesale 
 dealers from the control of numerous retail shops. One 
 of the best authorities on the subject asserts that in a cer- 
 tain district of Pittsburgh four fifths of the saloons are 
 practically owned by brewers and wholesale dealers. In- 
 stances were related of men without capital being advanced 
 Sufficient money by their powerful brethren to fit up bar- 
 rooms, buy stock, and pay the license fee of $1,000. 
 
 Considering how poorly the retail shops are policed, it 
 is rather surprising that they keep so well within the lim- 
 its of the law. Particularly in Pittsburgh and Allegheny, 
 the police officials do not allow themselves any trouble on 
 account of the saloons; much less do the constables. Yet 
 the places are quite orderly. Barroom brawls and stab- 
 bing affrays are rare. The closing hours, set at twelve 
 o'clock by a city ordinance, are observed with some degree 
 of punctuality; and Sunday selling is now almost un- 
 known. No doubt a goodly number of dealers desire to 
 keep decent places. Others are impelled to exercise some 
 care by fears of the license court. Police officials would 
 not inform against them, but private persons might. Less 
 conspicuous offenses, such as selling to intemperates and 
 minors, are, however, not uncommon. 
 
 Of the 142 wholesale dealers in the county, forty-nine 
 do not pay the United States special tax as such; that is, 
 the tax required from all who sell liquor in quantities of 
 five gallons or more. Consequently these forty-nine are 
 not engaged in a bona fide wholesale business, but sell 
 mostly by the quart, although not for consumption on tlie 
 premises. Some of them offer the vilest compounds under 
 the name of " whiskey " as low as fifteen cents per quart ! 
 
 A few bottlers are known to do an illegitimate business,
 
 ALLEGHENY COUNTY. 281 
 
 inasmuch as they sell goods from delivery wagons without 
 previous order. 
 
 Prior to the Brooks law the illegal dealers flourished 
 almost unmolested. Efforts Avere made to have the police 
 suppress this nuisance when the new act became operative, 
 but in vain. 
 
 In the police report for 1889 it was asserted that during 
 the first year of the Brooks law there was "little or no 
 illegal selling." With some truth the police referred to 
 the unparalleled reduction of licenses in 1889 as the cause 
 of many " speak-easies " springing up, " lured on by finan- 
 cial success; their houses are open seven days in the 
 week." Of such saloons, 792, according to the official re- 
 port, were supposed to exist in the city. From the police 
 report for 1890 one learns that there has been compara- 
 tively little trouble with "speak-easies," "because of re- 
 lentless prosecution, and because of a large increase in the 
 number of licenses granted." In 1891 it is stated that 
 the "admirable distribution of licenses by the court" had 
 done much to eradicate the illegal traffic, for which there 
 was now no occasion. Later reports are silent on this 
 subject, but privately it is asserted that the illicit traffic 
 has been reduced to a minimum. 
 
 The truth of the whole matter is that the police, partly, 
 do not take the trouble to enforce the law and, partly, are 
 too much interested in the illicit traffic to suppress it. 
 Yet they found themselves compelled in 1894 to make 103 
 arrests for selling liquor on Sunday and without license. 
 So formidable has the competition of illegal dealers grown, 
 that the retailers have taken steps to protect themselves 
 against it. They now employ an agent, who last year prose- 
 cuted about seventy-five cases. 
 
 The constables, who are supposed to make sworn returns 
 to the court, three or four times a year, of the unlicensed 
 places, cannot be made to perform this duty faithfully.
 
 282 THE LIQUOE LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 Their office is elective, and could not be held continuously 
 by men who made earnest war on the illegal dealers. In 
 the words of a prominent county official, "They take toll 
 from violators of the law," 
 
 "From the number of [ ' speak-easies '] that those faith- 
 ful officials [the constables] do not return," said a Pitts- 
 burgh paper recently, "we may judge how many flourish 
 in secret." 
 
 The changed relations of the liquor-selling class to the 
 community are constantly witnessed in the criminal courts. 
 Grand juries no longer ignore cases with the old-time 
 effrontery. The fact that they still refuse to return true 
 bills in a large percentage of cases presented may be due 
 to insufficient evidence. The make-up of the petit juries 
 rests largely with the prosecuting officers, who state that 
 they experience but little difficulty in securing convic- 
 tions. Statistics, however, show that an uncommonly 
 large percentage of trials result in acquittals (in 1893, 
 57.14 per cent., in 1894, 55.69). There is still not in- 
 frequently occasion for judges to address juries in the lan- 
 guage recently employed by a judge in Allegheny County, 
 when the jury had refused to consider the most positive 
 evidence in a liquor case. 
 
 " Gentlemen, I am surprised. I simply say that you are 
 either unable to comprehend evidence, or have willfully vio- 
 lated your oaths." (" Post Dispatch," September 18, 1895.) 
 
 A strange phase of the trial of liquor cases illustrating 
 the peculiar power of the police is the fact that convictions 
 are obtained in nearly all cases presented by them. 
 
 Severe penalties are imposed — three to six months im- 
 prisonment in the workhouse and a fine of not less than 
 $500. There is usually a double sentence, one for selling 
 liquor without license, and the other for selling on Sunday. 
 The latter is frequently permitted to run concurrent with 
 the former.
 
 LUZERNE COUNTY. 283 
 
 The fines are never collected, owing, it is said, to the 
 poverty of the defendants; but this is not the whole truth. 
 There is nothing to indicate that sentences are unduly sus- 
 pended. 
 
 By the trade, Pittsburgh is designated as a "whiskey 
 town ; " that is, one where distilled liquors are preferred to 
 beer by a large portion of the inhabitants. Among the 
 thousands of niillworkers are many heavy whiskey drink- 
 ers. On the whole, drunkenness is very evident. The 
 impression prevails that it has decreased under the Brooks 
 law. If this be true, it can hardly be attributable to the 
 operation of the law, for hundreds of " speak-easies " have 
 always flourished, and under official protection; the fewer 
 the saloons the more numerous have been the illegal shops. 
 
 The available statistics of arrests carry us no farther back 
 than to 1889. In that year the police department was 
 reorganized under the new city charter. 
 
 These show arrests for drunkenness in 1889, 22.66 per 
 1,000 inhabitants; in 1890, 28.39; 1891, 27.99; 1892, 
 20.30; 1893, 15.69; 1894, 11.47. An intoxicated per- 
 son is not arrested unless disorderly or utterly helpless. 
 Men " staggering drunk " are permitted to wander about in 
 the principal streets. 
 
 The arrests for drunkenness have decreased in face of an 
 increase in licensed houses. This seemingly abnormal 
 condition the police attribute to "hard times." Some 
 good men insist that the total abstinence sentiment is mak- 
 ing rapid gains in the community. If this be true, it will 
 nevertheless be a long time before its effects will be visible 
 in the police dockets. 
 
 LUZERNE COUNTY AND AVILKES BARRE. 
 
 The immense coal - mining industry of northeastern 
 Pennsylvania has attracted a large European immigration 
 of unsocial character. The least civilized of Hungarians,
 
 284 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 Poles, Italians, Irish, and other nationalities have come 
 and made their homes among the mines. Of late years 
 the decreased output of coal, low Avages, and scarcity of 
 employment have checked the foreign influx of laborers, 
 and induced not a few to leave the county. Those who 
 remain, however, live on as at first, isolating themselves 
 according to their nationality, aliens by choice, and frowned 
 upon because of their illiteracy, disregard for the law, and 
 intemperate habits. 
 
 But the justice of putting all the blame for social disor- 
 ders on their shoulders, as is habitually done, may rightly 
 be challenged. Their general social, no less than their in- 
 dustrial condition, is not entirely of their own making. 
 Only one class of men — the politicians — display any par- 
 ticular solicitude for them. The process of endowing illit- 
 erate Hungarians with citizenship is a simple one where 
 there is a strong one-party rule. It involves neither edu- 
 cation nor moral elevation. The effect of a large ignorant 
 vote on the selection of officials is a well-worn story, and 
 so is the dread of politicians of alienating the same vote 
 by measures of reform, for which it may not be ripe, and 
 toward which it feels an innate repugnance. The presence 
 of a large mining population and the corruption of the 
 suffrage have rendered the enforcement of liquor laws, 
 among others, unusually difficult. 
 
 As in the rest of the State, with the exception of Phila- 
 delphia and Allegheny counties, the granting of licenses 
 has always been a function of the Court of Quarter Ses- 
 sions. Special laws have never affected the county as a 
 whole for any length of time. Under the local option law 
 of 1872, prohibition obtained in a few places, but it did 
 not produce any lasting effects. 
 
 The judges have always observed a policy of extreme 
 leniency toward the liquor element. The ground taken is 
 that they must act on licenses in their judicial capacity
 
 LUZERNE COUNTY, 285 
 
 only; that is, exclusively on the evidence produced in 
 court. Thus, while a judge may have personal knowledge 
 of the unfitness of a certain applicant, he takes cognizance 
 only of the evidence produced in court by others. One 
 motive for taking this stand is undeniably the powerful 
 influence of the liquor element. A judge with a record 
 of having attacked the liquor-dealers could never gain a 
 majority of his party's votes in the county. The easily 
 led foreign element would be turned against him — he 
 would be dead, politically. The independent public senti- 
 ment is not strong enough to sustain a vigorous policy on 
 the part of the court. 
 
 Periodically a long array of remonstrances is presented 
 to the judges, of which some notice is taken. Fluctua- 
 tions in the number of licenses granted is partly due to 
 this cause. Of late, remonstrances rarely come up for con- 
 sideration. Private persons have grown tired of the un- 
 grateful task of presenting them, and the officials will not 
 act. Ability to pay the fee and give bonds is the princi- 
 pal concern of the applicant. The would-be dealers need 
 not go begging for good names to affix to their petitions 
 and other papers. "Men don't like to refuse such favors," 
 said a prominent county official. As the court does not 
 subject the names of signers to close scrutiny, the latter 
 need not hesitate to testify on paper to the "good charac- 
 ter " of the applicant, and to the necessity of the place for 
 the accommodation of the public. 
 
 Since even remonstrances are so rare, it seldom happens 
 that judges are besought to revoke a license. The rule is, 
 once a licensee always a licensee, unless financial troubles 
 should call for the services of the sheriff. 
 
 Under the low license system, with a fee of $50, which 
 was displaced by the Brooks law, the number of legalized 
 shops was greater in proportion to the population of the 
 county than now. On the other hand, the "speak-easy"
 
 286 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 had not become a fixed institution. But before consider- 
 ing the general operations of the present law, some particu- 
 lars should be given of its workings in the chief city and 
 county seat of Luzerne. 
 
 WIIiKES BAKRE. 
 
 Surrounded by centres of mining activity, Wilkes Barre 
 covers an area of 4.14 square miles on the banks of the 
 Susquehanna. Of its population of 37,718 in 1890, 
 10,194 were foreign-born, or 27.02 per cent., and 13,032, 
 or 34.55 per cent., had foreign-born parents. The Ger- 
 mans and Irish are strongly represented. Of mining oper- 
 atives, comparatively few are found within city limits. 
 
 As politicians, the police officers here cannot, of course, 
 alford to quarrel with the liquor-dealers any more than the 
 judges can. Hence they exercise no supervision over the 
 saloons. Of the illicit traffic they feign ignorance. Nu- 
 merous saloons sell on Sundays to minors, intoxicated per- 
 sons, and habitual drunkards. There are no regulations 
 concerning closing hours. 
 
 The constables, one from each of the fifteen wards in the 
 city, are elected for periods of three years. Since they seek 
 the despised office (for such it is in Wilkes Barre) simply 
 for what they may get out of it, they will not risk a re- 
 election for the sake of doing their duty by reporting 
 " speak-easies " and violations of the liquor law generally. 
 To quote a high official, than whom there is no better au- 
 thority, " Four fifths of the constables perjure themselves 
 when making returns to the court." 
 
 Intemperance is common, although the police returns do 
 not indicate a high rate of arrest. The penalty for drunk- 
 enness is usually a fine of two dollars. 
 
 The conditions in other parts of the county are, if any- 
 thing, worse than in Wilkes Barre, especially in some of 
 the largest mining towns — Pittston, Nanticoke, Plymouth,
 
 WILKES BARRE. ^ 287 
 
 Hazleton, and others. In addition to the licensed places, 
 the records of the collector of internal revenue indicate the 
 existence of about 600 "speak-easies." It may safely be 
 asserted that there are naore. Kowhere is the law prop- 
 erly enforced. The police and constables display the same 
 indifterence. In the few cases where a true bill is found 
 against a liquor-seller, the prosecutor (usually a private in- 
 dividual) is put off from time to time, until he is forced 
 to a settlement of the case out of court. Should he succeed 
 in bringing the case to trial, he is likely to face a jury 
 ibent on acquittal regardless of the evidence. It is asserted 
 that care is taken to select jury commissioners favorable to 
 the liquor men. 
 
 The following petition, which was handed a gentleman 
 of Wilkes Barre in 1893, to be presented to the Court of 
 Quarter Sessions, speaks for itself : — 
 
 "To the Honorable, the Judges of the Court of Quarter 
 
 Sessions of Luzerne County. 
 
 " We, the undersigned citizens of Pittston borough, respect- 
 fully represent that the license or liquor law is continually 
 being openly and flagrantly violated in our borough. Speak- 
 easies and dives in almost every part of our borough are open 
 every day in the week. The proprietors of some of them have 
 been arrested ; but arrest in some cases appears to be useless 
 for the reason that in many instances witnesses refuse to ap- 
 pear when subpoenaed. 
 
 " In two wards of the borough no returns were made by the 
 constables of said wards to the last court. This utter disregard 
 of law and defiance of the courts which they have shown, and 
 still continue to show, is making them more bold, and at pres- 
 ent we seem to have no protection from the lawlessness and 
 disorder they are creating. Two men indicted by the last 
 grand jury are still selling. 
 
 " We, the Uquor league of , would respectfully ask your 
 
 Honorable Court for protection. 
 
 "Representing the liquor league of Pittston, etc." 
 
 Whether the unenforced high license law is preferable to
 
 288 THE LIQUOR LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 low license, except from a financial point of view, is open 
 to question. It is not known that intemperance has dimin- 
 ished under the Brooks law. The illicit dealer has the 
 while multiplied and waxed defiant. Crime is on the in- 
 crease. 
 
 In some of the adjacent counties, Lackawanna (contain- 
 ing the city of Scran ton), Carbon, Schuylkill, and possibly 
 others, the liquor traffic is much on the same footing as in 
 Luzerne. 
 
 BERKS COUNTY AND READING. 
 
 Berks County presents social aspects essentially different 
 from those hitherto studied. It is chiefly an agricultural 
 community, with few industrial interests outside the city 
 of Reading. It may fairly be called a German county, 
 yet there has been no large immigration from Germany of 
 recent date. Indeed, the German, as well as the whole 
 foreign-born population, is unexpectedly small. Of the 
 141,460 inhabitants of the county in 1890, 5,867, or 4.14 
 per cent., were born outside the United States, and those 
 of foreign parentage constitute but 5.67 per cent, of the 
 total. Nevertheless, the county bears an unmistakable 
 German stamp. Generation after generation of Germans 
 followed the early refugees from the Palatinate who settled 
 in the vicinity of Reading. Their descendants now till 
 the farms or form a large part of the population of the 
 towns. Although they have long forgotten the tongue of 
 their fathers, German habits and customs have clung to 
 them with singular tenacity. Especially is this true of the 
 country districts, where one still may hear that strange 
 jargon, "Pennsylvania Dutch." Like all Germans, those 
 of Berks County have, from the earliest days, insisted on 
 having their beer, and they have had it in unlimited quan- 
 tity. The county is dotted with "hotels,"' where princi- 
 pally this beverage is supplied.
 
 BERKS COUNTY. 289 
 
 Under the existing conditions it is natural that the 
 judges should follow the policy of granting licenses without 
 stint. Little else need be said about it. So far as the 
 country districts and small towns are concerned, there 
 seems to be little popular sentiment in favor of reducing 
 the drink traffic. It would perhaps be more accurate to 
 say that the people insist upon a liberal license policy, than 
 that such is dictated to the judges by the liquor element. 
 A judge of prohibitory views can hardly be imagined on 
 the Berks County bench. 
 
 In 1895 nine applications for license were rejected. 
 This was an unprecedented number. However, a desire 
 to make liquor-selling conform to the law occasionally 
 manifests itself in the license court. Speaking of the club 
 nuisance in Eeading, a judge remarked in the court of 
 1895: — 
 
 " Certainly, associations styling themselves clubs, mostly of 
 a temporary character, and in some instances largely made up 
 of minors, are formed for the direct pm-pose of indulging in 
 excessive drinking and in Sunday drinking. Their supplies 
 are obtained from brewers and possibly others licensed under 
 the wholesale liquor law. 
 
 " I shall certainly, whenever called upon to act on a whole- 
 sale license petition, exact from the applicant proof satisfactory 
 to my mind that he has not during the year immediately pre- 
 ceding supplied any liquor to club associations such as I have 
 been discussing." 
 
 A few licenses were withheld for a week or more, but 
 nothing further came of this judicial threat. 
 
 In the whole county there are 344 licenses of all kinds, 
 with 382 inhabitants to each, as against 242 inhabitants to 
 each in Luzerne County. 
 
 The Sunday law and other regulations are indifferently 
 observed, but the illegal selling is insignificant. Licenses 
 are never revoked, but once in a while a violator of the 
 law is denied a renewal of his privilege. The officials
 
 290 THE LIQUOK LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 seldom report saloon-keepers for offenses and liquor cases 
 are consequently rare in the court. Here, as in many 
 other places, juries are inclined to be lenient with the 
 offenders. 
 
 The city of Reading has 182 saloons or one for 356 in- 
 habitants. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that the 
 only public statue in the place commemorates the virtues 
 and services of a great brewer, of whom the inscription 
 says : — 
 
 " His zeal sprung from his firm conviction that, in striving 
 to advance the brewing trade, he was working for the cause of 
 national temperance." 
 
 Although it was assuredly against the wishes of many 
 citizens that the municipality granted a site for this "mon- 
 umental infamy," as it has been styled, its erection is not 
 without deep significance. Reading is a "beer town." 
 The brewing interest has a powerful social and political 
 influence. 
 
 Beyond some observance of Sunday closing, the saloons 
 do not pay much attention to the law. The police are too 
 closely associated with local politics to interfere with them. 
 Illegal selling is common. Some years ago efforts were 
 made to take the saloons in hand through a Law and Order 
 League. It proved a most unpopular venture and came 
 near disrupting churches. At present no efforts are made 
 to enforce the high license law beyond compelling the pay- 
 ment of the larger fee. In the whole county the number 
 of licenses has been slightly diminished since 1887, but 
 only because of their greater cost. 
 
 The arrests for drunkenness and drunkenness and disor- 
 derly conduct in Reading from 1885 to 1894 show a low 
 rate, which means, not that there is little drunkenness, but 
 that intoxicated persons are allowed great liberty. 
 
 So far as the liquor question is concerned, Bucks and 
 Lancaster counties have much in common with Berks.
 
 READING. 291 
 
 The Pennsylvania communities suffering the least from 
 the evils of the drink traffic have not been considered in 
 this report. The fact that some places, for instance, Craw- 
 ford and Potter counties, are under partial prohibition has 
 no relation to the Brooks law; and that in others liquor 
 licenses are most sparingly granted bespeaks an active tem- 
 perance sentiment, which directs more or less the action of 
 the judiciary, but not in virtue of new powers conferred 
 by the high license law. 
 
 Note. The license fees to be paid by wholesale dealers, 
 brewers, distillers, bottlers, and storekeepers have been 
 materially increased. 
 
 1898.
 
 THE OHIO LIQUOR TAX. 
 
 The Ohio liquor law is so simple, both in form and 
 application, that an elaborate explanation is unnecessary. 
 The traffic is not prohibited nor licensed: it is simply 
 taxed. The amount of the tax, which is uniform, is fixed 
 by the legislature, and it cannot be changed by any munici- 
 pality. The sale of liquor is not a crime at the common 
 law. The statutes of Ohio have at no time made it in itself 
 a criminal pursuit. 
 
 From 1792 until 1851, when the new Constitution went 
 into effect, the sale of liquor by unlicensed venders, to be 
 drunk on the premises, was forbidden. The only other 
 restrictions were the prohibition of its sale to certain per- 
 sons, such as minors and habitual drunkards ; or at certain 
 times, such as on Sundays and election days; or at certain 
 places. Gaming and disorderly conduct in taverns were 
 punishable. The act in force at the date of the adoption 
 of the new Constitution was the act of 1831, which did not 
 confer the right to deal in spirits, nor did it interfere with 
 it. It merely secured to licensed tavern-keepers the ex- 
 clusive privilege of sale in quantities less than one quart, 
 to be drunk upon the premises. Under the license system, 
 fireside drinking was the rule ; the saloon, as we under- 
 stand it, did not exist; the tavern was regarded as the 
 traveler's temporary home, and the license was designed 
 to secure to him the enjoyment of such creature comforts 
 as he might lawfully have enjoyed in his own house. 
 
 During all this period, whatever may have been the 
 abuse of the hospitality of the tavern to strangers, in con-
 
 EARLY LEGISLATION. 293 
 
 sequence of the local patronage of the bar by residents of 
 the neighborhood, but one successful effort was made to 
 deprive innkeepers of their right. The legislature in 
 1847 passed a local option act, making the issue of a license 
 in any township to depend upon the will of the electors 
 expressed in an annual vote. This act was repealed in 
 1848. 
 
 That the evils of intemperance were felt, however, is 
 evident from the action of the General Assembly in 1851, 
 which repealed so much of the act of 1831 as authorized 
 license, but left the penalties against selling without license 
 intact. The intention of this legislation can have been 
 no other than the complete suppression of the retail trade 
 in malt, vinous, and spirituous beverages. It is a curious 
 and instructive fact that the saloons of Ohio have grown 
 up under the very act which, it was supposed, would ren- 
 der their existence impossible. 
 
 The opposition to the liquor traffic further expressed 
 itself in the incorporation, in the Constitution of 1851, of 
 an anti-license clause, in the following words: "No license 
 to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be granted 
 in this State; but the General Assembly may by law pro- 
 vide against evils resulting therefrom." A separate vote 
 was had upon this claiise, which resulted in its adoption 
 by a majority of 8,982; the votes in its favor being 113,- 
 237, against 104,255 in the negative. 
 
 The situation then was one in which the State, the only 
 jurisdiction with power to grant license, refused to do so; 
 the sale of liquor at retail, without license, was strictly 
 forbidden; the sale in quantities not less than a quart, for 
 home consumption, was permitted. This condition could 
 not be otherwise than permanent, unless the legislature 
 should repeal the penal provisions contained in the act of 
 1831. 
 
 Instead of repealing these provisions, the General As-
 
 294 THE OHIO LIQUOR TAX. 
 
 sembly in 1854 emphasized the existing condition by 
 making it "unlawful for any person or persons, by agent 
 or otherwise, to sell, in any quantity, intoxicating liquors 
 to be drunk in, upon, or about the building or premises 
 where sold, or in any adjoining room, building, or premises, 
 or other place of public resort connected with said build- 
 ing. . . . All places where intoxicating liquors are sold 
 in violation of this act shall be taken, held, and declared 
 to be common nuisances; and all rooms, taverns, eating- 
 houses, bazaars, restaurants, or other places of public resort 
 where intoxicating liquors are sold in violation of this 
 act, shall be shut up and abated as public nuisances, upon 
 conviction of the keeper thereof." 
 
 Concerning the original motive and the historical effect 
 of the anti-saloon clause of the Constitution, the Ohio Su- 
 preme Court has said : — 
 
 " The real significance of this provision has been a source of 
 no little doubt and controversy. Many, if not a majority 
 of the people of the State, supposed that, if no license wei'e 
 granted to traffic in intoxicating liquors, the traffic would be 
 illegal, and perish for want of protection and by the infliction 
 of such penalties as might be imposed under laws made to 
 regulate the evils resulting from the traffic. And it may be 
 observed that the practice that had prevailed under laws en- 
 acted at an early day and continued in force to the adoption 
 of the Constitution in 1851, of licensing the traffic in liquors 
 as a beverage, had educated the people to suppose that without 
 a license such traffic could not be carried on in the forms in 
 which it had been usual to license it. If this is a correct 
 interpretation of the provision, it has proved a great delusion, 
 for its practical working has been to make the traffic in a 
 measure free. Laws enacted for the regulation of the traffic 
 have not been enforced, have become in a measure obsolete, 
 and the traffic and its abuses have grown to such proportions 
 as justly to alarm all who reflect upon the interests of the State 
 and of society." (Adler v. Whitbeck.) 
 
 In May, 1882, the Ohio legislature attempted, in the 
 passage of "the Pond act," to do what the State of
 
 THE POND LAW. 295 
 
 Michigan had done. Every person engaged in the sale of 
 intoxicating liquors was required to file with the probate 
 judge of his county a bond conditioned for the faithful 
 performance of the requirements of the act; to engage or 
 continue in the traffic without having executed such bond, 
 or after the bond should have been adjudged to be for- 
 feited, was made a misdemeanor punishable by fine or im- 
 prisonment or both. 
 
 The constitutionality of the Pond act was passed upon 
 by the Supreme Court of Ohio in the case of The State 
 V. Hipp, which was an action for a writ of mandamus 
 compelling a probate judge to accept and file a bond which 
 he rejected on the sole ground that the act in question was 
 unconstitutional. The court held it to be in effect a license 
 law and therefore void. The ground of the decision is 
 sufficiently indicated in the following citations from the 
 opinion rendered : — 
 
 •' The provisions of the statute impose conditions precedent 
 to the lawful prosecution of [the traffic in intoxicating liquors]. 
 Non-compliance with the statute renders its prosecution, to any 
 extent, wholly illegal ; hence the act falls within the definition 
 of a license law. ... In substance it is, to all dealers who 
 fail to comply with its provisions, a stringent pi'ohibitory law ; 
 and as to all dealers who do so comply, it grants the privilege 
 to deal in such liquors to the extent not prohibited by pre- 
 viously existing laws. . . . The special privilege which is con- 
 ferred under this act is as plainly a license as if it had been in 
 terms so called. . . . The giving or not giving the bond is not 
 an essential matter. The bond is to secure the payment of the 
 tax. The question of the constitutionality of the act would 
 have been the same, had the legislature not required the bond 
 to be given, but had it required the payment of the same sums 
 for the privilege of engaging or continuing in the traffic." 
 
 At the next succeeding session of the General Assembly 
 an act was passed, in April, 1883, commonly known as 
 "the Scott law," which also assessed a tax upon the liquor 
 traffic, and made such tax a lien upon the real property on
 
 296 THE OHIO LIQUOR TAX. 
 
 and in which the business was conducted. To engage or 
 continue in it without the written consent of the owner of 
 the land or premises occupied for this purpose was, by the 
 terms of the act, a misdemeanor punishable by fine or im- 
 prisonment or both. 
 
 In The State v. Frame, an action by the attorney-gen- 
 eral for a writ of mandamus compelling a county auditor 
 to publish the notice required by the eighth section of 
 the act, the Supreme Court held the act to be constitu- 
 tional. The question of constitutionality was again raised 
 in Butzman v. Whitbeck, a petition in error to reverse the 
 judgment of a district court ordering the sale of property 
 to satisfy an unpaid assessment. In that case the Supreme 
 Court decided that the Scott law Avas "a license law, so 
 far as the act attempts to secure a lien upon real estate 
 occupied by tenants, whether the lease be executed before 
 or after the passage of the act." It therefore reversed 
 the judgment of the lower court. Finally, in The State 
 V. Sinks, an action for a writ of mandamus compelling a 
 county treasurer to receive an assessment, the Supreme 
 Court overruled its own decision in The State v. Frame, 
 and pronounced the entire act constitutional. 
 
 In Butzman v. Whitbeck, the court said : — 
 
 " When this law took effect, very few [dealers in intoxicat- 
 ing liquors] were equipped with the written consent of the 
 owners of the premises occupied. As to all of this class 
 [dealers who were not tenants] who were not thus supplied, 
 the act was a prohibitory law. ... It said to the dealer upon 
 another's premises : ' Procure the wi'itten consent of the owner 
 of the land you occupy, or bow to the penalties denounced 
 against you.' Without such writing the dealer is a criminal. 
 Armed with it, his business is as lawful as the traffic iu dry 
 goods. . . . The act confides to the owner the authority to say 
 whether a dealer occupying his premises shall stand as a crim- 
 inal before the law. . . . The condition required in tlie Pond 
 law was to procure a bond; the condition required by the 
 Scott law is to procure the written consent of the owner."
 
 THE DOW LAW. 297 
 
 In The State v. Sinks, the court said : — 
 
 " Surely, if the provision quoted from the Pond law consti- 
 tuted that act a license law, much more does the above pro- 
 vision from the Scott law constitute that act a license law, 
 with respect to any lien upon lands occupied by tenants. . . . 
 The legislature evidently regarded the clause as to tenants 
 vital ; the act never would have been passed without it ; and, 
 that clause being unconstitutional, the whole act as a tax law 
 entirely fails." 
 
 The General Assembly thereupon, in May, 1886, enacted 
 "the Dow law," by which the assessment and collection 
 of a tax upon the liquor traffic was authorized, and the 
 assessment was made a lien upon the real property occu- 
 pied; but the conditions expressed in the former acts were 
 omitted. No special privileges were granted in considera- 
 tion of the payment of the tax; and no penalties were 
 imposed upon dealers who fail to pay the same. 
 
 This act, in the case of Adler v. Whitbeck, an action 
 to restrain a county treasurer from collecting an assess- 
 ment, was sustained by the Supreme Court, which declared 
 it to be competent legislation, within both the taxing 
 power and the police power of the State, and not a license 
 law. In a subsequent case, Anderson r. Brewster, the 
 legal status in Ohio of the dealer in spirituous and malt 
 liquors is expressed with admirable clearness and con- 
 ciseness, in the following words : — 
 
 " The Dow law does not hold out permission to engage in 
 the traffic in intoxicating liquors, nor stamp it with illegality, 
 nor prescribe a condition precedent upon which one may have 
 the right to carry on such business. It repeals that portion of 
 section 6941 of the Revised Statutes which forbids the sale 
 of intoxicating liquors to be drunk in or upon the building or 
 premises where sold ; and if one chooses to engage in the traf- 
 fic, he must do so subject to the burden which is afterward 
 imposed upon his business. If he fails to pay the assessment 
 thereon, his business does not thereby become illegal ; and 
 although his goods and chattels may by his default become
 
 298 THE OHIO LIQUOR TAX. 
 
 liable to be levied on and sold, the property of dealers in other 
 commodities is also liable to be seized and sold for non-pay- 
 ment of personal taxes. He enters upon the traffic in intoxi- 
 cating liquors without a license, and, when found in the 
 business, the law suffers it to continue, but charged with the 
 burden of a tax." 
 
 The following is a succinct but accurate account of the 
 present state of the law. The manufacture of spirituous 
 and malt liquors is free. The sale of liquor, either at 
 wholesale or retail, is conceded to be the natural right of 
 every citizen. The law contents itself with forbidding 
 such sale (1) on Sunday or on any election day; (2) to 
 a person intoxicated or in the habit of getting intoxicated; 
 (3) to a minor, except upon the written order of his par- 
 ent, guardian, or family physician; (4) within 1,200 yards 
 of certain state institutions, or (without a special permit) 
 within four miles of the place where any religious assem- 
 bly is collected for worship, and so on. The prohibition 
 of the sale on Sunday does not apply to druggists; there 
 are also certain exceptions as to prohibited places of sale, 
 which apply to tavern-keepers and some other persons, 
 which need not be here enumerated. The law does not for- 
 bid the combination with the saloon trade of other attrac- 
 tions, as music, dancing, and games, or of other pursuits, 
 such as the sale of provisions or the exhibition of plays; 
 there are no restrictive regulations as to chairs, tables, 
 screens, and the like; the business is open to women as 
 well as to men. It is taxed at the uniform rate of $250 
 per year for each place so occupied ; the tax is a first lien 
 upon the premises. The dealer is civilly liable for loss 
 and damage resulting from the intoxication of any per- 
 son to whom he may have sold or given any intoxicating 
 liquor ; damages include exemplary damages, and may be 
 collected by the husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, or 
 employer of the person injured in property or person; this
 
 THE REVENUE FROM THE TRAFFIC. 299 
 
 liability extends to the owner of the premises. The guar- 
 dian or any near relative may enjoin the sale of liquor to 
 any individual. 
 
 Of the revenue derived from the liquor traffic, two 
 tenths are paid into the general revenue fund of the State, 
 two tenths to the town or county poor fund, and the re- 
 mainder is equally divided between the municipal police 
 and general revenue funds. 
 
 With respect to local option, upon demand of one fourth 
 of the qualified electors in any township, a special town- 
 ship election must be held, to determine whether the sale 
 of liquor shall be permitted or prohibited Avithin said town- 
 ship; if a majority of the ballots cast is "against the sale," 
 such sale is prohibited from and after thirty days after the 
 holding of such election. 
 
 The extent to which local prohibition prevails in Ohio 
 is not easily ascertained; there are no official or other rec- 
 ords from which to procure the necessary information, 
 without addressing a personal letter to the clerk of every 
 town. There are townships in which there are no saloons, 
 but where no vote has been taken upon the toleration of 
 the traffic, there being simply no demand in them for 
 liquor. It is stated that, including these with those in 
 which local prohibition exists by law, the number would 
 probably fall below one fourth of the number of townships 
 in the State. It is further stated on good authority that 
 in certain townships with local prohibition liquor is openly 
 sold ; but beer is sold as cider, and whiskey as tea ; a 
 would-be customer must know how to order a drink, or ho 
 will fail to get it. 
 
 The revenue from the liquor tax is published annually 
 in the reports of the state auditor; the statement for 1888 
 covers only the payments made in July. The amount of 
 tax "assessed" under the Scott law in 1885 is said to 
 have been $1,079,338.30, Beginning with 1886, when
 
 300 
 
 THE OHIO LIQUOR TAX. 
 
 1891 . 
 
 . $2,626,806.12 
 
 1892 . 
 
 . 2,683,939.07 
 
 1893 . 
 
 . 2,825,142.64 
 
 1894 . 
 
 . 2,660,654.38 
 
 the Dow law went into effect, the total receipts from this 
 source each year for nine years have been as follows : — 
 
 1886 . . . $2,048,4.50.14 
 
 1887 . . . 1,691,121.50 
 
 1888 (estimated) 2,250,000.00 
 
 1889 . . . 2,281,576.41 
 
 1890 . . . 2,458,554.18 
 
 To calculate the average (not actual) number of saloons 
 paying tax each year, the amounts stated must be divided 
 by 250. Apparently, the immediate but temporary effect 
 of the Dow law was to diminish the number, which is 
 said to have fallen from 8,194 in 1886 to 6,764 in 1887. 
 In 1888 it began to rise. The highest point was reached 
 in 1893. The following table exhibits the average number 
 of saloons each year and the average number of inhabitants 
 of the State at large for each year : — 
 
 Year. 
 
 Saloons. 
 
 Inhab. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Saloons. 
 
 Inhab. 
 
 1886 
 
 8,194 
 
 425 
 
 1891 
 
 10,507 
 
 391 
 
 1887 
 
 6,764 
 
 522 
 
 1892 
 
 10,734 
 
 351 
 
 1888 
 
 9,000 
 
 397 
 
 1893 
 
 11,301 
 
 338 
 
 1889 
 
 9,126 
 
 397 
 
 1894 
 
 10,643 
 
 363 
 
 1890 
 
 9,834 
 
 373 
 
 
 
 
 So far as the number of saloons paying tax, when 
 compared with the population, is a correct index of the 
 consumption of spirits per capita, these figures show a 
 slight increase, graphically represented by the following 
 line : — 
 
 1886. 
 
 1892. 1893. 1894. 
 
 300 
 
 400 
 
 500 
 
 Allowance must, however, be made for the greater thor- 
 ouglmess with which the tax is now collected than when 
 the law was still new.
 
 THE LAW AND DRUNKENNESS. 301 
 
 The number of inhabitants to each saloon stated in the 
 table includes the rural population and the residents of 
 townships in which no saloon exists. 
 
 There is, so far as I know, but one way by which to 
 judge whether drunkenness is increasing relative to the 
 population. There is obviously no fixed relation between 
 the number of tippling-houses and the amount of liquors 
 consumed; neither is there a fixed relation between per 
 capita consumption and intoxication. It may be assumed, 
 however, that the arrests for public intoxication and for 
 disorderly conduct (which is so largely due to intoxication) 
 in a series of years do afi"ord an approximately trustworthy 
 basis for an opinion upon the question whether drinking to 
 intoxication is more or less prevalent than at some given 
 date in the past. 
 
 In the city of Columbus the population and the arrests, 
 including both the total arrests and the arrests for drunk- 
 enness and disorder, in 1880 and 1890, were as follows : — 
 
 For drunkenness 
 Tear. Population. Arrests. or disorder. 
 
 1880 51,467 3,561 1,491 
 
 1890 88,150 5,319 2,236 
 
 The number of arrests per day, in the aggregate, for 
 these two special causes, in each of the two years named, 
 was as follows : — 
 
 For drunkenness 
 Tear. Arrests. or disorder. 
 
 1880 9.76 4.08 
 
 1890 14.57 6.13 
 
 It follows that, compared with the population, the num- 
 ber of arrests in 1880, per day, was one in 5,273; but in 
 1890 it was one in 6,050. The number of arrests, per day 
 in 1880, for drunkenness or disorder, was one in 12,614; 
 but in 1890 it was one in 14,380. These statistics show 
 a perceptible improvement during the decade.
 
 302 
 
 THE OHIO LIQUOR TAX. 
 
 The ratio of arrests for drunkenness and disorder to the 
 total arrests, in 1880, was 100 to 239; in 1890 it was 100 
 to 238. 
 
 A similar calculation for the city of Cincinnati is pre- 
 sented below : — 
 
 Year. Population. 
 
 
 Arrests. 
 
 For drunkenness 
 or disorder. 
 
 1880 2.56,139 
 1890 296,908 
 
 
 9,474 
 
 13,898 
 
 4,160 
 4,297 
 
 .rrests per day : — 
 
 Tear. 
 
 Arrests. 
 
 
 For drunkenness 
 or disorder. 
 
 1880 
 
 25.96 
 
 
 11.40 
 
 1890 
 
 38.08 
 
 
 11.77 
 
 The number of arrests per day in 1880 was one in 
 9,829; but in 1890 it was one in 7,813. The number of 
 arrests per day in 1880, for drunkenness or disorder, was 
 one in 2,238; but in 1890 it was one in 2,523. This shows 
 an improvement in the matter of drunkenness, but not in 
 that of general respect for law. The ratio of arrests for 
 drunkenness and disorder to the total arrests, in 1880, was 
 100 to 228; in 1890 it was 100 to 323. 
 
 The number of saloons in Cincinnati in 1894 was 1,943. 
 There were that year 2,875 arrests for drunkenness and 
 1,886 for disorderly conduct; the total arrests for all causes 
 were 15,594. The arrests were equivalent to eight during 
 the year for each saloon, of which two were for intoxica- 
 tion or for conduct which may have been the result of in- 
 toxication. 
 
 It has been supposed by some competent judges that the 
 substitution of a simple tax upon the liquor traffic for a 
 license would have a marked effect in taking the saloon 
 "out of politics." This opinion receives some confirma- 
 tion from the experience of the last ten years in Ohio. It 
 is said that, since the passage of the Dow law, there has 
 been but one election for state officers in which the licpior
 
 THE SALOON IN POLITICS. 303 
 
 question is thought to have affected the result. The pro- 
 hibition vote is small, and it is drawn in about equal pro- 
 portions from the two leading parties. But the liquor 
 question may still very easily affect the choice of members 
 of the legislature from close districts, and, by changing 
 the political complexion of the joint assembly of the House 
 and Senate, determine the choice of a United States sena- 
 tor. The complication of this irritating issue with munici- 
 pal politics is as provoking in Ohio as anywhere else. 
 Whenever any municipality attains a certain size, it may 
 be assumed that the eternal local question which, in the 
 absence of a more absorbing and controlling issue, will 
 determine the choice of the mayor and council at every 
 election is whether the town shall or shall not be "run 
 wide open ; " that is, whether the laws against liquor-sell- 
 ing, gambling, and prostitution shall be rigidly enforced. 
 The better element in most municipalities demands the 
 strict enforcement of all laws for the suppression of immo- 
 rality and for the better observance of the Christian Sab- 
 bath; it threatens withdrawal of support at the polls from 
 the party in power, if pledges are not given in advance 
 that this will be the policy of the local administration, if 
 the party is successful in electing its candidates. There- 
 upon, if the pledges asked are given, the so-called "liberal " 
 element in the majority party "scratches" its own party 
 candidates for mayor and councilmen, votes for the nomi- 
 nees of the minority, and this combination results in a 
 political change, in the interest of self-indulgence if not of 
 vice. If the worse element, commonly called the "gang," 
 is in power, it has the opportunity, and often makes use 
 of it, to falsify the election returns and so perpetuate its 
 grasp upon the police force. The odds, in this struggle, 
 are always against the "reformers." The substitution of 
 a tax for a license does not alter the local situation. So 
 long as there is any restriction whatever upon the freedom
 
 304 THE OHIO LIQUOR TAX. 
 
 of the traffic, the liquor interest will array itself in solid 
 opposition to such restrictions; it desires the maximum of 
 power with the minimum of responsibility, and will make 
 pecuniary and other sacrifices to gain its ends. 
 
 The central point of the fight seems everywhere to be 
 the prohibition of the sale of liquor on Sunday. In Cin- 
 cinnati the police declare it to be impossible to close the 
 saloons on that day. The front doors are closed, and the 
 curtains are drawn, but that is all. There are large beer 
 gardens on the outskirts of the city, which are open all 
 day and during the evening; they are thronged, in pleas- 
 ant weather, with customers. On every Monday morning 
 the proprietors are called to answer in the police court for 
 the violation of the Sunday law, and the cases are regularly 
 dismissed on the ground that it is impossible to procure 
 juries who will render a verdict of guilty in such cases. 
 The same is true of participants in Sunday theatrical exhi- 
 bitions. The members of the common council have the 
 nomination of jurors. The penalty involves imprisonment 
 as well as fine. The power of the police is limited to the 
 arrest of ofi"enders; they cannot close the drinking estab- 
 lishments. The mayor cannot revoke the licenses of the 
 proprietors, for there are none to revoke. Bail can be 
 given as many times in a day as any individual may be 
 arrested. In a word, public opinion is not behind the 
 Sunday closing law. To enforce it would involve the de- 
 feat of the party so enforcing it at the next ensuing elec- 
 tion. The efforts of the police are therefore limited to the 
 preservation of public order, in which they must be admit- 
 ted to be fully as successfvil as in other cities of the same 
 size; and it is the personal opinion of the writer that their 
 success in this direction is rather exceptional, owing to the 
 non-partisan character of the force, the thorough system 
 pursued in the training of the men, and the capacity and 
 integrity of the chief.
 
 GENERAL SUMMARY. 305 
 
 There is in Cincinnati a "Municipal Keform League," 
 which has for its object "to secure the enforcement of the 
 laws relating to honesty, public order, and morality," and 
 which advocates the election of the best men for municipal 
 officers, without regard to partisanship. It maintains an 
 agent or agents, whose business it is to seek for evidence 
 of the violation of law, and call the attention of the author- 
 ities to it. There is also in the State at large an organi- 
 zation entitled the "Anti-Saloon League," which seeks to 
 secure legislation in the direction of the extension of local 
 option, by so amending the present local option law as to 
 provide for the submission, once in every two years, to the 
 voters at every voting precinct in the State, of the question, 
 " Shall the traffic in intoxicating liquors as a beverage be 
 prohibited 1 " and for the closing of saloons and the prohi- 
 bition of the traffic in every county, township, incorporated 
 village, city, and ward of a city, in which a majority of 
 the votes cast is for such prohibition. Under existing law, 
 the town is the voting unit; if the Anti-Saloon League 
 succeeds, it will thereafter be but one of several units.
 
 LIQUOE LAWS IN INDIANA, SINCE 1851. 
 
 In 1851 the new Constitution of Indiana was adopted. 
 The local and special legislation prevalent under the former 
 Constitution had grown to be an intolerable evil. In the 
 language of the Supreme Court, the State tended to become 
 "a coterie of small independencies, like so many counties 
 palatine." In order to make the State a unit, the new 
 Constitution forbade the passage of local laws for the pun- 
 ishment of offenders and for the regulation of county and 
 township business, and ordained that "whenever a general 
 law can be made applicable, all laws shall be general and 
 of uniform operation throughout the State." 
 
 A general law was passed in 1853 forbidding retail liquor- 
 selling "without the consent of a majority of the legal 
 voters of the proper township who may cast their votes for 
 license at the April election. " The consent required was to 
 be "determined by the number of votes cast for or against 
 license, to be expressed on the ticket, and no ticket on which 
 the same is not expressed to be counted either way. " Con- 
 sent to the issue of license (by the county auditor) was 
 valid for one year from the date of the election, and no 
 longer. 
 
 The Supreme Court ^ held that "the taking effect of 
 this act, or at least so much of it as provided for the issue 
 of license — in other words, whether there should be any 
 power to issue license — was made to depend upon the 
 vote of the people of each township," and that it was "a 
 specious and accommodating refinement on local legisla- 
 tion," contrary to the requirements of the Constitution on 
 1 In Maize v. The State, 4 Ind. 342.
 
 AN EFFORT AT PROHIBITION, 307 
 
 this subject. Nevertlieless, "as a license law, the act is 
 complete in itself, without tlie part relating to the town- 
 ship vote. So much as relates to that vote may be consid- 
 ered as stricken out, and the license issues on filing the 
 requisite bond." The comment made upon this decision 
 by the court itself, some years later, ^ was that in holding 
 the conditions void upon which the law was to take effect, 
 and sustaining the other provisions of the act, "the court 
 possibly strained the principle that a law may be void in 
 part and valid in part, beyond its just application, in order 
 that the State might not be left without some regulation of 
 the liquor traffic." 
 
 Local option, or prohibition by minor political divisions, 
 is of course essentially a compromise between what the 
 people of Iowa have denominated "state-wide" prohibition 
 and "state-wide" license. There, as here, the Supreme 
 Court has held that there can be no middle ground between 
 the two, if laws are to be of uniform application. In In- 
 diana the movement to restrict the retail sale of liquor 
 within narrower limits began with local option, embodied 
 in special statutes. When it was attempted to embody 
 local option in a general statute, the Constitution operated 
 as a bar to such action. 
 
 The legislature in 1855 went to the opposite extreme, 
 and enacted a stringent prohibitory law. Imported liquors 
 might be sold in the original casks or packages, without 
 breaking bulk. Cider and wine might be made from fruit 
 grown by the manufacturer, but he could not sell either in 
 any quantity less than three gallons, to be taken away at 
 one time. In order to manufacture intoxicating liquors, 
 a permit from the county commissioners was essential, 
 good for a single year, and the product could be legally 
 disposed of only through county agents. The county com- 
 missioners were required to appoint county agents for the 
 1 Ingersoll v. The State, 11 Ind. 464.
 
 308 " LIQUOR LAWS IN INDIANA. 
 
 purchase and sale, at the cost and -for the benefit of the 
 county, of pure spirituous and intoxicating liquor for medi- 
 cinal and mechanical uses only ; such agents not to be hotel 
 or restaurant keepers, proprietors of any place of public 
 entertainment or resort, or in charge of any vessel; not 
 more than two agents to be appointed in any township, 
 unless such township should contain more than ten thou- 
 sand inhabitants, and then at the rate of one agent for 
 each five thousand inhabitants. Liquors illegally held for 
 sale, and all devices to deal them out, or to conceal them, 
 were to be destroyed or removed as nuisances. 
 
 The constitutionality of prohibition was at once chal- 
 lenged.^ Roderick Beebe, having been convicted of two 
 distinct violations of the act of 1855, and fined therefor, 
 failed either to pay or to replevy the fines, whereupon he 
 was committed to jail. He secured a writ of habeas 
 corpus from the common pleas judge of Marion County. 
 A motion to release him, on the ground of the unconstitu- 
 tionality of the act, was denied. The case was appealed 
 to the Supreme Court, which ordered the prisoner dis- 
 charged, but upon other grounds, being equally divided 
 upon the main issue (one judge being absent). The law 
 therefore technically remained in force, although practi- 
 cally inoperative, until, in the case of O' Daily v. The 
 State (9 Ind. 494), Nov. 27, 1857, the court unanimously 
 pronounced the law void, but assigned no reason for its 
 opinion. 
 
 In Beebe's case Judge Perkins delivered the opinion of 
 the court that the act of 1855 was void, and Judge David- 
 son concurred with him. From this opinion I make the 
 following citations: "The taxing power of a State is un- 
 limited, and hence may be exercised in such a manner as 
 to prohibit particular pursuits; but an enactment of such 
 description has none of the features of a formal prohibi- 
 1 Beebe v. The State, 6 Ind. 501.
 
 AN EFFORT AT PROHIBITION. 309 
 
 tory law, for it is based upon the assumption that the taxed 
 pursuit is to exist and not cease. . . . The legislature 
 cannot take the property, the liquors of a single indi- 
 vidual, if they are property, when not needed for puljlic 
 purposes, and then only upon compensation. But if the 
 legislature cannot deprive a single citizen of his property, 
 can it, by a general law, deprive all the citizens of theirs? 
 . , . Can it, by a general laAV, annihilate the entire prop- 
 erty in liquors in the State? . . . We deny that the leg- 
 islature can enlarge its powers over property or pursuits 
 by declaring them nuisances, or by enacting a definition of 
 a nuisance that will cover them. Wliatever it has a right 
 by the Constitution to prohibit or confiscate, it may thus 
 deal with, without first declaring the matter a nuisance ; 
 and whatever it has not a right by the Constitution to pro- 
 hibit and confiscate, it cannot thus deal witli, even though 
 it first declare it a nuisance. . . . The legislature has no 
 more right to violate the Constitution, under the guise of a 
 regulation of commerce, than by a statute literally in con- 
 flict with it." 
 
 Judge Stuart, who filed a dissenting opinion, agreed that 
 "the agency feature and the several parts of the law relat- 
 ing to manufacture were unconstitutional." He did not 
 believe that property rights are superior to the laws, nor 
 that they are violated by a municipal regulation having 
 for its object the peace, safety, and well-being of societ}'. 
 "It is conceded that the State has the power to regulate. 
 . . . Prohibition itself is but one kind of regulation. " As 
 to the substantial identity between regvdation and prohibi- 
 tion. Judge Gookin was in accord with Judge Stuart; the 
 right to regulate involved the right to prohibit. If the 
 one was unconstitutional, so was the other also. -^ 
 
 This decision and the failure of tlie General Assembly 
 
 1 As to this point, see the opinions delivered in the license cases by the 
 justices of the Supreme Court of the United States in 5 Howard.
 
 310 LIQUOR LAWS IN INDIANA. 
 
 in 1857 to enact any law upon the subject left the State 
 in a peculiar position from 1855 to 1859. The traffic 
 was not forbidden by statute, neither could it be licensed, 
 and it was not taxed. The law of nuisance was in many 
 instances successfully put in operation for the suppression 
 of dramshops here and there. The Supreme Court had 
 at various times ^ declared disorderly tippling-houses to be 
 nuisances and liable to suppression as such. It is said, 
 by a prominent opponent of the liquor traffic in Indiana, 
 himself a prohibitionist, that the traffic never gave so little 
 offense nor did so little injury as during these four years 
 of legislative silence respecting it. 
 
 The legislature, having been driven by the Supreme 
 Court to abandon its preference, first for local option and 
 then for total prohibition, adopted, in 1859, an "act to reg- 
 ulate and license " the sale of intoxicating liquors, under 
 which licenses were granted by the boards of county com- 
 missioners. The applicant was required to publish notice 
 of his intention at least twenty days in advance of the 
 meeting of the board, and every inhabitant of the town- 
 ship was privileged to file a remonstrance with the board, 
 in writing, assigning reasons therefor. This act was sus- 
 tained.^ It was so amended in 1861 as to authorize re- 
 monstrants in any township, who might feel themselves 
 aggrieved by the county commissioners, to take an appeal 
 to the Circuit Court or Court of Common Pleas of the 
 county. 
 
 There Avas no further change in the law for a dozen 
 years, when, in 1873, an act was passed, commonly known 
 as "the Baxter law," which forbade the granting of license 
 in any case where the applicant did not file a petition 
 signed by a majority of the legal voters of the township, 
 
 1 Notably in flift c.ise of Bepley r. The State, 4 Ind. 264, in which it was 
 held that proof of disorderly conduct is unnecessary it the fact is proved 
 of sale without license. 
 
 2 Thomasson v. The State, 15 Ind. 449.
 
 THE BAXTER LAW, 311 
 
 incorporated town, or ward (if in a city), as shown by the 
 vote at the last previous election. All places where intox- 
 icating liquor was sold in violation of the act were to be 
 "shut up and abated as public nuisances." Every dram- 
 shop was to be closed from nine o'clock at night until 
 six o'clock in the morning. Liquor-sellers responsible in 
 whole or part for the intoxication of any customer were 
 liable to pay compensation for the care of such customer 
 until sober. Relatives, employers, and other persons in- 
 jured in person or property or means of support, on account 
 of the intoxication or habitual intoxication of any person, 
 were given the right to bring an action for damages against 
 both the dealer and the owner of the premises occupied, 
 including exemplary damages. Judgments for damages 
 might be enforced without benefit from the valuation or 
 appraisement laws. 
 
 The constitutionality of this act was attacked before the 
 Supreme Court, i on the triple ground that it provided for 
 a direct intervention of the people in the making and ex- 
 ecuting of a law ; that the taking effect of the act was made 
 to depend upon a popular choice; and that it was local and 
 special in its operation. In other words, the objection to 
 it relied upon for its overthrow was its local option fea- 
 ture. The Supreme Court, it will be remembered, had 
 refused to allow a formal vote to be taken, in any minor 
 political division of the State, upon the question of license 
 or no license. But in the present instance the court held 
 that " the petition of an applicant for a permit, aided by 
 his co-petitioners, so far from being an exercise of legisla- 
 tive authority, really assi;mes that the law has been enacted 
 and is already in force ; otherwise there would be no author- 
 ity for such application and petition." The signing of a 
 petition was held to be not an administrative act. The 
 act was held to be a general act, in force and operation in 
 
 1 In the case of Groesch v. The State, 42 Ind. 547.
 
 312 LIQUOR LAWS IN INDIANA. 
 
 all parts of the State. It was therefore sustained. It 
 was, however, repealed in 1875 ^ by an act said to have 
 been framed by the attorney of the liquor league. 
 
 This act, which was substantially a reenactment of a 
 statute of 1859, retaining a few added provisions contained 
 in the law of 1873, was subsequently embodied in the 
 Kevised Statutes of 1881, and is still in force. The power 
 to grant license is vested in the county boards, after publi- 
 cation for twenty days, by the applicant, of his intention. 
 The right of remonstrance, before vested in any " inhab- 
 itant," is by this act restricted to any "voter." There is 
 no longer any right of appeal from the action of the county 
 board. The color line, which formerly prevented any but 
 white male inhabitants from engaging in the traffic, is 
 abolished. The fee for a general license is $100, for a 
 beer license $50, to be paid into the county school fund; 
 cities or incorporated towns may charge $100 in addition. 
 (The amount which cities and towns may lawfully charge 
 has since been increased to $250.) The dealer gives a 
 bond of $2,000 to secure the payment of both fines and 
 civil damages. The term of license is one year. The sale 
 of liquor to minors, to persons in a state of intoxication, 
 and to habitual drunkards, is forbidden. The penalty for 
 most violations of the act was by the original act a simple 
 fine; but the sale of adulterated liquors, or by persons 
 not licensed, was punishable also by imprisonment in the 
 county jail not less than thirty days nor more than six 
 months ; and a second conviction for sale on Sunday or any 
 holiday or day when an election is held involved forfeiture 
 of license as a part of the judgment of the court. A dis- 
 orderly house may be declared a nuisance, and the keeper 
 of the same is liable to forfeit his license. Jurisdiction to 
 try ofi'enses, under the act, is in the justices of the peace, 
 
 1 The section makinfj the illegal sale of liquor a nuisance was held to 
 be constitutional in McLaughlin v. The State, 45 Ind. 338.
 
 THE NICHOLSON LAW. 313 
 
 who can, however, impose no penalty higher than a fine 
 of $25; if the justice regards this as inadequate, he can re- 
 quire the offender to appear before the circuit court, which 
 has also indejjendent concurrent jurisdiction in liquor cases. 
 
 When, in 1881, the legislature adopted the Eevised 
 Statutes, the provision making a disorderly drinking-house 
 a public nuisance was stricken out by the revisers, also the 
 penalty of forfeiture of license. 
 
 The much-discussed Kicholson act had its origin in the 
 needs of the city of Indianapolis. At the municipal elec- 
 tion held in Indianapolis under its new (1891) charter, the 
 Republican candidate for mayor was elected by a majority 
 of about 3,000, upon a platform which pledged him to a 
 strict enforcement of the laws, and upon his personal pledge 
 to suppress gambling and the illicit sale of liquor. The 
 Democratic majority at the last previous election had been 
 about 3,000, Among the reasons for this change in public 
 sentiment was the fact that under the Democratic adminis- 
 tration the town had been "run wide open," and the citi- 
 zens were not pleased with the results. The new mayor 
 and his board of public safety selected for the office of 
 superintendent of police a gentleman of known character 
 and executive ability, in independent financial circum- 
 stances, of large business experience, who was heartily in 
 sympathy with the purpose of the mayor. The suppres- 
 sion of open liquor-selling on Sundays and at the prohib- 
 ited hours was complete. But at first the only prac- 
 tical metliod by which such sale could be stopped was the 
 placing of a regular or special policeman, in uniform or 
 in plain clothes, in every saloon known or suspected to be 
 in the habit of violating the law ; this was necessarily an 
 expensive system. The primary purpose of the Nicholson 
 bill was merely to render the enforcement of the prohibi- 
 tory sections of the license law of 1875 more easy and 
 certain, by removing, at all prohibited hours, every ob-
 
 314 LIQUOR LAWS IN INDIANA. 
 
 struction calculated to prevent the inspection of saloons 
 from the street by the police and by the public. 
 
 This much-discussed law, which passed the Senate by a 
 vote of thirty-nine to nine, and the House by seventy-five 
 to twenty, and was signed by the governor March 11, 
 1895, was the response made by the General Assembly to 
 an unusually large number of memorials and petitions in 
 its favor, said to have been signed by 75,000 or 80,000 
 voters, and it probably represents the sentiment of a major- 
 ity of the citizens of Indiana. It is entitled "An act to 
 better regulate and restrict the sale," etc. 
 
 By its provisions the retailing of liquor must be done in 
 a room on the ground floor or in a basement, fronting the 
 street, and separated from any other business except the 
 sale of cigars; no music nor amusement shall be permitted 
 in the room, the whole of which must be visible from the 
 highway ; entering the saloon by any but the proprietor and 
 his family is forbidden during the hours it is required to 
 be closed, and permitting any person so to enter is prima 
 facie evidence of the violation of the law. Upon proof of 
 violation of the act, the court may, and for a third convic- 
 tion must, revoke the dealer's license. Only one license 
 can be given to one person, who must be the owner of the 
 business. A majority of the voters in any township or 
 ward may file a written remonstrance against granting a 
 license to any applicant, and such a remonstrance makes 
 void any license granted to that applicant at any time for 
 ten years. Druggists are forbidden to sell, in quantities 
 less than a quart, except by order of a physician. 
 
 The section relating to remonstrances, which is substan- 
 tially borrowed from the act of 1832, is evidently designed 
 to have the efi"ect of engrafting into the law the principle 
 of local option in the form in Avhich ^ the Supreme Court 
 of Indiana has decided it to be constitutional, but further 
 1 In the case of Groesch v. The State, cited above.
 
 THE NICHOLSON LAW. 315 
 
 modified to require a separate remonstrance against each 
 applicant for license. 
 
 In considering the practical effect of the law, it is neces- 
 sary to distinguish between the influence upon trade of the 
 police regulations, especially as to the prohibition of games 
 and of screens, and that of the remonstrance. The remon- 
 strance can have no other effect than to close the saloons in 
 many localities, where public opinion is adverse to them. 
 The remonstrance is a more effective weapon than the re- 
 quirement that the applicant shall secure the signatures 
 to his petition of a majority of the voters.^ The liquor 
 interest asserts that many persons sign these remonstrances, 
 not from conviction, but under constraint or persuasion, 
 which is probably true. This is the feature of the Nich- 
 olson law to which the brewers and distillers — manufac- 
 turers — most strenuously object. 
 
 While the business interests of the manufacturer and 
 those of the dealer are in a general way identical, there are 
 nevertheless shades of difference between them. The ob- 
 jections of the dealer to the Nicholson law are (1) that it 
 renders it practicable to lay an embargo on the sale of 
 liquor upon Sundays, holidays, and after eleven o'clock 
 at night; and (2) that it confines him to the single occu- 
 pation of liquor-selling, and deprives him of the profit of 
 shows and games, which retain customers in the saloon. 
 A barkeeper explained to me that the proprietor of a saloon 
 where he was employed used to throw dice for cigars with 
 "the boys" — "anything to keep them here" — and had 
 a room upstairs, where they could play cards; but now a 
 man comes in, takes his drink, goes away, and they never 
 see him again. He estimated the loss of income at eight 
 or ten dollars a day — in this case a fatal falling off. 
 
 Another man, who now has a " temperance " saloon, where 
 
 1 I am told that in several instances merchants refusing to sign have 
 been threatened with loss of trade.
 
 316 LIQUOR LAWS IN INDIANA. 
 
 only "soft drinks" are for sale, said that he had to give 
 up his liquor trade or his games, and that he found the 
 games the more profitable of the two. No doubt, under 
 the operation of a license law, the saloon business is greatly- 
 overdone, and many, who are encouraged to go into it by 
 the expectation of profit, are doomed to become bankrupt, 
 in spite of all they can do to prevent it. 
 
 The manufacturers are not in sympathy with the dealers 
 in their desire to have games of chance played in dram- 
 shops. All that is lost in gaming is diverted from the 
 pocket of the manufacturer to some other man's pocket. 
 The greater part of this money is furnished by poor men, 
 who cannot afford to indulge both propensities, and the 
 net result is a diminution of the manufacturer's profits.^ 
 
 1 The Cincinnati Commercial Gazette published, August 10, 1895, a dis- 
 patch from Indianapolis containing a statement by Mr. Albert Lieber, 
 president of the Indianapolis Brewing Company', vice-president of the 
 State Brewers' Association, and chairman of the executive committee of 
 that organization, in which the assertion was made that of 10,000 saloons 
 in Indiana, 2,500 would be compelled to close in consequence of the pas- 
 sage of the Nicholson bill. These saloons, he said, consumed on an aver- 
 age two kegs of beer a day; the reduction in the consumption of beer, 
 therefore, would be at least 1,500,000 kegs per annum. The strict en- 
 forcement of the requirement to close on certain days and at certain hours 
 would decrease the annual consumption by another million kegs. The 
 output of the breweries in Indiana was 440,000 barrels; an equal number 
 of barrels is imported from the neighboring States. The price of beer per 
 barrel is S6.50, making the annual expenditure for beer in round numbers 
 $5,720,000. One fourth of this, he thought, or about 5?1, 430,000, would be 
 lost to the trade; the loss to the Indiana brewers would be $715,000. The 
 loss in rent at $40 per month would be $1,200,000; in wages of saloon 
 proprietors and emplo3'ees, at $2 per day, $5,400,000; in revenue to the 
 government, at $100 to the county, $250 to the city, and $50 to the 
 United States, $1,000,000; total, $8,"315,000. Of this amount, the school 
 fund would lose $875,000. He estimated the average cost of saloon fix- 
 tures at $600, which would be rendered valueless — an indirect loss of 
 another $1,500,000. There would be also an increase in the number of 
 the unemployed. He did not touch the question of value of the grain 
 converted into beer, and the effect upon the farmer. The distiller, he 
 thought, would be comparatively unaffected. (The rivalry between malt 
 and spirituous beverages is such that what the brewer loses the distiller 
 may gain. The uniform effect of prohibition, under any guise and to any 
 extent, is to increase the sale of whiskey, which is more portable, more 
 easily concealed, and more available for illicit traffic.)
 
 THE WOKKING OF THE LAW. 817 
 
 The legislature passed another hill, approved March 9, 
 1895, called the Moore hill, which is possibly even more 
 objectionable to distillers than the Nicholson bill. It is 
 an act amending the general municipal incorporation act, 
 and it confers upon common councils the right to "re- 
 strain ... all places where intoxicating liquors are kept 
 for sale, to be used in and upon the premises." In re- 
 straining such places they may exclude sales from the 
 suburban or residence portion of such city, and confine the 
 places where sales may be made to the business portions 
 of such city; they may direct the arrangement and con- 
 struction of the doors, windows, and openings of the par- 
 ticular room in the building occupied, also the arrange- 
 ment and construction of the bar kept therein, and the 
 interior arrangement and construction of such room; they 
 may direct what games may be carried on therein; and 
 they may forbid the keeping or use of wine-rooms. 
 
 The police provision of the Nicholson bill directing the 
 removal of partitions and screens has been enforced in some 
 towns, in others not: the law is notably disregarded, for 
 instance, in Terre Haute. In Indianapolis it has been 
 well enforced, as I can testify from personal experience, 
 so far as relates to saloons; but its enforcement has to 
 some extent increased the illicit traffic in liquors carried on 
 in drug-stores, especially during the prohibited days and 
 hours. The detection of this traffic is, in the nature of 
 the case, difficult. The partition which conceals the pre- 
 scription case in the rear of the shop is a complete barrier 
 to observation. It is usually inclosed by two openings, 
 one on each side. A detective cannot go behind this case 
 until his business is known; and if admitted, as he enters 
 by one opening, the man who has had his drink passes out 
 by the other, leaving no evidence behind him of the char- 
 acter of his purchase. In some drug-stores there is a pri- 
 vate office or warehouse in the rear of the prescription
 
 318 LIQUOR LAWS IN INDIANA. 
 
 case. Sometimes a square closet is substituted for the 
 ordinary form of prescription case; the druggist enters it 
 by a closed door, pours out a dram, passes out, and the 
 customer then takes his place, closing the door after him, 
 when he is alone, so that there can be no witness of his 
 actions. The fact that malt and spirituous liquors are ille- 
 gally sold by druggists is notorious. The only way effect- 
 ually to put a stop to such sale would be to station a j^olice- 
 man in every suspected pharmacy, which cannot legally be 
 done, since they are not licensed. 
 
 It is fair to say that the enforcement of the Sunday law 
 in Indianapolis is rendered more easy by the construction 
 put upon it by the police, under which they do not inter- 
 fere with the meetings of German societies, such as saen- 
 gerbunds and turnvereins, if organized prior to the passage 
 of the act, and therefore not with the purpose of evading 
 it, so long as beer is there dispensed to their own members 
 and not offered for sale to the public. Picnic parties, with 
 beer, of which in the summer there are many, are not sup- 
 pressed beyond the two-mile limit. ^ There is not in or 
 about Indianapolis any large beer garden, properly so called. 
 
 The State has evidently before it a period of temperance 
 agitation stretching through a long term of years, in which 
 all the efforts that have been made, in other States, to curb 
 the power of the liquor traffic will be put forth, with 
 varying degrees of success, according to the strength of the 
 two opposing forces in different localities, and the wisdom 
 or folly of their respective positions and movements. The 
 anti-saloon fight is led by the Good Citizens' League, organ- 
 ized in 1888, which is forming branch leagues everywhere. 
 
 1 The new charter gives the city jurisdiction over the sale of liquor 
 outside the cit}' limits, within a distance of four miles ; under this pro- 
 vision saloons within two miles from the boundary of Indianapolis are 
 taxed ; but the board of safety exercises police jurisdiction within the 
 full legal limit of four miles — only, however, in special cases and by 
 express order of the board.
 
 THE MISSOUEI LOCAL OPTION LAW. 
 
 A STUDY OF THE DRINK PROBLEM IN ST, LOUIS. 
 
 To understand the working of liquor laws in St. Louis, 
 and especially to understand the failure to enforce the laws 
 in certain respects, it is necessary to bear in mind the 
 history of the city and the composition of its population. 
 
 The original settlement, in 17G4, was made by French- 
 men from New Orleans, who established here an Indian 
 trading-post. The first town charter was granted in 1809 
 by the Court of Common Pleas for the District of St. 
 Louis, under the authority of an act of the Territory of 
 Louisiana in 1808. The early French influence is still 
 felt in various ways. Three fourths of the present popu- 
 lation is foreign-born or of immediate foreign parentage, 
 principally German. The Germans, indeed, constitute nearly 
 or quite one half the inhabitants. The architecture of the 
 houses, the style of the front yards, and the attention to 
 the culture of the grape, in many quarters, particularly in 
 the northern and southern suburbs, clearly indicate the 
 prevailing nationality. German habits have deeply im- 
 pressed the life of the community, particularly in respect 
 to Sunday observance and to the use of wine and beer. 
 The first great influx of Germans was after the revolution 
 of 1848, and many of these immigrants Avere freethinkers 
 in religion. At present, Protestant, Catholic, and ration- 
 alistic Germany are all well represented. Indeed, the 
 valley of the Mississippi is the chosen home of German 
 Catholicism in America. 
 
 In one particular the composition of the population is
 
 320 THE MISSOURI LOCAL OPTION LAW. 
 
 unique. St. Louis is the only city where the old southern 
 element and the foreign element have been brought in large 
 numbers face to face; and this circumstance accounts for 
 much that is peculiar in the people and their institutions. 
 
 The distribution of population is shown on the accom- 
 panying ward map. 
 
 Roughly speaking, the city is divided into two parts by 
 Grand Avenue (or the old city limits before the annexation 
 of the outlying country in 1876), which is about three 
 miles west of the river at its farthest point. All beyond 
 this avenue is new ; all between it and the river is regarded 
 as "down town." Between Grand Avenue and the river 
 are three distinct zones, about a mile each in width, sepa- 
 rated from each other by Twelfth Street and Jefferson 
 Avenue. Of these, the central zone is the most populous; 
 that next the river contains almost as many inhabitants, 
 and the outer zone somewhat less. Seven eighths of the 
 population is found below Grand Avenue, and occupies 
 less than one half the territory of the city. There is also 
 a condensation of the population in the direction from 
 north to south. The city is sixteen miles long ; but nearly 
 three fourths of the residents occupy a strip extending from 
 east to west which is not more than three miles in width, 
 and more than one half of them are found in a similar 
 strip not i^re than two miles wide. There is a district 
 lying east of Jefferson Avenue, and extending from Cass 
 Avenue on the north to Park Avenue on the south, or a 
 little less than two miles square, in which one third of the 
 people live. In this district are most of the wholesale 
 and retail trading-houses, the railway stations, the princi- 
 pal manufactories, the hotels, the government buildings, 
 some of the best and some of the worst residences, and the 
 bulk of the poverty and vice of the city. Out of it are 
 moving nearly all who are able to afford to live elsewhere, 
 and signs " For rent " are seen by the hundreds. The
 
 322 THE MISSOURI LOCAL OPTION LAW. 
 
 churches have nearly all gone, and even the Young Men's 
 Christian Association. This is the portion of the city 
 which demands the most careful study. It contains the 
 "slums." These press upon the heart of the city and 
 reach down until they almost touch the cathedral, the 
 court-house, the best hotels, and some of the finest of the 
 buildings erected for business and office use. The increase 
 in the value of land in this region will probably drive them 
 back sooner or later, but the proximity of the railroad 
 tracks tends to delay this desired consummation. 
 
 Politically, St. Louis is very evenly divided between 
 the two leading parties, with a slight preponderance of 
 Republicans. In respect of religious tendencies, the house- 
 to-house census annually taken, by voluntary visitors, who 
 reach about one third of the population, shows one third 
 of those reported to be Catholics. Of the non-Catholics, 
 perhaps a small majority are nominally Protestants and the 
 rest are indifferent to sects and creeds. A comparison of 
 maps showing the religious and political characters of dif- 
 ferent sections of the city reveals a certain relation between 
 the two. The Republican sections, particularly where the 
 native American element predominates, tend to be Protest- 
 ant; and the Catholic sections, particularly where the Irish 
 element is in the ascendency, tend to be Democratic. The 
 business centre, and the better residence district, directly 
 west of it, are Protestant and Republican. They are also 
 largely American. 
 
 THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW. 
 
 The liquor law of the State of Missouri was revised in 
 1891. The general principle upon which it is based is local 
 option. 
 
 The question "for" or "against the sale of intoxicating 
 liquors " cannot be submitted oftener than once in four 
 years, but once in four years, or less often, a vote may be
 
 THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW. 323 
 
 ordered upon petition of one tenth of the qualified electors. 
 Electors in any incorporated town of 2,500 inhabitants 
 or more may not vote for or against the sale of liquor in 
 the county at large. The question of sale in the towns is 
 distinct from that of sale in the rural districts. 
 
 The sale of liquors, in quantities less than three gallons, 
 without license, is forbidden in counties and towns which 
 have voted against license, under penalty of a fine of $300 
 to $1,000, or by imprisonment from six to twelve months, 
 or both; but in counties which have voted in favor of 
 license, the penalty is a simple fine of $40 to $200. 
 
 Licenses are granted by the county court; but in cities 
 having a population of 200,000 or more (St. Louis being 
 the one such city), by a special ofiicer known as an excise 
 commissioner. 
 
 The applicant for a license must be a law-abiding, as- 
 sessed tax-paying male citizen above twenty-one years of 
 age. With his written application he must file a petition; 
 this petition, if in a city containing 2,000 inhabitants or 
 more, must be signed by a majority of the assessed tax-> 
 paying citizens owning property in the block or square 
 in which the dramshop is to be kept; if in a city of less 
 than 2,000 inhabitants, or in any incorporated town or 
 municipal township, it must be signed by a majority of 
 the assessed tax-paying citizens, both in the block or 
 square and also in the town or township. (The property 
 assessed may be real or personal.) The court or the excise 
 commissioner cannot grant a license unless this petition 
 filed is signed by a majority as required. If it is so signed, 
 he may grant or withhold it at his discretion — except 
 when the petition is signed by two thirds of the tax-pay- 
 ers; then he has no discretion, but must grant it. 
 
 The petition is in force for one year from the date of 
 the granting of the first license thereon, and no longer; 
 and no license can be in force longer than the petition
 
 324 THE MISSOURI LOCAL OPTION LAW. 
 
 upon which it is granted. Any license which may be 
 granted on any other basis is void. 
 
 The applicant must hie a bond, in the sum of $2,000, 
 with two resident sureties, to be approved by the court, 
 that he will keep an orderly house, and that he will not 
 sell or give liquor to minors without the written consent 
 of their parents or guardians, and that he will pay all fines 
 and forfeitures adjudged against him on account of any 
 violation of the dramshop act. 
 
 The price of a license is a tax, payable every six 
 months, of not less than $50 nor more than $200 for state 
 purposes, and not less than $250 nor more than $400 for 
 county purposes. The court which grants the license de- 
 termines the amount. Dramshop- keepers are further re- 
 quired to pay an ad valorem, tax as merchants, once in 
 six months, upon the full amount of liquors received by 
 them during the six months previous. 
 
 Two thirds of the revenue derived by counties from this 
 source is set apart for building roads or (in the smaller 
 counties) for the payment of municipal indebtedness. 
 
 The county collector is charged with the amount of the 
 tax levied upon each license. He must collect the same 
 without delay; and until the applicant presents the collec- 
 tor's receipt for the amount specified, in full, the license 
 cannot issue. 
 
 It is made the duty of the court to revoke the license of 
 any dramshop-keeper shown, to its satisfaction, to have been 
 guilty of keeping a disorderly house. The court is forbid- 
 den to issue a license to any person whose license has once 
 been revoked, or who has ever been convicted of violating 
 any provision of the dramshop act. 
 
 The Revised Ordinances of the city of St. Louis are in 
 substantial accord with the statutes, but contain some 
 additional provisions. On the first Monday of every 
 month a list of the licenses granted during the month
 
 BREACHES OF THE LAW, 325 
 
 preceding must be furnished to the comptroller. On the 
 same day the police must report to the chief of police all 
 dramshops open in their respective districts and whether 
 they are kept in an orderly manner. These reports must 
 be by the chief transmitted to the collector (excise commis- 
 sioner). 
 
 No immoral or obscene paintings or pictures are allowed 
 to be exhibited in any saloon. No lewd woman or woman 
 reputed to be immoral can be employed in any saloon as a 
 bartender or carrier of beer or any other article, either by 
 day or night, or to sing or dance in a lewd or indecent 
 manner. The opening of any saloon within five hundred 
 feet of either of the five principal city parks is forbidden. 
 No license can be granted for any dramshop in any house 
 of ill-fame. The establishment of such a house in any 
 building where there is a dramshop renders the license 
 alread}^ granted null and void. 
 
 Any three reputable property owners may prefer to the 
 mayor a sworn complaint of disorderly conduct in any 
 saloon. The mayor must at once cite the dramshop-keeper 
 complained of to appear before him. If satisfied of the 
 truth of the statements made, he must revoke his license 
 and order his prosecution by the attorney of the police 
 court. No license may be assigned or transferred. 
 
 It should be added that the criminal code forbids the 
 adulteration of liquors, and their sale within a mile of any 
 camp or field meeting for religious worship. 
 
 EVASIONS AND BREACHES OF THE LAW. 
 
 The question of the observance of the dramshop act 
 naturally divides itself into two parts: first, as to procur-- 
 ing license, and, second, as to compliance with the condi- 
 tions upon which it is granted. 
 
 The only valid signatures to a petition for a license are 
 those of assessed tax-payers; that is, owners of real estate
 
 326 THE MISSOURI LOCAL OPTION LAW. 
 
 or residents owning personal property upon the block in 
 which the dramshop is to be situated. Minors cannot 
 sign, but their guardians must sign for them. The latest 
 annual assessment shows the names of the tax-payers in 
 each block, and unless a majority of their names is attached 
 to a petition it has no legal value. 
 
 Obviously a strict construction of the statute would pre- 
 vent the issue of a license to keep a saloon where the prop- 
 erty pays no tax, for example, in a public park. Yet 
 there is a licensed dramshop in the principal park — Forest 
 Park. Its issue was fought upon another ground ; namely, 
 that section 1433 of the Revised City Ordinances provides 
 that " no saloon shall be established, opened, or located in 
 any building or on any lot of ground within 500 feet of 
 Forest Park. " But the council authorized the issue, hold- 
 ing that a saloon inside a park is not within 500 feet of it. 
 But in another instance, — viz., the Exposition Building, 
 which stands on ground belonging to the city, a petition 
 was signed by some of the stockholders, the cit}^ attorney 
 gave an opinion that upon its face the petition was regu- 
 lar, and the license was issued. 
 
 In the case of private property, the theory of the law 
 is that the petition shall be compared with the city assess- 
 ment rolls, but the practice appears to have been to assume 
 that the petition was regular if it was not opposed. 
 "Where opposition is anticipated, the steps to secure signers 
 are as quietly taken as possible ; and if the license is once 
 granted, the difficulty of annulling it is greater than of 
 preventing its issue. Where violent and persistent oppo- 
 sition has been made to the establishment of a saloon, the 
 means taken to overcome it have sometimes been ingenious. 
 The owners of a well-known beer garden were unable for a 
 long time to secure the requisite number of names of tax- 
 payers, and kept open without license. When at last the 
 municipal authorities were pressed to close this place, the
 
 THE COLLECTOR. 327 
 
 proprietors opened a private alley in the rear of the prop- 
 erty, and erected a row of tenements, which were rented to 
 persons who would sign their petition. By this means 
 they succeeded in overcoming the majority against them. 
 This was a popular resort opened many years ago, before 
 the enactment of the local option law. But expedients of 
 more doubtful propriety, or whose illegality is not a matter 
 of reasonable doubt, have been used ; and through the com- 
 plicity of the collector with the li(;[uor interest dramshops 
 have been forced upon localities which were bitterly op- 
 posed to them. After exhausting every other means of 
 defeating a remonstrance signed by a majority of the as- 
 sessed tax-payers upon certain blocks, a lot belonging to 
 the applicant for license or to some friend has been subdi- 
 vided, and small parcels — too small to be of any real use 
 or value, such as a single front foot — have been deeded to 
 men of straw or to members of the firm or family, to 
 enable them to add their names to the petition. These 
 lots are known as "the Lilliputian lots." 
 
 In 1891 and 1892 the conduct of a collector whose ar- 
 bitrary methods won him the nickname of "The Czar" was 
 investigated by the City Council, and two unsuccessful 
 attempts made to have the grand jury indict him. He 
 admitted that he did not require renewal petitions in the 
 German quarters of the city, north or south of the centre; 
 he said that they did not know what it is to object to a 
 saloon, and would not know a remonstrance from the man 
 in the moon. One of the chief grounds of the investiga- 
 tion was the fact that, while the city collector issued about 
 1,800 licenses, the number of paid liquor licenses reported 
 by the United States revenue collector was 2,600. The 
 collector's explanation was that the United States collects 
 from houses of ])rostitution, drug-stores, clubs, and gro- 
 ceries, which do not take out dramshop licenses. After the 
 investigation an effort was made to pass a municipal ordi-
 
 328 THE MISSOURI LOCAL OPTION LAW. 
 
 nance restricting the power of the collector to grant licenses 
 in opposition to the will of the assessed tax-payers and 
 compelling him to exercise more diligence in collecting the 
 tax imposed upon saloon-keepers; but it was defeated. 
 The upshot of all this crimination and struggle was that 
 the collector was reelected by an increased majority; he 
 outran the rest of his ticket. 
 
 The fight was not without effect, however, upon the state 
 legislature. The victorious collector was and is a Repub- 
 lican in politics. The legislature of Missouri is Demo- 
 cratic. The General Assembly legislated him out of office 
 by an act approved March 17, 1893, by which the governor 
 is authorized to appoint in St. Louis a commissioner with 
 exclusive authority to grant dramshop licenses. This 
 commissioner is paid by fees, and out of the fees received 
 by him he must meet all his office expenses. None of the 
 provisions of the dramshop act is modified by this act. 
 The excise commissioner has power to revoke any license 
 issued by him, if the recipient violates any of the provi- 
 sions of the dramshop act. 
 
 The new commissioner was appointed on the 21st of 
 June, 1893. The first year's collections by him (omitting 
 fees) showed a gain of $185,295; but of this amount, 
 $102,569 is owing to a change in the state tax, which was 
 $50 a year for each license, but is now $100. The num- 
 ber of licensed saloons under the collector, in 1891-92, 
 was 1,870; under the excise commissioner, in 1893-94, it 
 was 2,051. 
 
 The appointment of a special commissioner by the gov- 
 ernor, with power to grant and revoke liquor licenses, 
 tends to create a closer political connection between the 
 state admmistration and the liquor traffic than existed 
 before. 
 
 A.S to the enforcement of the few police restrictions upon 
 the sale of liquor in this city, the simple fact is that little
 
 CHAKACTER OF SALOONS. 329 
 
 if any effort is made to enforce them, and they are not 
 enforced. There is not a saloon in St. Louis which is 
 closed on Sunday, except at the will of the proprietor. 
 The prohibition to sell to minors without the written con- 
 sent of their parents is a dead letter. There is an im- 
 mense "can" trade carried on by the saloons; and there 
 is no part of the city, and no hour of the day or evening, 
 where little children, mostly girls, may not be seen going 
 to and from dramshops with pails of beer. Some of them 
 are scarcely more than babes. And many saloons sell to 
 young boys, across the counter, by the drink. 
 
 The prohibition against games and other amusements in 
 dramshops is flagrantly disregarded. The great majority 
 of saloons in St. Louis are furnished with round or square 
 tables and armchairs for the convenience of their patrons. 
 One who passes by can often see card-playing through the 
 open door. Many of them have also billiard and pool 
 tables, in direct contravention of the statute. Some have 
 pianos or other musical instruments. There are various 
 descriptions of saloons; e. fj. simple bars, bars attached 
 to restaurants or eating- places, bars connected with pool or 
 billiard rooms, beer gardens, and concert saloons. There 
 are several sorts of beer gardens. Some of them are 
 merely back yards in the rear of saloons, on the same lot; 
 others are large, and approximate the character of private 
 parks. The best of them are family resorts, where all the 
 proprieties of life are as strictly observed as in a home; 
 others are less reputable. Dancing is of course common 
 at all such places, and at some of them it is unrestrained. 
 Many saloons have a separate "ladies' entrance," and not 
 infrequently private wine-rooms. But it is difficult to 
 say whether these or the so-called free theatres are the most 
 objectionable, from a moral point of view. The latter 
 are entered through the bar, upon payment of the price of 
 a drink, which need not be more than five cents, and a
 
 330 THE MISSOURI LOCAL OPTION LAW, 
 
 drink is given for the money. At the farther end of the 
 room is a cheap stage. The ground floor is occupied hy 
 chairs, sometimes by chairs and tables. Men only are ad- 
 mitted. Stairways connect the lower floor with galleries 
 above, divided into stalls, and with curtains in front, 
 where the female singers and dancers employed by the 
 proprietor meet and drink with such men and boys as 
 choose* to go up there. They are a sort of public green- 
 room, and the conduct and conversation are what might 
 be expected. If there are no galleries, a place is ruled 
 ofi" and partially screened at one side of the room. The 
 performance upon the stage is usually cheap, stupid, and 
 vulgar. The state law declares that a dramshop-keeper 
 shall not permit any wrestling in his dramshop, but in 
 front of a popular saloon a placard was recently displayed 
 announcing a wrestling match between a man and a wo- 
 man. A city ordinance makes it a misdemeanor for any 
 dramshop-keeper to employ lewd women as singers and 
 dancers ; but there can be no question as to the character 
 of many of the low variety actresses upon these saloon 
 stages. There is, of course, no official censorship of the 
 stage, and the police dislike to pronounce judgment upon 
 the indecency of a performance which the public sees fit 
 to patronize and encourage. Several years ago, the Wo- 
 man's Christian Temperance Union undertook to suppress 
 six concert saloons, and brought them before the grand 
 jury. An indictment was found, but was quashed, be- 
 cause it did not allege that at certain times the women 
 named did sing and dance in said dramshop, but that they 
 were employed for that purpose. But it is questioned 
 whether any indictment can be framed which will hold, so 
 long as the Avomen are employed under cover of a theatrical 
 license. The police express the belief that conviction is 
 impossible. 
 
 It would seem, however, that the excise commissioner
 
 THE BREWEES' INFLUENCE. 331 
 
 might, if so disposed, in the exercise of the discretionary 
 power, refuse a license to any keeper of a concert saloon 
 or dramshop with private wine-rooms, liable to be used, if 
 not designed to be used, as places of immorality. 
 
 INFLUENCE OF THE BREWING INTERESTS. 
 
 It remains to inquire into the reasons for the non-enforce- 
 ment of the law. In general the public sentiment of the 
 community does not demand and would not sustain its en- 
 forcement. A glance at a map showing the blocks upon 
 which there are licensed dramshops gives a clew to public 
 opinion. 
 
 Large tracts of land within the city limits are in culti- 
 vation as farms, and much which has been platted has not 
 yet been built upon. Besides, there are many blocks upon 
 which there are public buildings, institutions, manufacto- 
 ries, potteries, brick and lumber yards, stone quarries, 
 where there is no place for a saloon. Of the territory cov- 
 ered by the corporation one half is still in an almost purely 
 rural state. Of the other half there is very little free from 
 the immediate vicinity of the saloon, except in the new 
 residence district west of Grand Avenue, where it is kept 
 out by the only effectual device yet invented; namely, a 
 clause in the conveyance forbidding the use of the property 
 for certain purposes, of which this is one. 
 
 The multiplication of dramshops is largely due to the 
 business rivalry between breweries, of which St. Louis 
 has twenty-five or thirty, some of them among the largest 
 in the United States, if not in the world. Three fourths 
 at least of the saloons are indirectly owned and operated 
 by the breweries, which advance the license tax and collect 
 it in installments, by charging eight dollars instead of six 
 dollars a barrel for beer. At this rate, it is necessary to 
 sell 300 barrels a year to make good the advance, not count- 
 ing interest; and the minimum consumption of beer in the
 
 332 THE MISSOURI LOCAL OPTION LAW. 
 
 city would have to be 600,000 barrels, costing $3,600,000 
 at wholesale. But this estimate is much too low. The 
 rate of the ad valorem tax paid by dramshop-keepers as 
 merchants is 25 cents upon the $100. The amount, there- 
 fore, which they admit having expended for liquors of all 
 sorts is nearly $4,000,000. Doubtless it is greatly under- 
 stated, and the greater part of it is for beer, which has 
 with the mass of the people largely replaced the stronger 
 distilled liquors. Before the Brewers' Association was 
 organized the competition was unregulated, and non-paying 
 saloons were maintained in many localities as the result of 
 rivalry between manufacturers, neither of whom would 
 abandon a disputed block or corner to the other. 
 
 But the map furnishes an ocular demonstration of the 
 fact that public sentiment in St. Louis is overwhelmingly 
 in favor of the retail liquor trade. On every one of the 
 shaded blocks a vote has practically been taken and de- 
 cided in favor of the traffic. A vote by petition, confined 
 to tax-payers, is theoretically as fair an expression of opin- 
 ion as it is possible to get. It is the opinion represented 
 upon this map which elects the municipal officers, includ- 
 ing the officers of the courts; and from the community so 
 imbued with liberal views upon the liquor question must 
 come ihe jurors who pass upon alleged violations of the 
 law. The chance for the passage of a prohibitory law, or 
 for its enforcement if enacted, does not seem, under these 
 conditions, to be very promising. An attempt was made, 
 in 1887, to pass a joint resolution in the Missouri legisla- 
 ture requiring the submission to a popular vote of a pro- 
 hibitory amendment to the state Constitution. The resolu- 
 tion was adopted in the House by a vote of 76 to 53; but 
 it was defeated in the Senate, or at least indefinitely post- 
 poned, by 22 to 11. 
 
 The magnitude of the financial interests involved in the 
 issue between the advocates and ojjponents of prohibitory
 
 334 THE MISSOURI LOCAL OPTION LAW. 
 
 legislation is shown in the statistics of the distilling and 
 brewing industries. The latest annual report of the Mer- 
 chants' Exchange contains the following paragraph : — 
 
 "There are now more than twenty-five breweries in the 
 city, which find employment for upwards of 3,700 people, 
 exclusive of travelers, agents, and clerical help, which in 
 the aggregate is probably as large as the actual brewing 
 force, whose yearly earnings in wages exceed $2,500,000. 
 The output exceeds 60,000,000 gallons per annum, just 
 twice as much as the output for 1881, and more than four- 
 times as large as that for 1877." 
 
 The annual product of the breweries is about 2,000,000 
 barrels, of which approximately one half is shipped away 
 and the rest consumed at home. There are also two distil- 
 leries in St. Louis, which in 1893 manufactured 1,763,350 
 gallons. The trade statistics show receipts by river and 
 rail of 113,116, and shipments of 122,065, barrels of whis- 
 key and high wines. These figures would indicate that 
 the home consumption, for all purposes, of whiskeys and 
 high wines approximates one and a half million gallons. 
 Tt is probably not far from the truth to say that in St. 
 Louis, for every gallon of whiskey drunk, the people drink 
 a barrel of beer. 
 
 The estimate of the excise commissioner is that the 
 fixed charges for taxes, rent, wages, etc., are, on an average, 
 $200 per month for each of 2,000 saloons, making in the 
 aggregate $1,800,000 a year, to which he adds $4,200,000 
 for the cost of liquors. Nine millions per annum is in 
 his judgment the lowest estimate of the amount paid out 
 every year in the saloons. Assuming it to be ten millions, 
 and that the present population is 600,000, this would be 
 equivalent to an expenditure per capita of less than five 
 cents per day. An estimate made in this fashion is only 
 approximate. There could on this basis be very little 
 actual drunkenness. The police statistics of arrests for
 
 THE brewers' influence. 335 
 
 public intoxication confirm this inference. The number of 
 arrests in the entire city for the year ending in April, 
 1894, Avas 3,925, of whom 925 were women. The number 
 the same year, for all offenses, was 25,030; so that the 
 arrests for drunkenness did not exceed one sixth of the 
 whole. Ten years ago, with less than half the present 
 population, the arrests for public intoxication were 4,914, 
 of whom 963 were women. The total arrests were 19,- 
 330, so that the arrests for drunkenness were one fourth 
 of the whole. There has been an actual diminution in the 
 amount of public intoxication, and relatively to the popula- 
 tion it has diminished by one half. The improvement 
 among the men is greater than among the women. At the 
 present time, with 600,000 inhabitants, the number arrested 
 for drunkenness daily averages about eight men and three 
 women; and it must be remembered that many of these 
 are habitual drunkards, who figure several times in the 
 returns of a single year. The number of arrests annually 
 for public intoxication averages not more than two to each 
 licensed saloon. But the value of the statistical method 
 in an inquiry into the extent and the results of intemper- 
 ance is at best slight. 
 
 The Brewers' Association is a very considerable power 
 in municipal and state politics. It declares, however, that 
 it has never made a contribution to the campaign fund of 
 any political party, and that such measures as it may have 
 adopted, to prevent the nomination of officers by either 
 party who would make use of their official position to in- 
 jure the brewing business, differ in no respect from similar 
 measures employed by other great corporations whose in- 
 terests are threatened by attacks made upon them, whether 
 in good faith or for purposes of blackmail. In fairnes^s 
 to this association it should be said that it apparently 
 believes itself to be a public benefactor by fighting the 
 battle of fermented against distilled liquors, which is in
 
 336 THE MISSOUKI LOCAL OPTION LAW. 
 
 its judgment a great contribution to the cause of temper- 
 ance. This is no doubt an interested opinion, but it is 
 not for that reason any less sincere. On the other hand, 
 there can be no doubt but politicians dread the opposition 
 of the liquor interest, and are often subservient to it. Its 
 influence, upon the whole, is not favorable to good govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Both the chief of police and the excise commissioner, 
 when asked why a more vigorous enforcement of the law 
 is not attempted by them, replied — and without collusion, 
 being separately interrogated — that the chance of convic- 
 tion in the courts was too remote to make it worth while. 
 The police is legally the guardian of public order rather 
 than of public morals. The general good order in St. 
 Louis deserves special mention, even in the worst locali- 
 ties, by night as well as by day, though the force is admit- 
 tedly too small, and more than half the territory is pa- 
 trolled by mounted men only. Nor is there any general 
 or apparently well-founded suspicion of dishonesty on the 
 part of the police. But the demand for the enforcement 
 of such statutes and ordinances as are directed against 
 immorality and vice, which one would expect to hear from 
 the churches, or from women, or from good citizens irre- 
 spective of sex or creed or party, is not heard. 
 
 Although the law forbids licensing the sale of wine or beet 
 in houses of prostitution, these houses take out a United 
 States liquor license. The police say that they do not keep 
 liquors, but order them from the nearest saloon, and divide 
 the exorbitant profit made upon them with the dramshops. 
 It is true that wires are run from many of these houses 
 into saloons, but they are chiefly used for ordering mixed 
 drinks. There seems to be no doubt that, with few or 
 no exceptions, every house of ill-fame in St. Louis sells 
 beer, and many of them sell champagne. The number of 
 licenses issued by the excise commissioner annually is
 
 GENERAL SUMMAKY. 337 
 
 about 2,000; but the United States commissioner of inter- 
 nal revenue, in reply to an inquiry addressed to him, 
 states that from July 1, 1893, to June 30, 1894, there 
 were issued from his oflSce, for retail liquor-dealers, 3,510 
 licenses, and for retail malt liquor dealers 103 licenses, "all 
 of them within the limits of the city of St. Louis." Here 
 is a fact which ought to enlist public interest, and which 
 demands explanation. 
 
 In Missouri, and especially in St. Louis, the expediency 
 if not the right of prohibition is denied by an overwhelm- 
 ing majority of the voters. In St. Louis the right to 
 vote (by petition, though not at the polls) is conceded to 
 all women who are tax-payers and denied to all men who 
 are not. The sexes are in this regard upon an absolute 
 level before the law. Yet the map shows that the expres- 
 sion of sentiment on the part of the community is not ma- 
 terially modified by this concession. 
 
 But the attempt to control the drink habit by legislation 
 which falls short of prohibition has proved itself to be but 
 a very partial success. This is due possibly to laxity in 
 administration of the law. It would be a mistake to assert, 
 however, that the law accomplishes nothing. It places 
 formidable barriers in the Avay of the unrestricted multipli- 
 cation of tippling-houses; it insures a certain degree of 
 responsibility for their actions on the part of all engaged 
 in the liquor traffic; it puts the business under police sur- 
 veillance and control; and it has the effect of preserving 
 good order, for the most part, even in the lowest class of 
 saloons.
 
 THE OrEEATION OF THE NEW YORK LIQUOR 
 
 TAX LAW. 
 
 EARLIER LEGISLATION. 
 
 From colonial days until 1896, local self-government 
 was the basic principle in New York liquor legislation. 
 The State prescribed the general regulations to govern 
 the traffic, but the right to grant licenses, expend excise 
 moneys, and supervise the sale of intoxicants belonged to 
 the locality. 
 
 Of almost equal antiquity with the principle of local 
 self-government were the other general principles under- 
 lying the liquor legislation for more than two hundred 
 years. The act of 1788, '' to lay a duty of excise on 
 strong waters and for the better regulation of inns and 
 taverns," is said to have "laid the foundation of excise 
 legislation in the State of New York," yet it in no wise 
 departed from the time-honored theories and methods ob- 
 taining during the colonial period, albeit the prohibitive 
 and restrictive features had become more severe. 
 
 Of the subsequent legislation prior to 1885, it is equally 
 true that it embodied nothing essentially new. The many 
 different acts passed reveal only the same regulative and 
 restrictive devices in slightly altered forms. The abortive 
 attempt made in 1845 to introduce local option is the 
 solitary exception. Nearly all acts aimed specifically to 
 suppress certain abuses against which reformers are still 
 contending. 
 
 Once only, and then for a very brief period, the pre- 
 vailing policy of dealing with the liquor question was
 
 EARLIER LEGISLATION. 339 
 
 completely discarded. The act providing for local option, 
 which never became operative yet gave rise later to the 
 pleasant fiction that a local option statute existed, was 
 but the forerunner of a more drastic measure, a full-fledged 
 prohibition law, passed in 1855 and bearing the title, " An 
 act for the prevention of intemperance, pauperism, and 
 crime." Being one of the first fruits of the original pro- 
 hibition movement, and therefore unsupported by a deep- 
 seated public sentiment, the act remained on the statute- 
 book for two years only. The old excise system replaced 
 it, having been recast and fortified by some additions of 
 minor importance. 
 
 From 1857 to 1895, no less than one hundred and 
 twenty-six acts dealing in some manner with the excise 
 question were passed by the legislature. Seventy were 
 of a local character, and of these again about twenty re- 
 lated exclusively to the city of New York. The distri- 
 bution of excise moneys and the granting of licenses were 
 the two subjects given the greatest attention. A large 
 share of the revenue from the traffic was from time to 
 time appropriated for local charitable and educational pur- 
 poses, a policy which, in more than one instance, helped 
 to silence the clamor for further restrictive law. 
 
 When, finally, pursuant to an act of 1892, the laws 
 regulating the liquor traffic were revised and consolidated, 
 the resulting fabric was a patchwork, not without some 
 serious omissions, of acts passed or amended at intervals 
 during a long period of years, and numerous enough to 
 confuse the ordinary mind, the central features of which, 
 nevertheless, had on the whole remained unchanged. A 
 summary of the law of 1892, which was superseded by 
 the present Liquor Tax Law, is given below.
 
 340 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW, 
 THE LAW OF 1892. 
 
 EXCISE COMMISSIONERS. 
 
 In towns, the members of boards of excise were elected 
 by separate ballot for terms of one, two, and three years 
 respectively, no town official or person interested in the 
 sale of liquor being eligible. In cities, the excise com- 
 missioners were appointed by the mayors, unless otherwise 
 provided in the city charter. Full records of the trans- 
 actions of the boards were to be kept open to public in- 
 spection. 
 
 LICENSES. 
 
 A license for the term of one year might be granted 
 only to a person over twenty-one years of age, a citizen 
 of the United States and a resident of the State, of good 
 moral character, who was approved by the board and bene- 
 ficially interested in the business to be licensed. Six 
 classes of licenses were in force, with fixed minimum and 
 maximum fees : — 
 
 1. Hotel license, granted to keepers of hotels or taverns 
 having at least ten bedrooms if in a city, or three if in a 
 town : fee in cities, $30 to $500 ; in towns, $30 to $150. 
 
 2. Saloon liquor license, authorizing the sale of liquors 
 of all kinds for consumption on or oif the premises : fee in 
 cities, $30 to $250 ; in towns, $30 to $150. 
 
 3. Saloon ale or beer license : fee in cities, $30 to $75 ; 
 in towns, $20 to $60. 
 
 4. Storekeepers' license, to sell only for consumption off 
 the premises : fee in cities, $30 to $250 ; in towns, $30 to 
 $150. 
 
 5. Druggists' license, for sale of liquors only on a physi- 
 cian's written prescription : fee, $20. 
 
 6. An additional license, for sale of liquor between the 
 hours of one and five A. m., might be granted to any per- 
 son holding a license to sell for consumption on the pre-
 
 LICENSES. 341 
 
 mises, if it should " appear that public necessity requires 
 that sale be permitted between these hours : " fee, $30 to 
 $150. 
 
 Excise commissioners were simply authorized to issue 
 licenses when satisfied that the applicant Avas a proper 
 person to engage in the tratfic, and not required to do so. 
 When, however, a board denied an application for a hotel 
 license, it was obligatory to file a statement of its reasons 
 for so doing. If a court found that an application had 
 been rejected arbitrarily, it might command the board to 
 issue the license. Transfer and sale of licenses were per- 
 mitted. 
 
 The following causes effected the immediate revocation 
 of licenses : (1) A conviction of a felony during the term 
 of a license ; (2) a conviction for selling adulterated liquors ; 
 (3) a conviction of a storekeeper or druggist for selling for 
 consumption on the premises ; (4) a conviction of a holder 
 of an ale and beer license for having sold spirituous liquors. 
 A board of excise might revoke a license for a number of 
 causes, but a licensee always had the right to a writ of cer- 
 tiorari to review the action of the board. 
 
 Sales were prohibited on Sundays and on week-days be- 
 tween the hours of 1 and 5 a. m., on days of elections or 
 town meetings, and within quarter of a mile of a voting 
 place while the polls were open. It was further prohib- 
 ited to sell to any child under sixteen, intoxicated persons, 
 paupers, habitual drunkards, and to any one to whom the 
 licensee had been forbidden to sell by a written notice 
 from parent, guardian, husband, wife, or child over sixteen, 
 or magistrate, or overseer of the poor. Hotel-keepers were 
 permitted to sell liquor to guests Avith meals, but not in 
 the bar-room. No license was required for sales in quan- 
 tities of five gallons or more for consumption off the pre- 
 mises. 
 
 The excise law of 1892 (known also as the " Tammany
 
 342 OPERATIOX OF NEW YOKK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 law ") is silent on the subject of penalties. Violations 
 were consequently dealt with as misdemeanors under the 
 penal code and fines of varying amounts imposed. Com- 
 plaints by tlie residents of any city or town to the excise 
 board were to be acted on Avithin thirty days. For willful 
 neglect to do so, a commissioner forfeited his office, became 
 guilty of a misdemeanor, and liable to a fine not exceeding 
 $250. 
 
 LOCAL OPTIOJf. 
 
 Section forty-one of the law of 1892 provided as follows : 
 "iSTothing herein except section thirty -one (relating to 
 illegal sales) shall in any manner apply to any town where 
 the majority of voters have voted for, or shall hereafter vote 
 for, local prohibition." Although every general act passed 
 since 1870 embodied a paragraph couched in the above 
 terms, the law prescribed no method of procedure. The 
 assumption of the existence of an act explicitly providing 
 for a vote on local prohibition lacked all foundation in fact. 
 The system of local option developed under the old laws 
 depended entirely on the character and opinions of the 
 men chosen as excise commissioners in the towns. If a 
 majority of a board declared themselves opposed to grant- 
 ing licenses, or were elected because of their opposition, no 
 licenses were issued ; and it was deemed to be the will of 
 the people that local prohibition should prevail. 
 
 THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC UNDER THE LICENSE LAW. 
 
 It is characteristic of the legislation previous to 1896 
 that many of the acts prescribed or circumscribed the 
 duties of excise boards. One may safely say that a ma- 
 jority of the measures intended to effect some kind of re- 
 form took the excise boards as a starting-point. Remedies 
 for their failings and safeguards against their further short- 
 comings were sought in additional legislation. The fact 
 that the actions of a local board of excise are ordinarily
 
 LIQUOR TRAFFIC UNDER THE LICENSE LAW. 343 
 
 determined by the public sentiment behind it, appears to 
 have carried small weight. But the general laws as well 
 as the numerous local acts indicate unmistakably a wide- 
 spread conviction that the administration of the boards 
 and the state of the liquor traffic under the prevailing ex- 
 cise system left much to be desired. There was certainly 
 no lack of facts to justify such a conviction. 
 
 In 1895 the State of New York contained nine hundred 
 and sixty-four boards of excise, representing thirty-seven 
 cities, nine hundred and twenty-five towns, and two vil- 
 lages. To the two thousand eight hundred and ninety- 
 two officials constituting the boards must be added nine 
 hundred and sixty-four attorneys, a still larger number of 
 clerks, and for some cities a multitude of other subordi- 
 nates. Whether appointed or elected, the commissioners 
 usually obtained office through political preferment, and 
 were, therefore, under obligations to serve party ends. 
 While the boards may, on the whole, be said to have 
 carried out the will, whether for good or evil, of the 
 majority who put them in office, it is undeniable that 
 they often failed to consult the temperance interests of 
 their respective communities. To charge such failure 
 solely to bad faith or corruption is to forget the condi- 
 tions under which the excise boards worked, and the na- 
 ture of the law to be administered. The law prescribed 
 the duties of the boards ; but men were called upon to 
 perform them in communities differing profoundly in re- 
 spect to state of advancement, habits, elements of popula- 
 tion, and resulting views on excise matters. Furthermore, 
 the law was so elastic as to allow either a lenient or a strict 
 policy. In cities, the excise boards could limit or extend 
 the number of licenses at will and classify them somewhat 
 arbitrarily ; in towns, they might lawfully consider it a 
 duty not to issue any ; the margin between the minimum 
 and maximum fees left a liberal choice ; and in the general
 
 344 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW 
 
 supervision of the traffic they had power to befriend or 
 oppose its interests in a substantial manner while keep- 
 ing pretty well within the letter of the law. 
 
 As the natural outcome of these conditions, as well as 
 of the infinite variety of opinions and prejudices within 
 the local boards, the laws were often peculiarly adminis- 
 tered, sometimes not at all, and never to the satisfaction 
 of both the trade and the temperance advocates. It has 
 been officially stated that in 1896 eleven towns were with- 
 out excise boards, yet permitted the sale of intoxicants to 
 go on. In some towns, the board accepted much less than 
 the statutory fees ; in others, as it appears from their 
 records, fees varying greatly in amount were exacted from 
 dealers situated precisely alike ; and in still others it was 
 tacitly understood that no fees need be paid. A frequent 
 practice was to charge a full annual fee for a license to 
 run less than a year. With some boards, the applicant's 
 political creed and party services would weigh more than 
 his obedience to the law and compliance with its require- 
 ments. It is not demonstrable that the elected boards 
 were superior to the appointed. On the other hand, the 
 most glaring irregularities have been officially charged 
 against elective boards in small cities and towns, such, for 
 instance, as issuing licenses on the installment plan, or 
 giving credit for the whole amount due in fees. In the 
 chief cities the boards, whatever their shortcomings, ob- 
 served at least the formalities of the law. 
 
 An obvious evil was the mvdtiplication of saloons. In 
 many sections of the State, their number had for years ex- 
 ceeded all " legitimate demands " in the most liberal sense 
 of this term. And, contrary to popular notions, the in- 
 crease of drinking places was far from being a feature 
 peculiar to the great cities of New York and Brooklyn. 
 In the month of April, 1887, there were more inhabitants 
 to each liquor license in these two cities than in twenty
 
 THE MULTIPLICATION OF SALOONS. 345 
 
 other cities and thirteen towns. This excessive miiltipli- 
 cation of drink-shops had been going on for years, and 
 was made possible only by the prevailing custom of fixing 
 the license fee at the lowest legal rate. The producers 
 of licjuors had increased much in the same ratio as the 
 retailers, and were competing fiercely for trade. A man 
 without capital, provided he was of the right sort, found 
 little difficulty in obtaining aid to pay the low fee and set 
 up as a saloon-keeper. 
 
 The- increase of the saloons in proportion to population 
 seems to have attained its maximum about 1887. The 
 changes observable since that date were in a few instances 
 due to the direct intervention of excise boards. In gen- 
 eral, the traffic appears to have reached a point beyond 
 which it could not expand ; and a natural reaction set in 
 slowly but perceptibly. The following table shows the pro- 
 portion of population to licenses for a number of cities and 
 towns in 1887, and again in 1895-96. It must be noted 
 that the available statistics do not afford a perfectly accu- 
 rate comparison. For the year 1887 it has been necessary 
 to take the number of licenses in force in a given month, 
 but in 1895-6 the total number of licenses issued, which is 
 always considerably in excess of the number in force at any 
 one time. The increase of inhabitants to each license was, 
 therefore, greater than is indicated by the table. 
 
 Cities. 
 Inhabitants to each license. 
 
 
 1887 
 
 1895-6 
 
 
 1887 
 
 1895-6 
 
 Buffalo 
 
 72 
 
 115 
 
 Lockport 
 
 110 
 
 153 
 
 Utica 
 
 78 
 
 102 
 
 Rochester 
 
 112 
 
 216 
 
 Long Island City 
 
 85 
 
 100 
 
 Rome 
 
 113 
 
 128 
 
 Syracuse 
 
 86 
 
 130 
 
 Kingston 
 
 114 
 
 117 
 
 lludson 
 
 87 
 
 86 
 
 Colioes 
 
 117 
 
 111 
 
 Dunkirk 
 
 94 
 
 137 
 
 Oswego 
 
 124 
 
 144 
 
 Troy 
 
 98 
 
 117 
 
 Biiighamton 
 
 128 
 
 206 
 
 Albany 
 
 100 
 
 130 
 
 Glean 
 
 50 
 
 132 
 
 Newburgh 
 
 101 
 
 146 
 
 Auburn 
 
 137 
 
 161 
 
 Elmira 
 
 104 
 
 109 
 
 New York 
 
 138 
 
 202 
 
 Yonkers 
 
 105 
 
 151 
 
 Brooklyn 
 
 188 
 
 203 
 
 Schenectady 
 
 106 
 
 142 
 
 

 
 346 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW, 
 
 
 
 Towns. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Inhabitants to each license. 
 
 
 
 
 1887 
 
 1895-6 
 
 1887 
 
 1895-6 
 
 Saratoga Springs 
 
 56 
 
 50 
 
 Coxsackie 
 
 118 
 
 57 
 
 * Fond a 
 
 67 
 
 
 Lyons 
 
 119 
 
 93 
 
 Corning 
 
 88 
 
 149 
 
 *janiaica 
 
 122 
 
 
 Batavia 
 
 95 
 
 93 
 
 Hornellsville 
 
 134 
 
 138 
 
 Geneva 
 
 97 
 
 117 
 
 Saugerties 
 
 135 
 
 58 
 
 CatskiU 
 
 102 
 
 84 
 
 Cazenovia 
 
 137 
 
 137 
 
 *Green Island 
 
 104 
 
 
 Ithaca 
 
 137 
 
 249 
 
 * Number of licenses for 1895-96 not known. 
 
 The table makes it plain that comparatively few excise 
 boards used their discretionary power in issuing licenses so 
 as to diminish the number of saloons. A notable stand in 
 this respect was taken by the New York city board in 
 1887 when it adopted the locally famous "surrender" rule: 
 "The board of excise will not permit any increase. in the 
 number of saloons beyond the number now licensed ; and a 
 license will not be issued for a new place except on the 
 closing of an existing place and the surrender of the license 
 thereof." With a reasonable discrimination in favor of 
 hotels and restaurants serving food with drinks, this rule 
 continued in force ; and the last board expanded it by de- 
 manding the surrender of two old licenses before issuing 
 one for a new place, thus adding materially to the fee. 
 During the nine years following, not a single new saloon 
 was added to the existing ones, notwithstanding the in- 
 crease in population. Yet whatever good a board achieved 
 seems to have been accomplished under a great counter- 
 pressure ; for when a particularly obnoxious rascal had 
 been denied a license, this performance of an obvious duty 
 was considered sufficient cause for public congratulation. 
 But, besides being overdone, the liquor traffic had fallen 
 into particularly evil ways. The blame has commonly been 
 laid at the door of the excise boards, the commissioners 
 being convenient scapegoats. No doubt the boards were in 
 some, perhaps in numerous, instances much tainted by cor-
 
 EESPONSIBILITY OF THE EXCISE BOAKDS. 347 
 
 ruption, and given to practices more or less objectionable. 
 Their very existence served to bring the liquor question to 
 the fore in politics, and called for united action on the part 
 of the trade in city and town elections. But the boards 
 could not rise above their source of power. At bottom the 
 trouble lay with the people, not with their servants, and 
 with the social conditions that made possible the prevailing 
 sort of political master. Furthermore, the law was inade- 
 quate in important respects. It did not provide a self- 
 operative check on the increase of saloons ; it conferred 
 unusual discretionary power where such power was most 
 likely to be abused ; and it failed to recognize the irrepres- 
 sible demands in the large centres. The most unpopular 
 feature in the law was the provision against Sunday selling, 
 and it was the one most flagrantly violated, not only in New 
 York city, but more or less in nearly all cities and many 
 towns. It is a fair question how far this intensely disliked 
 clause relative to Sunday selling sufficed to bring the whole 
 law into contempt, and thus became the innocent source of 
 much of the corruption and other evils attendant upon its 
 non-enforcement. One may well believe this clause to 
 have been fateful. At any rate it is significant that, when 
 through extraordinary exertions Sunday sales were stopped 
 in New York city for a time, the general subjection of the 
 liquor dealers to the law was considered achieved. 
 
 There is no need of enlarging on the familiar facts con- 
 cerning the evils that had crept in under the old regime, — 
 the blackmailing of the trade, the dives that flourished, 
 the prevalence of drunkenness, and so forth. In varying 
 degrees the same evils had sprung up elsewhere. The 
 points to be emphasized are, that liquor laws were held in 
 contempt and not enforced, and that, when the spasmodic 
 efforts at enforcement were attended by some apparent suc- 
 cess, the punitive provisions of the law remained largely 
 inoperative. Magistrates were singularly kind to offenders,
 
 348 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 excise cases were pigeon-holed by the hundreds in the offices 
 of district attorneys, and juries refused to convict. 
 
 The operation of the system of local option which devel- 
 oped under the old excise laws deserves brief mention. 
 The available data are from 1894, and cover about 90 per 
 cent, of all the towns in the State. Of the 847 towns 
 accounted for, 291 elected excise boards with the tacit 
 understanding that they should refuse to grant licenses. 
 In addition, 158 towns granted licenses which Avere for- 
 merly no-license towns. It may thus be inferred that, at 
 some period during the preceding twenty-five or thirty 
 years, more than one half of the towns accounted for had 
 been, or were in 1894, no-license towns. In many towns, 
 license and no-license alternated from year to year ; in 
 many others, the period of dryness lasted from one to three 
 years ; and in not a few the no-license policy had prevailed 
 from five to forty, and in one instance for fifty, years. In 
 some counties no-license towns showed a remarkable pre- 
 ponderance. In Allegheny County, for instance, of twenty- 
 nine towns reporting, twenty-two were without license. In 
 Broome County there were ten no-license to four license 
 towns, and so on. 
 
 Naturally, the no-license system obtained for the greater 
 part in sparsely settled rural communities, where the demand 
 for saloons was smallest. Concerning the enforcement of 
 the no-license system and its general results, the information 
 is vague. There was, however, this notable diff'erence be- 
 tween New York and other States with local option laws : 
 in the former the agitation for and vote upon the question 
 have rarely proved disturbing elements in local campaigns ; 
 annual political upheavals on account of the liquor ques- 
 tion were practically unknown. But it did unfortunately 
 happen that excise commissioners forgot their ante-election 
 pledges, and licensed saloons.
 
 ENACTMENT OF THE LAW. 349 
 
 ENACTMENT OF THE LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 The unsatisfactory state of tlie liquor traffic under the 
 excise laws had long given thoughtful men concern. But 
 for various reasons, mainly political, the reform measures 
 submitted to the legislature had all been rejected. Through 
 a series of events, the public mind was at last fairly roused 
 on the excise question, and in a manner which had a direct 
 bearing on the subsequent legislation. 
 
 In the early part of 1894 the Lexow Investigating Com- 
 mittee began to throw its searchlight on the corruption in 
 New York city, laying bare, among other things, the vio- 
 lation of the excise laws, and the collusion of the dealers 
 with the police which made sucli abuses possible. In- 
 spired by fear, — for no one knew where the lightning 
 would strike next, — the police began a crusade against the 
 liquor dealers. The excise arrests for the year reached the 
 astounding figure of 8,422 as against 3,999 in 1893, of 
 which 5,974 were for Sunday violations ; and convictions 
 in magistrates' courts became frequent beyond precedent. 
 Under the " reform administration " which sprang from the 
 political revolution of 1894, the warfare against the liquor 
 dealers continued more rigorously than ever ; and, so long 
 as the offenders were dealt with in the newly constituted 
 Court of Special Sessions, punishment was meted out with- 
 out fear or favor. So strenuous was the crusade of the 
 police, which continued to be directed mainly against Sun- 
 day selling, that men gravely questioned how long the force 
 could endure the terrific strain under which it was working. 
 Although this movement for Sunday closing, which was 
 followed by one on a smaller scale in Brooklyn, did not 
 extend to other cities, where, as before, the " family en- 
 trance " remained open, it provoked an agitation and discus- 
 sion that spread far beyond the confines of the Greater 
 New York.
 
 350 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 The question of excise laws had come to be more dis- 
 turbing than all others. It was agitated in the press and 
 public meetings, and gave rise to unusual demonstrations. 
 The discussion did not revolve around any specific panacea 
 for the existing ills, such as prohibition, high license, and 
 the like. The real issue was whether the liquor traffic 
 should continue to be governed by laws which local public 
 sentiment refused to support ; and the sum of the conten- 
 tion of the liquor dealers was that their business, since it 
 supplied a public want and necessity, should not be bur- 
 dened by a legislation which had proved itself obnoxious to 
 most people and had long been a dead letter. They were 
 ably supported by a part of the press ; and a large body of 
 citizens, including some of the most prominent men, en- 
 couraged the agitation in favor of changing the Sunday 
 laws so that the inhabitants of the large cities could quench 
 their thirst without inviting the dealers to break the law. 
 
 Such was the situation when the Kepublican State Con- 
 vention met in 1895. The excise question in the form 
 described was the ugliest one it had to face. Some years 
 earlier the Republican party had pledged itself to excise 
 reform, but then it was not in power, and the Sunday issue 
 was not paramount. For obvious reasons the leaders were 
 prepared to ignore the whole matter. Since the party mus- 
 tered its majorities from communities strongly in favor of 
 retaining all Sunday laws, it was impossible to adopt a 
 plank favorable to the liquor dealers. On the other hand, 
 to come out squarely against any changes in the excise law 
 might alienate the party vote in the large cities. It seemed 
 most convenient to dodge the whole issue. And this 
 would have been the upshot but for the insistence of one 
 man, who forced the convention to declare that the main- 
 tenance of the Sunday laws was necessary " in the interests 
 of labor and morality." This not very explicit recognition 
 of the burning excise question was all the convention ven-
 
 ENACTMENT OF THE LAW. 351 
 
 tured upon. Yet it was enough to frighten the Kepubli- 
 cans in New York city, who tried to undo the mischief 
 through the adoption of a resolution by the county com- 
 mittee which " said nothing, meant everything, and lost the 
 county." The ditierence of opinion on excise matters be- 
 tween the city and county Republicans had thus precluded 
 a harmonious declaration by the convention. But, through 
 the magic of a triumph at the polls in the subsequent elec- 
 tion, the country Republicans found themselves masters of 
 the situation, and enabled to deal with the vexing problem 
 in their own way. Accordingly, the governor recommended 
 in his message that the " legislature endeavor to formulate 
 a law which shall, as far as practicable, embody the best 
 features of the liquor laws now in successful operation in 
 various States, with a consistent aim toward the reduction 
 of the number of saloons in this State." Knowing that 
 they would be in absolute control of the legislature, the 
 Republicans had prepared for the emergency weeks in ad- 
 vance, and at a nearly moment presented the first crude 
 draft of what since has become famous as the Raines law. 
 
 A summary of this law in its present amended form is 
 given elsewhere. Its essential features, as contained in 
 the first draft, have been retained. They were, the re- 
 placement of all boards of excise by a State Commissioner 
 of Excise, appointed by the governor ; a tax on each place 
 where liquor was to be sold, graded according to popula- 
 tion, but much higher in all cases than the maximum of 
 the license fees ; and a division of the fees between the 
 State and the localities. 
 
 That the bill, however much the work of one man, had 
 the cordial approval and consent of the " boss " of the 
 Republican '' machine " is beyond doubt. Its author 
 publicly vouched for this fact. 
 
 The prominence given to the tax provisions would mark 
 it as a measure of the dominant Republican faction, i| other
 
 352 OPEEATION OF NEW YOKK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 evidence were wanting. There was a deficit in the state 
 treasury, and the governor had felt called upon to warn 
 the legislature in a special message against reckless appro- 
 priations. The party was pledged to legislation which 
 would lower the taxes. Furthermore, the liquor tax bill 
 was in accordance with the Republican policy of raising 
 revenue by other means than direct taxation. Originally 
 the bill provided that the liquor tax should be divided 
 equally between the State and locality, whereas formerly 
 the latter had absorbed all the license fees. It was an 
 easy matter to calculate that, under the tax rates established 
 by the bill, vast sums would be turned into the state trea- 
 sury every year, and that more than a proportionate share 
 would be contributed by the cities where the tax rate 
 would be highest. This was intended to please the rural 
 members, whose not over-friendly attitude toward the cities 
 is almost proverbial, and make them forget that the bill 
 in its first form omitted all reference to Sunday selling. 
 
 Nearly all the members of the Senate Committee on 
 Taxation and Retrenchment, to which the bill was referred, 
 came from the smaller towns. A number of other bills 
 relating to excise had been referred to the same committee, 
 notably one providing for local option on the question of 
 Sunday selling in the cities of New York, Brooklyn, and 
 Buffalo, accompanied by a petition signed by 150,000 in- 
 habitants of New York. Although this measure had a 
 strong backing, and much pressure was brought to bear 
 in its favor, it was intolerable from a party point of view. 
 
 Soon it became evident that the machine programme 
 was to pass the Raines bill with all possible speed. But 
 this appears to have been a more formidable task than 
 was anticipated. Republicans from the cities felt that 
 to vote for a bill so sweeping in its changes, which 
 abolished the cherished home-rule privileges, and aimed 
 to lighten the rural burden of taxation at the expense of
 
 ENACTMENT OF THE LAW. 353 
 
 the cities, was for them to invite political suicide. They 
 had to be appeased in a measure by amendments, such as 
 the one changing the State's share of the liquor money 
 from one half to one third. There was a storm of opposi- 
 tion to the whole scheme, threatening enough all over the 
 State to make even some rural legislators faint-hearted. 
 The keynote in the discussion of the bill outside the 
 legislature was, What is the real purpose of the measure ? 
 It was observed that, when a considerable opposition de- 
 veloped among the senators, the feature of the bill particu- 
 larly urged by its author as a reason for passage was its 
 revenue-producing qualities. No plea was made on the 
 ground of its supposed moral effects. In fact, temperance 
 talk was conspicuously absent from the debate. Perhaps 
 for this reason some religious bodies were led to condemn 
 the whole bill in advance, and to express emphatic distrust 
 of its honesty of purpose. 
 
 When first introduced, it was loudly proclaimed as one 
 of the primary objects of the bill to take the liquor ques- 
 tion out of politics, the leaders of both houses repeatedly 
 avowing their intention to pass a measure which would 
 accomplish this great end. But the amendments adopted 
 seemed to the objectors to belie this intention. More 
 elaborate state machinery for executing the law had been 
 devised. There was, for instance, a provision for the ap- 
 pointment of sixty confidential agents, hence not, it was 
 conjectured, to be subject to a competitive civil service 
 examination. Plainly, the bill afforded a large patronage 
 to the ruling party, the annual outlay for salaries- alone 
 being estimated at $250,000. These and other facts were 
 urged to show that the bill would have the effect of mak- 
 ing the liquor question the most important if not the 
 dominant element in state politics. Tlie powers conferred 
 upon officers were held to be excessive and arbitrary, and 
 to afford unlimited possibilities for blackmail and corrup-
 
 354 OPERATION OF NEW YOKK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 tion, and therefore more dangerous than the discretionary 
 powers held by excise boards. At the outset some of the 
 most enlightened men in the community expressed views 
 like the above, but later found occasion to modify them. 
 And subsequent events have shown that some of the ad- 
 vance alarm was needless, not because the intentions of the 
 bill were wholly misjudged, but because, through accidents, 
 some of them could not be carried out. 
 
 It seems beyond doubt that the bill, not incidentally 
 but avowedly and of set purpose, created a political en- 
 gine, while at the same time mildly endeavoring to con- 
 ciliate the moral sentiment of the State. By substituting 
 state for local control, the Kepublican machine had no- 
 thing to lose but everything to gain ; for there was no inten- 
 tion of effecting any real change in the rural districts, 
 except that they would now be taxed from Albany. The 
 excise boards had proved strong and awkward factors in 
 politics. As a rule the Democrats controlled them in the 
 large cities. But, even if in Republican hands, their sub- 
 serviency to the machine could not be taken for granted. 
 Here w^as an opportunity to abolish them all, and substi- 
 tute a political adjunct which could be absolutely con- 
 trolled, and which through patronage, if not in a more 
 direct manner, would add to the party strength at weak 
 points. Above all, a telling blow would be dealt the 
 Democratic party, which was supposed to get much of its 
 support through the local excise boards. The latter had 
 not so commended themselves to public favor that a dan- 
 gerous agitation for their retention was anticipated. Nor 
 was the cry for home rule likely to be stronger than the 
 desire to replenish an empty treasury without imposing a 
 perceptible burden. And, in the future, a long purse for 
 appropriations would help to justify the machine rule. 
 On the other hand, the bill involved antagonism to the 
 organized trade. But its advocates said, with true pro-
 
 ENACTMENT OF THE LAW. 355 
 
 phetic instinct, that this would disappear when the new 
 provisions came to be better understood. To be sure, 
 those interested in the liquor traffic were generally of 
 another political creed ; and perhaps few were sanguine 
 enough to believe that they could be driven to forsake 
 their faith en masse. But might it not work a political 
 disintegration in their ranks to discover that their own 
 party could no longer extend local favors through excise 
 boards ? Besides, those of the trade who adhered to the 
 Republican machine could now be brought to the fore to 
 great advantage, and a whip might be cracked over the 
 heads of the others as occasion required. 
 
 It should also be borne in mind that, while the Raines 
 bill was pending, the " machine " made strenuous efforts 
 to "jam through" the Greater New York bill. That a 
 piece of legislation fraught with such stupendous changes, 
 and involving such political possibilities, should have been 
 advocated by the same men who favored the liquor tax 
 law seems explicable only on the ground that they hoped 
 to weaken their foes, and add elements of strength to their 
 own party, through this new machine of their creation. 
 
 The fury of opposition to the bill was successfully with- 
 stood. Nevertheless, on the night of March 21, 1896, 
 when the bill came up for the last time, something like 
 a stampede threatened. It was only by locking the doors, 
 to prevent any Assemblyman from escaping, that the attend- 
 ance of the necessary number was secured, and the bill 
 was finally passed by a vote of eighty-four to fifty-nine. 
 The governor signed it a few weeks later, after having 
 given several hearings to protesting delegations, prominent 
 among which were sixteen mayors of cities.
 
 356 OPEEATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 SUMMARY OF THE NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW 
 OF 1896 AS AMENDED IN 1897. 
 
 T7ie princijjal amendments are designated hy italics. 
 
 EXCISE OFFICIALS. 
 
 The old boards of excise are superseded by a state com- 
 missioner of excise, appointed by the governor, with the 
 advice and consent of the Senate, to hold office for five 
 years at a salary of $5,000 a year, to which is added the 
 sum of $1,800 for expenses. He is under a bond of $20,000 
 for the faithful performance of his duties. The state 
 conimissioner is required to make an annual report to 
 the legislature on the transactions of his office, " tvhich 
 shall contain such statements, facts, and explanations as 
 ivill disclose the actual ivorkings of the liquor tax law 
 in its bear'ings upon the welfare of the State, . . . and 
 such amendments of this law as the commissioner shall 
 deem appropriated It is the duty of the state commis- 
 sioner to appoint, — 
 
 1. A deputy commissioner, at a salary of $4,000 a year, 
 who must give bond in the sum of $20,000 ; a secretary, 
 a financial clerk, and the other clerical force needed in his 
 office. 2. A special deputy commissioner in each county hav- 
 ing a city of the first class, to hold office during his pleasure. 
 Such counties are at present New York, Kings, and Erie. 
 The amount of the bonds to be furnished by the special 
 deputies is fixed by the state commissioner. He has also 
 the appointment of the clerical force needed by the sub- 
 officers and prescribes their duties. 3. Special agents to 
 the number of sixty, at a salary of $1,200 each per annum. 
 The special agents are deemed the confidential agents of 
 the state commissioner, and shall, under his direction and 
 as required by him, investigate all matters relating to liquor 
 taxes and the enforcement of the various provisions of the
 
 CLASSIFICATION — TAX CERTIFICATES. 357 
 
 law. The agent may enter any place where liquor is sold, 
 for the purpose of investigation, and must make complaints 
 of violations of the law under the penalty provided for 
 neglect by public officers in this respect (a fine of $500). 
 4. Attorneys to represent him or act with him or his sub- 
 ordinates in legal matters arising in connection with the 
 liquor tax law. All officers ajjpointed by the state com- 
 inissioner may he removed by him. 
 
 CLASSIFICATION OF CITIES AND TOWNS. 
 
 For the purpose of grading the taxes on liquor selling 
 according to the population of the place in which the busi- 
 ness is to be carried on, the following classification has 
 been adopted : First class, a city of 1,500,000 ; second 
 class, a city having less than 1,500,000 but more than 
 500,000 ; third class, a city having less than 500,000 but 
 more than 50,000 ; fourth class, a city or village having 
 less than 50,000 but more than 10,000 ; fifth class, a city 
 or village having less than 10,000 but more than 5,000 ; 
 sixth class, a village having less than 5,000 but more than 
 1,200 ; seventh class, all other places. 
 
 GRADES OF LIQUOR TAX CERTIFICATES. 
 
 1. For the retail traffic in liquor to be drunk on the 
 premises, whether in a hotel, restaurant, saloon, store, etc., 
 tax rate : First class, $800 ; second, $650 ; third, $500 ; 
 fourth, $350; fifth, $300; sixth, $200; seventh, $100. 
 
 2. For the sale of liquor in quantities of not less than 
 five gallons, not to be drunk on the premises, tax rate: 
 First class, $500 ; second, $400 ; .third, $300 ; fourth, 
 $200 ; fifth, $100 ; sixth, $75 ; seventh, $50. 
 
 3. For the sale of liquors by a duly licensed pharmacist, 
 not to be drunk on the premises, tax rate, $5.00. 
 
 4. For the sale of liquors on steamboats, vessels, and 
 cars, at retail, tax rate, $200 for each car, steamboat, 
 vessel, etc., on which the traffic is carried on.
 
 358 OPEKATION OF NEW YOEK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 5. For the delivery of malt liquors from vehicles. 
 The holder of a tax certificate for the sale of liquors i?i 
 quantities of less than five gallons, toho is engaged in 
 the business of bottling malt liquors, and wishes to sell 
 them, at any other place than the one mentioned in the 
 tax certificate, may sell or deliver malt liquors from a 
 vehicle in quantities of less than five gallons, but not less 
 than three at a time, on paying a tax of $100 for each 
 vehicle so emjiloyed. The tax certificate must at all 
 times be carried with such vehicle or be posted on it. 
 
 6. For the sale of alcohol in quantities of less than 
 five gallons only, betiveen the hours of seven A. m. and 
 seven p. m., on any day except Sunday, for mechanical, 
 medicinal, or scientific j^^t^poses, by dealers who are not 
 engaged in the sale of liquor of any other kind, tax rate : 
 First class, $25 ; second, $20 ; third, $15 ; fourth, $10 ; 
 all others, $5. 
 
 RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE 
 GRANTING OF LIQUOR TAX CERTIFICATES. 
 
 Debarred from receiving such certificates are persons 
 who have been convicted of a felony, or who knoivingly 
 have a persoti so convicted in their employ ; minors, 
 aliens, and non-residents of the State ; corporations or asso- 
 ciations incorporated or organized under the laws of an- 
 other State, except when acting as common carriers ; a 
 copartnership, when not at least one half of the interest 
 in it is owned by a resident citizen ; a corporation, associa- 
 tion, copartnership, or person or agent who has been con- 
 victed for a violation of this act, until five years from the 
 date of such conviction ; a corporation (club) trafficking 
 in liquors with any person other than the m^embers 
 thereof ; persons engaged in any business contrary to the 
 laws of the State. 
 
 A liquor tax certificate of the first grade may not be 
 granted, —
 
 EESTRICTIONS AND KEGULATIONS. 359 
 
 1. To a person engaged in the business of selling grocer- 
 ies, or dry goods or provisions, or drugs as a pharmacist, 
 unless it be to carry on the traffic in liquors at some other 
 building, or, if in the same building, then only in a room 
 which is separated by liartitions at least three inches 
 thick, with no means of covimunication between it and 
 the rooms where the other business is carried on, so that 
 it is necessary to go into a irnblic street before the place 
 can be entered upon leaving the other. 
 
 2. For any building or place which is on the same high- 
 way and within two hundred feet of a building occupied 
 exclusively as a church or schoolhouse, except for pre- 
 mises occupied as hotels or saloons under the law of March 
 23, 1896, and to bona fide clubs, or a place within such 
 limit to ivhich a club may remove. 
 
 Trafficking in liquors is further prohibited in any 
 form, upon or from any vehicle ivhich does not have a 
 special liquor tax certificate ; and in any penal or other 
 institution of a public character, or within half a mile of 
 such institution, except a county or state prison. 
 
 All persons liable for a tax under the law, except com- 
 mon carriers and applicants for a bottler's certificate, must 
 submit a signed and sworn statement to the county trea- 
 surer or special deputy commissioner, in which shall be 
 stated : — 
 
 The name and residence of the applicant, and the facts 
 as to his citizensliip ; the premises where the business is 
 to be carried on, and the specific location of the bar at 
 which liquor is to be sold ; the kind of traffic to be en- 
 gaged in, and what other business, if any, in connection 
 therewith, or in the room adjoining, is carried on by the 
 applicant or any other person ; that the applicant has not 
 been convicted of a felony, has not had a license revoked 
 under former laws, nor been convicted of a violation of 
 the present act within five years prior to the date of
 
 360 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 ajjjdication ; and that he is not interested in any unlaw- 
 ful traffic or occupation. 
 
 If the applicant intends to sell liquor in a hotel, he 
 must show that all the requirements of the law relating 
 to hotel-keejjing have been complied with. Unless liquors 
 were lawfully sold on the premises described in the state- 
 ment when the present law went into effect, a consent in 
 writing executed by the owner of the premises or his agent 
 must be filed with the application. A similar rule applies 
 to buildings which are public property. 
 
 When the nearest entrance to the place where liquors 
 are to be sold is within two hundred feet of the nearest 
 building or buildings occupied exclusively as dwellings, the 
 consent in writing of the owners of at least two thirds of 
 such buildings must be obtained. If the premises were 
 used for saloon jjurjjoses, or occupied as a hotel, with or 
 without a bar, at the time this law went into effect, no 
 such consent is required. 
 
 BONDS. 
 
 Each corporation, association, copartnership, or person 
 taxed must furnish bonds in the penal sum of twice the 
 amount of tax for one year upon the kind of liquor traffic 
 carried on, but in no case for less than $500, conditioned 
 that the applicant will not permit any gambling or dis- 
 order, nor violate the law in any Avay, and that all fines, 
 penalties, and judgments will be paid. Two sureties are 
 required, or the bond may be issued by a corporation duly 
 authorized to do so under the laws of the State. 
 
 ISSUING TAX CERTIFICATES. 
 
 When the application is found to be correct in form, 
 and " does not show on the face thereof that the appli- 
 cant is prohibited from trafficking in liquors " under the 
 section of the law under which he applies, " nor at the
 
 TRANSFER OF TAX CERTIFICATES. 361 
 
 place where the traffic is to be carried on," and when the 
 bond is found to be in order, then, upon the payment of 
 the taxes, the proper authorities " shall at once prepare 
 and issue a liquor tax certificate." The certificates must 
 be so displayed as to be visible from the street. 
 
 SUEREXDEB, TRANSFER, AND SALE OF TAX CERTIFI- 
 CATES. 
 
 Elaborate provisions are made for the payment of re- 
 bates in case a liquor tax certificate, which has at least 
 another month to run, be voluntarily surrendered by a 
 "person a r/aifist whoni there is no complaint or action for 
 violation of the law, except holders of certificates of grades 
 three, five, and six. On the death of the original holder, 
 a liquor tax certificate may be surrendered in the same 
 manner, or the business be continued by the estate. 
 
 Holders of liquor tax certificates may transfer their busi- 
 ness to another locality in the same city or town upon 
 filing a new application and bond. The sale of liquor tax 
 certificates for the unexpired terms thereof is restricted to 
 grades one, two, and four, but requires in all cases the con- 
 sent of the official who issued it, or of his successors. Such 
 sale, however, is 7iot permitted if the holder is under 
 indictment for violation of the laiv, or if a complaint 
 under oath is pending against him. The fee for legaliz- 
 ing such sales is $10, to be apportioned and accounted for 
 as taxes. If an official refuse to issue or transfer a liquor 
 certificate, the applicant has the right to a writ of certio- 
 rari to review the action of such officer. 
 
 REVOKING TAX CERTIFICATES. 
 
 At any time after a liquor tax certificate has been 
 granted, any citizen of the State may present a verified 
 petition to a justice of the Supreme Court for an order 
 revoking and canceling such certificate upon the ground
 
 362 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 that material statements in the application of the holder of 
 the certificate were false, or that for any reason he is not 
 entitled to hold it. The order grantmff the hearing of 
 the petition must contain an injunction restraining the 
 holder from transferring or surrendering his certificate 
 until the case is disposed of 
 
 RESTRICTIONS GOVERNING THE SALE OF LIQUOR. 
 
 It is prohibited to sell, deliver, or give away liquors to 
 any minor under the age of eighteen, and to such minor for 
 any other person ; to habitual drunkards ; to an Indian ; 
 to a person to whom a dealer may be forbidden to sell by 
 notice in writing from the parent, guardian, husband, wife, 
 or child of such person over sixteen years of age, or by a 
 magistrate or overseer of the poor of the town, but the lat- 
 ter only in case the person in question is wholly or partly a 
 charge upon the town ; to any person committed to a pub- 
 lic institution, except on the prescription of a physician to 
 such an institution. It is further unlawful for one who 
 has not paid the tax to sell or give away any liquors in any 
 quantity less than five gallons, or, without having paid 
 such tax, to sell or give away liquors in any quantity any 
 part of which is to be drunk on the premises. 
 
 It is prohibited to sell liquor on Sunday, or before five 
 o'clock A. M. Monday ; on any other day between one and 
 five A. M. ; on election days, within quarter of a mile of 
 any voting place while the polls are open ; to sell adulter- 
 ated liquors ; to permit any girl or woman, not a member 
 of the dealer's family, or any person who has been con- 
 victed of a felony, to sell or serve any liquor on the pre- 
 mises. During the hours when sale is prohibited, the doors 
 must be kept locked, and no person, who is not a member 
 of the dealer's family or in his employ, may be admitted. 
 During the hours when tlie sale of liquors is forbidden, any 
 obstruction to a full view of the bar from the sidewalk is
 
 RESTRICTIONS GOVERNING SALE. 363 
 
 prohibited, and it is unlmvful at any time to have an 
 inclosed box or stall which ijrevents a full view of the 
 room by every jyerson present. 
 
 A person residing in a town where local prohibition 
 obtains is not permitted to take orders for the delivery of 
 liquor to any person residing in the same town. Local 
 prohibition does not, however, prevent manufacturers of 
 liquor from, legally selling in quantities of five gallons or 
 Tnore for delivery outside the town. 
 
 The necessary exceptions are made to allow a holder of a 
 pharmacist's liquor tax certificate to sell on prescription 
 during the prohibited hours. 
 
 The holder of a liquor tax certificate of the first grade, 
 who keeps a hotel, may sell liquor to his guests with their 
 meals, or in their rooms, on Sundays as well as week-days, 
 except between the hours of 1 and 5 A. m., but not in the 
 bar-room. The term " hotel " is defined as a building reg- 
 ularly used and kept open for the feeding and lodging of. 
 guests, where all who conduct themselves properly and are 
 able to pay, for their entertainment are received if there 
 he accommodations for them, and who, without any stip- 
 ulated engagement as to the duration of their stay or rate 
 of compensation, are supplied xvith their meals, lodging, 
 refreshment, etc., and in which the only other dwellers 
 shall be the family and servants of the hotel-keeper. 
 
 A hotel, if located in a city, incorporated village of 1,200 
 or more inhabitants, or within two miles of the corporate 
 limits of either, must conform to all laws and ordinances 
 relating to hotels and hotel-keepers. The building must 
 contain at least ten bedrooms above the basement, exclusive 
 of those occupied by the family and servants, all rooms 
 being separated by a partition at least three inches thick, 
 with independent access to a hallway. Each room must 
 have at least 80 square feet of floor area, and at least 
 600 cubic feet of space. The dining-room must have at
 
 364 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 least 300 square feet of floor area, with accommodations 
 for at least twenty guests at one time, and must not be a 
 part of the har-room. The kitchen and conveniences for 
 cooking must he sufficient to provide meals for twenty 
 guests at one time. 
 
 A guest of a hotel is defined as a j^erson who in good 
 faith occupies a room in a hotel as a temporary home, but 
 does not occupy it for the purpose of having liquor served 
 therein; or as a person who, during the hours when 
 'meals are regularly served therein, 7'esorts to the hotel for 
 the purpose of obtaining a meal. 
 
 Clubs incorporated prior to the enactment of this law 
 are exempt from the provisions regarding the sale of 
 liquor to members during the prohibited hours. 
 
 In cities, the holders of liquor tax certificates of the 
 first grade may, on the presentation of a permit signed 
 by the mayor and chief of police and a piayment of a tax 
 of %10 for each day, obtain a spiecial liquor tax certificate 
 for sale of liquor during prohibited hoiirs, 1 to 5 A. M., 
 of one or more specified days, not including Sundays, at 
 the place sjjecified in the permit. No recovery can he 
 had for liquor to he drunk on the premises when sold on 
 credit. 
 
 Any tax-payer residing in a county, in which a violation 
 of the law occurs, may present a verified petition to a jus- 
 tice of the Supreme Court for an order enjoining the per- 
 son from selling liquor, 
 
 LOCAL OPTION IN TOWNS. 
 
 The law prescribes the submission of four distinct ques- 
 tions to the qualified electors of towns : Whether liquor- 
 selling shall be permitted, (1) for consumption on the pre- 
 mises where sold ; (2) not for consumption on the premises 
 where sold; (3) by pharmacists on a physician's prescrip- 
 tion ; (4) by hotel-keepers only. The fourth question
 
 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF LAW. 3G5 
 
 reads as follows : " Shall any corporation, association, co- 
 partnership, or person be authorized to traffic in liquors 
 under subdivision 1 of section 11 of the liquor tax law, but 
 
 only in connection with keeping a hotel, in , if the 
 
 majority of the votes cast on the first questUm stcbmitted 
 are in the negative? '^ If the majority of the votes cast 
 on the fourth question submitted are in the affirmative, 
 and a majority of the votes cast on the first question are 
 in the negative, a liquor tax certificate of the first grade 
 may be granted to keepers of hotels who may sell liquor 
 to be drunk on or off the premises, though the m,ajority 
 of the votes cast on the second question be in the negative. 
 If the majority of the votes cast on the second question 
 he in the affirmative, the holder of a liquor tax certificate 
 of the second grade ivho is a pharmacist shall not sell as 
 a jiharmacist if a viajority of the votes cast on the third 
 question are in the negative. The questions were to be 
 voted on at the first annual town meetings after the passage 
 of the act, and are to be again submitted at the annual 
 town meetings held in every second year thereafter, pro- 
 vided at least ten per cent, of the electors request a re- 
 submission of the question by a written petition signed by 
 them before a notary public. 
 
 LIABILITIES AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THE 
 
 LAW. 
 
 Clerks, agents, employees, or servants are held equally 
 liable as principals. Each violation of any of the provi- 
 sions of this act shall be construed to constitute a separate 
 offense. In the case of corporations or associations, their 
 officers are held liable. 
 
 The penalty for selling liquor without having lawfully 
 obtained a liquor tax certificate, or for refusing to make 
 application for one, or to give bond, is a fine not less than 
 $200, or more than $1,000, provided the fine equals the
 
 366 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 amount of the tax for one year imposed upon the kind of 
 traffic in liquor carried on. Imprisonment for a term of 
 not more than one year may be added to the fine. 
 
 For making a false statement in the application for a tax 
 certificate, and selling liquor contrary to the several restric- 
 tions imposed, or in violation of the grade of certificate 
 obtained, there is a fine of not more than $500, or impris- 
 onment for not more than one year, or both. In addition, 
 the liquor tax certificate and all rights under it are for- 
 feited. 
 
 If any person, acting for the holder of a liquor tax cer- 
 tificate, be twice convicted of a violation of the law, the 
 certificate of the principal is forfeited, together with all 
 rights and privileges thereunder. 
 
 Any person convicted of a violation of the law may not 
 be granted a liquor tax certificate within five years of the 
 date of such conviction ; nor is he permitted to have any 
 interest therein, or become surety on any bond required 
 under the act. 
 
 Any person convicted of a violation is liable to an 
 extra penalty of $50 for each offense, to be recovered by 
 the state commissioner of excise in an action brought in 
 any court of record of the State. The place .of trial of 
 szich action may be changed to any county adjoining the 
 county in which the defendant resides. If judgment be 
 recovered against a certificate-holder, the certificate and 
 all rights thereunder are forfeited. 
 
 County clerks are required to furnish periodical state- 
 ments to the Excise Department of orders and judgments 
 obtained, indictments, etc. 
 
 Magistrates are required to report all arrests for viola- 
 tions, and the result of the preliminary examination of 
 offenders, to the state commissioner, as well as to the dis- 
 trict attorney of the county. 
 
 It is the duty of the special deputy commissioners.
 
 PENALTY FOR NEGLECT. 367 
 
 special agents, and of every county treasurer, as •well as of 
 other local officers having notice or knowledge of any vio- 
 lation of the law, to immediately notify the district attor- 
 ney in the county in which the violation occurs by a sworn 
 statement. 
 
 The penalty for neglect of public officers to perform their 
 duty under this law is a fine of $500 for each offense ; and 
 if the officer is a county treasurer or district attorney, the 
 governor shall remove him from office, Aiiy citizen may 
 prefer charges to the governor against such officers. There 
 are clauses in the law having the purpose to avoid a trial 
 by jury of excise cases wherever possible. 
 
 Note. In passing on the constitutidn.'ility of the new law, as 
 it was soon called upon to do, the Supreme Court used the fol- 
 lowing language : " It (the Liquor Tax Law) is primarily and 
 essentially an exercise of the police power of the State over a 
 particular trade or business. . . . Taxation is but an incident, 
 but one and not the chief, although a necessary, element of the 
 legislation. Regulation of the traffic is the fundamental pur- 
 pose of the law." (People ex. rel. Einsfell v. Muny, Appel. 
 Div. Rep. ]\Iay, 1896, p. 187.) 
 
 In confirming the above ojiinion, the Court of Appeals said, 
 among other things : " An exaction imposed as a condition of 
 the right to carry on a business dangerous to public morals, or 
 which may involve public burdens, by way of discouragement 
 or regulation, is not in any proper sense a tax." (New York 
 Rep. 149, p. 367.) 
 
 According to the opinion just cited, the title " Liquor Tax 
 Law" would seem to be a misnomer. If " primarily and essen- 
 tially an exercise of the police power of the State," it is essen- 
 tially a license law, and not of the same character as the Dow 
 law of Ohio. The latter imposes a uniform tax in all parts of 
 the State for each place in which licjuor is sold by any person, 
 corporation, or copartnership, the only requisite for engaging 
 in liquor-selling being payment of the tax. The Liquor Tax 
 Law assumes the illegality of the business of selling liquors, 
 and imposes penalties upon persons engaged therein without 
 obtaining the certificate required ; it prescribes who shall and 
 who shall not engage in such business, and fixes a certain
 
 368 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 standard of fitness. The Dow law, on the other hand, assumes 
 the business to be legal, but imposes a burden for the benefit 
 of the public on all who wish to follow it. The new law dif- 
 fers from the one preceding it, not so much in the regulation of 
 the traffic in liquors as in the manner of enforcing such regu- 
 lations, which is to say that the power of administering excise 
 affairs was diverted from local authorities and vested in a state 
 commissioner and his subordinates. 
 
 THE LIQUOR TAX LAW IN 1896. 
 
 Before examining in detail the present workings of the 
 law, its measure of enforcement and effects, some space 
 must be devoted to the nine months elapsing before any 
 defects discovered in it could be remedied by legislative 
 enactment. These months, the latter part of 1896, were 
 the formative period of the new regime. The good or bad 
 in the law was revealed, the scope and policy of the State 
 Department of Excise were fixed, and the trade had time 
 to adjust itself somewhat to the new conditions. 
 
 At the ovitset the dealers considered themselves griev- 
 ously injured. A more than trebling of the annual tribute 
 of the saloon-keeper (speaking of the cities in which the 
 highest fees were paid), without any discrimination in favor 
 of ale and beer sellers, at once drove the weaker men to the 
 wall. The larger the city, the more certain was this their 
 fate. Under the former law, the small beer-shop keeper 
 had led a hand-to-mouth existence, and had worried along 
 with the aid of the brewer who advanced money and goods. 
 Now such assistance was denied to many, for it did not 
 pay. But his more fortunate fellows were not slow in per- 
 ceiving that the severity of the new restrictions had been 
 exaggerated. The first Sundays under the Raines law were 
 unusually and universally " dry " in the State of New 
 York. No one knew what open defiance might lead to. 
 The side-door nuisance had to some extent become imprac- 
 ticable under the provision requiring the bar and interior of
 
 LAW IN 1896. 369 
 
 saloons to be exposed to view from the street during the 
 hours when sale was prohibited. But some dealers, with 
 close political connections at Albany, had discovered before 
 the passage of the law the advantage to be derived from 
 the possession of a hotel license, and had obtained such 
 from the excise boards. The general rush for licenses 
 during the last days of the excise boards appears, however, 
 to have been due to the discrimination of the new law in 
 favor of premises which prior to its enactment had been 
 occupied as saloons or liquor-selling hotels ; these were 
 exempt from the 200 feet clause and other disqualifications. 
 When it finally became settled that, in order to sell liquor 
 on Sundays with impunity, it was necessary only to run an 
 establishment having a few extra rooms and facilities for 
 serving a sandwich, the " Raines law hotels " sprung up 
 like mushrooms. By November, 1896, the police of New 
 York city reported to a Senate committee, appointed to 
 investigate the workings of the new law, the existence of 
 2,378 liquor-selling hotels, of which 2,105 were stated to 
 be offsprings of the law, and the remaining 273 bona fide 
 hotels. In Brooklyn the hotel list had swelled from 13 
 to 1,474, and in other cities a similar condition prevailed. 
 With a uniform tax on all sales for consumption on the 
 premises, the law seemed to extend an invitation to dealers 
 to take advantage of the easy conditions of its hotel clause. 
 It permitted hotel-keepers to sell liquor on Sundays to 
 guests, with their meals or in their rooms, but not in the 
 bar-room ; and a hotel was defined as a place " Avhich is 
 regularly kept open for the feeding and lodging of guests, 
 and in which there shall be at least ten furnished bedrooms 
 for their occupancy if in a city or incorporated village, and 
 six bedrooms if in any other place." It became patent 
 that the intent of the law, if it did truly intend to stop 
 Sunday selling, was evaded in thousands of places. " Raines 
 law hotels " became the jest of the country. The authori-
 
 370 OrERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW, 
 
 ties were in a quandary. As might have been expected, 
 the Department of Excise washed its hands of all responsi- 
 bility for the enforcement of general hotel regulations. Its 
 application forms did not compel the applicant to state 
 whether he intended to conduct a hotel or not. It was 
 ruled to be outside its province to inspect the premises to 
 be taxed before issuing a certificate. Besides, such a course 
 was discovered to be impossible on account of the small 
 number of special agents and the large number of hotels, 
 !Nor did it seem competent for the police to compel observ- 
 ance to the hotel clause, so loosely was the act drawn. In 
 New York city the aid of the Building Department and of 
 the Board of Health was invoked in turn. The latter was 
 powerless, and the resources of the former were not equal 
 to the emergency. After all, the evasions of the building 
 laws were comparatively trifling, and, moreover, notice of 
 ten days had to be given alleged violators, which afforded 
 enough time for alterations. Again, the Building Depart- 
 ment could only bring civil action against offenders. In 
 other places there was even less authority for interference 
 with hotels. In short, the " fake " hotels, to speak in the 
 local vernacular, could only be legislated out of business, 
 except in a few instances. 
 
 Another product of the times was the " Raines Club." 
 Following an earlier decision, the courts held that the sale 
 of liquor to the members of a club is not " trafficking in 
 liquors." Taking advantage of this ruling, many men who 
 held certificates surrendered them and organized and in- 
 corporated so-called social clubs, the same individual often 
 representing the president, treasurer, and steward. Others 
 transformed their saloons into clubs, arranging with their 
 customers to " distribute " drinks to them on Sundays and 
 during prohibited hours. The extent of this flourishing 
 and very profitable business is apparent from data furnished 
 by the secretary of state. From May 1, 1896, to January
 
 LAW IN 1896. 371 
 
 13, 1897, he chartered 3,711 so-called clubs, as against 845 
 during the year May 1, 1895, to May 1, 189G. A majority 
 of the clubs were of course located in the cities where the 
 liquor tax is largest. So long as they did not violate the 
 terms of the charters, the clubs were necessarily beyond 
 the reach of the law. The loss of revenue through the un- 
 taxed but legally protected traffic was very large. Another 
 complaint was that the club business engendered a compe- 
 tition with which law-abiding dealers could ill cope, unless 
 they too became hotel proprietors. 
 
 All things considered, when the law had stood the first 
 half-year the trade ceased to berate it violently. To be 
 sure, many small dealers had been crushed, but not without 
 advantage to those remaining. Sunday selling was practi- 
 cally legalized to such an extent that it helped to offset the 
 heavier burden of the tax. 
 
 As usual, the increased penalties did not expedite the 
 convictions for excise offenses. From April 1 to November 
 14, 1896, the district attorney of New York city had received 
 1,740 complaints of violations which resulted in 485 indict- 
 ments and 941 dismissals by the grand jury ; 314 com- 
 plaints were not acted on ; 226 trials resulted in 17 con- 
 victions ; 39 accused persons pleaded guilty, and 13 were 
 discharged by General Sessions ; 207 cases remained pend- 
 
 ing. 
 
 The efforts of the Excise Department to enforce the law 
 during the time in question resulted in 78 convictions on 
 411 verified complaints submitted to district attorneys ; and 
 fines were imposed to the amount of $4,636.00. 
 
 The first nine months under the Liquor Tax Law had 
 demonstrated that its capacity for producing revenue had 
 been underrated, that it had perceptibly diminished the 
 number of saloons, and that it was ripe for amendments in 
 very essential respects. 
 
 The Republican convention of 1896 had praised the law,
 
 372 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 particularly its revenue features. The amendments pro- 
 posed in the legislature of 1897 were not adopted without 
 a struggle. It is of little interest to follow the protracted 
 wranglings of the legislators, except to note that the evo- 
 lution of the law, as is usually the case, was not determined 
 so much hy design as by circumstances and events. The 
 tax feature had won a rare measure of popularity among 
 up-country Republicans, who, nevertheless, professed to be 
 shocked at the gross evasions disclosed, and, in order to 
 keep faith with their constituents, were forced to insist 
 upon remedies in the nature of amendments. In vain the 
 city Republicans pleaded, and predicted political disaster 
 in case the screws were again turned. Inaction had become 
 impossible. Its pretensions as champions of temperance 
 and Sunday observance had to be made good by the con- 
 trolling faction. So the law was amended in its most vul- 
 nerable points ; and it came to pass that the Liquor Tax 
 Law attained a form very unlike the original draft pre- 
 sented to the legislature, as may be gathered from the 
 abstract already given. 
 
 Had moral issues carried the day in the second battle 
 over the Raines law ? In certain respects the act seemed 
 to be strengthened, and the discovered loopholes to be 
 closed up. Although the punitive sections had manifestly 
 overreached the mark, they were made more severe. By 
 placing the clubs on an equal footing with saloons, yet 
 ameliorating the status of those incorporated previous to 
 May 6, 1895, by exempting them from certain restrictions, 
 a " million dollars in taxes had been recovered." This 
 was an unavoidable change. But the saloon-hotel was suf- 
 fered to remain. In the course of its investigations, the 
 Senate Committee had heard this new social institution 
 denounced in unsparing terms by those best acquainted 
 witli it and on purely moral grounds. A simple means of 
 abolishing it and stopping Sunday selling lay at hand, —
 
 THE DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE. 373 
 
 that of taxing it out of existence. 'No legal obstacle stood 
 in the way, since the act had been pronounced to be vir- 
 tually a license law. But politics and revenue were the 
 issues, not morals. 
 
 THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 The law which went into effect March 23, 1896,- ter- 
 minated all licenses granted by excise boards on the 30th 
 of June, after which date liquor could not be legally sold 
 except under authority of a tax certificate. Scant time 
 was thus left for the organization of the new Department 
 of Excise. It was suddenly called into being to do the 
 work formerly divided between nine hundred and sixty- 
 four boards of excise, and was wholly without " forms, 
 decisions, and precedents for the conduct of its business." 
 That a fairly smooth-running machine was before long set 
 in motion, notwithstanding the many perplexing questions 
 to be decided, the vexatious delays in procuring a working 
 force, and the magnitude of the work to be systematized, 
 reflects much credit on the new department. 
 
 As now constituted, the Department of Excise consists 
 of a state commissioner, a deputy commissioner, an acting 
 and an assistant acting deputy commissioner, secretary, 
 general counsel, and a clerical force. There are three dis- 
 tinct branches in New York city, Brooklyn, and Buffalo, 
 each headed by a special deputy commissioner with his as- 
 sistants and one attorney. In addition there are sixty 
 special agents and fifty-seven county treasurers, the duties 
 of the latter being the same as those of a deputy commis- 
 sioner. The appointive power of the state commissioner is 
 absolute. He not only selects his immediate subordinates 
 and the special agents and attorneys, but all clerks in the 
 branch offices ; in short, every one connected with the de- 
 partment, except, of course, the county treasurers and their 
 assistants. Furthermore, it is left with him to fix the
 
 374 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 bonds and approve the sureties of each of his appointees, 
 except the deputy commissioner. His power of removal is 
 also very explicit. 
 
 The law j^rescribes with some minuteness the functions 
 of the department, and in an unprecedented manner cen- 
 tralizes the control of the excise business in one man, the 
 state commissioner. He is left the sole interpreter of the 
 intent and scope of the law ; he directs the goings and do- 
 ings of the sixty special agents ; and every detail of the 
 work of his subordinates, including the fifty-seven county 
 treasurers, must be submitted to him. Such power and 
 authority have never before been vested in one man under 
 the liquor laws of any of our States. It is a pertinent 
 question, therefore, how this power is used. 
 
 At the outset the state commissioner took the ground 
 that his duties are chiefly those of a fiscal agent concerned 
 with the proper assessment and collection of taxes. Be- 
 yond compelling their payment, detecting evasions, and 
 accounting for the money received and its distribution, his 
 functions do not extend. It is not surprising that many 
 persons awaited with some apprehension the stand which 
 the department would take in the matter of issuing tax 
 certificates. To be sure, the law seemed explicit enough 
 in the provision which deprives the county treasurers and 
 other ofiicials of discretionary power in granting or refus- 
 ing certificates, and declares that, when the formalities re- 
 quired have been observed, the official concerned " shall at 
 once issue a certificate." Still, if the restrictions on the 
 traffic implied in the lengthy application for a certificate 
 were to prove of some practical value, it seemed not un- 
 reasonable that the truth of the statements made by the 
 applicant should be inquired into. And if the law pur- 
 posely designed to take away from the officials their dis- 
 cretionary power, could not such inquiry be made a duty 
 of the confidential agents of the state commissioner ? It
 
 THE DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE. 375 
 
 was also a question whether an official who, as it is easily 
 supposable, might in some instances have personal know- 
 ledge to the effect that the facts set forth in the applica- 
 tion were not true, should act on such knowledge and 
 refuse to issue a certificate. On these questions " the 
 department has ruled, from its organization, that the the- 
 ory and intention of the Liquor Tax Law is, that the ap- 
 plicant must assume the responsibility and furnish the facts 
 which entitle him to a tax certificate ; that, if he con- 
 forms to the act in making the requisite statements, pro- 
 duces the consent required in certain places, files a bond 
 which is correct in form with sufficient sureties, and pays 
 the tax, the said officer shall at once issue the certificate ; 
 that the law expressly intends to limit the discretion of 
 the officer issuing the certificate to passing upon the cor- 
 rectness of the form of the application at hand and the 
 sufficiency of the sureties. This being done, the certificate 
 must be issued, iinless the officer has evidence at the time of 
 presentation of the application that the applicant is debarred 
 by being under some of the liabilities named in sections 
 twenty-two, twenty-three, and twenty-four, which provide 
 who cannot hold certificates, or some other facts appear on 
 the face of the papers which defeat his application. There 
 is nothing in the act which shows that it was the intention of 
 the legislature that special agents or other officials should be 
 sent out to make investigation or inspection before issuing 
 tax certificates. The whole theory of the act is against any 
 such intention. The opposite construction would re-inject 
 into the law the feature of placing the discretion with some 
 person to refuse or grant certificates to applicants, the ex- 
 ercise of which power, or so-called discretion, gave rise to 
 notorious abuse under the old system, and enabled excise 
 boards and their employees to use this discretion for per- 
 sonal and political purposes." (Annual Keport of the Com- 
 missioner of Excise, 1896, pp. 28, 29.)
 
 376 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW, 
 
 Under the above interpretation of the law, which in 
 truth seems the only one admissible, the evils arising from 
 arbitrary action on the part of excise officials have certainly 
 been minimized. Since the law is absolutely silent on the 
 question of moral character and fitness of applicants, ex- 
 cept that felons are debarred, the discretion an official may 
 allow himself through personal knowledge of the applicant 
 is very limited. With regard to the special agents, the 
 department holds that the law requires them, " under the 
 direction of the commissioner, to assist the deputy com- 
 missioner and county treasurers in the collection of the 
 tax, to detect and prevent violations or evasions of the law 
 which impair the revenue, and to enforce and collect fines 
 and penalties for its transgression, with such other services 
 as they can and may properly render in assisting the proper 
 peace officers and prosecuting officials in the general en- 
 forcement of the law." (Ibid. p. 23.) The law, of course, 
 never contemplated that the special agents should super- 
 sede the peace officers in enforcing its general provisions 
 and making arrests for simple violations of the penal code. 
 In order to do this, a small army of special agents would 
 have been required instead of a scant sixty, a number so 
 small that it does not suffice even for a superficial surveil- 
 lance of the traffic in a city like New York. The magni- 
 tude of the task of supervising the selling of liquor had 
 evidently not dawned upon the minds of the rural legisla- 
 tors ; for some of them certainly did entertain the notion 
 that the special agents were to assist locally in enforcing 
 police and peace regulations. 
 
 The special deputy commissioners and special agents 
 do not seem to be specifically called upon to bring about 
 the revocation of certificates, whether for the reason that 
 the certificate was fraudulently obtained or because of a 
 violation of the act. The law simply says that "any citi- 
 zen " may petition a justice of the Supreme Court for an
 
 THE DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE. 377 
 
 order revoking or canceling a tax certificate. The deputy 
 commissioner and county treasurers have no authority to 
 revoke certificates ; nor may they indeed cancel one that 
 has been revoked by an order of the court, but must for- 
 ward it to the state commissioner for cancellation. Since 
 " the department holds that its sole province is purely exe- 
 cutive, — that its duties are chiefly of a fiscal character " 
 (Ibid. p. 24), and "it has been the policy of the depart- 
 ment not to interfere with local officials in the execution 
 of the law, but to give such help as is within its province 
 and power when requested " (Ibid. p. 30), it is plain that 
 enforcement of the law is left almost entirely in the hands 
 of the local police. When, however, a violation concerns 
 the payment of the tax, the department expects to lend a 
 hand. 
 
 Beyond doubt, the policy of the department as outlined 
 has been carried out honestly and in good faith. To the 
 chagrin of some of the leaders, the manifest purpose of the 
 controlling Republican faction to create a " liquor ma- 
 chine " was defeated, — a fact now being used to the ad- 
 vantage of other leaders. The governor decided the future 
 fate of the department when, in nominating the present 
 commissioner of excise, he did not heed the wishes of 
 those desiring to place the department in the hands of 
 one who would run it as an adjunct to his party, while 
 incidentally he collected the revenues. A man of integ- 
 rity and good intentions was chosen. The fact that the 
 department did not become a mere political machine was 
 not due to lack of design, but partly to the independence 
 of the executive and partly to accident. The more impor- 
 tant positions under the department were, of course, doled 
 out as patronage, commanded more or less by men closely 
 identified with the passage of the new law. A distinct 
 attempt was also made to appoint only political heelers
 
 378 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 as special agents, but the action of a state official fore- 
 stalled it. While the department may at present use its 
 influence to some extent in furthering the political for- 
 tunes of individuals, it cannot be said to show activity 
 in party politics. 
 
 OPERATION OF THE LIQUOR TAX LAW IN 
 SOME CITIES. 
 
 KEW YORK CITY. 
 
 The present method of issuing certificates is in strik- 
 ing contrast to the preceding method of granting licenses. 
 Formerly the excise board sat as a court, passing judg- 
 ment on the merits and demerits of applicants, hearing 
 complaints and revoking licenses. All transactions were 
 public, and their number may be inferred from the fact 
 that between seventy and eighty thousand persons visited 
 the offices of the board in the course of a year. Now the 
 deputy commissioner simply passes on the formal correct- 
 ness of the application and other documents. So far as 
 he is concerned, all comers are practically served alike, — 
 they pay the money and take the certificate. An advantage 
 claimed for this system is that it prevents officials from 
 discriminating between persons, and cuts off the opportunity 
 for political and pecuniary blackmail ; and this is doubtless 
 true with respect to the new Excise Department. Its dis- 
 advantages, on the other hand, are that it is as possible 
 now as under the old system for the most objectionable 
 characters, for keepers of houses of ill-fame and other dives, 
 to secure the protection of a license or certificate. Further- 
 more, so far as the police are concerned, the temjDtation to 
 enter into foul bargains with certificate-holders has not 
 been lessened one whit. Lest this statement appear un-
 
 LIQUOK TAX CERTIFICATES. 379 
 
 warranted, it must be reiterated that in New York city 
 the deputy commissioner of excise does not question, 
 either before or after issuing certificates, the truth of the 
 matters set forth in the application. Thus, if a keeper of 
 a disorderly house obtains a certificate, — and the Avriter 
 knows this to occur, — the police are left to settle scores 
 with such a person. Again, if a man wishes to open a 
 Raines hotel, it is not necessary that he should notify the 
 deputy commissioner of his intention. Having obtained 
 the certificate, he may proceed afterwards to make arrange- 
 ments for a hotel business ; and the excise officer remains 
 in ignorance of his purpose. It rests with the police and 
 the Department of Buildings to see that the legal restric- 
 tions on hotel buildings are observed. Aside from its be- 
 ing outside his province to make any inspection of places, 
 the deputy commissioner could not do so adequately even 
 if he had all the sixty special agents at his command. 
 Much less can discriminations be made in issuing certifi- 
 cates to persons who hold a proper club charter. 
 
 In illustration of the ignorance about the present state 
 of the liquor traffic, except as to how many certificates are 
 issued, it may be mentioned that neither through the ex- 
 cise officials nor through the police is it possible to ascer- 
 tain the number of hotels, real or " fake," in which liquor 
 is sold every day in the week. Even less is known of the 
 clubs. 
 
 It does not appear that the character of the trade has 
 been elevated by transferring the important function of 
 issuing licenses or certificates from boards endowed with 
 discretionary power to persons acting purely as fiscal agents, 
 except so far as it is now removed from the influence of 
 venal boards. But if the abolition of the boards with 
 their corrupt practices has been a moral gain, it is to be 
 feared that temptation to dishonesty besets the police per- 
 haps more insidiously than ever, owing to the greater
 
 380 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 secrecy observed in issuing certificates, and because the 
 public has no means of knowing how far important regu- 
 lations, for instance those governing hotels, are observed. 
 Under other circumstances the sureties on the bond exe- 
 cuted by the applicant might be regarded as a guarantee of 
 his good character, but hardly in New York city, where 
 bonds are for the most part furnished liquor dealers by one 
 surety company. ^ 
 
 With regard to the transfer or sale of certificates, which 
 is a rapidly growing business, the deputy commissioner 
 exercises an extra-legal discretion requiring a few words 
 of explanation. Under the Liquor Tax Law there is no- 
 thing to prevent a dishonest saloon-keeper from surrender- 
 ing his tax certificate and getting the jiro rata amount of 
 tax refunded, thus leaving in the lurch the brewer who 
 paid the tax for him in the first instance ; or he may, with 
 equal detriment to the brewer, transfer his tax certificate 
 to some one on whom the brewer has no claim, and who 
 may take his trade to a competing brewery. Having large 
 pecuniary interests at stake in the saloons, the brewers 
 early became alarmed at this unpleasant prospect, and cast 
 about for some means of protection. It was currently re- 
 ported in the press that, in return for a recognition of their 
 claim on tax certificates in certain cases, the brewers would 
 see that the bulk of the bond business was given to the 
 surety company referred to above. There was nothing in 
 the law to warrant the protection sought, and the deputy 
 
 1 The "Fidelity' Surety and Deposit Company of Maryland " has 
 almost a moiiopol^y of the liquor bond business, through intimate faniilj' 
 connections with the "boss" of the Republican "machine " and the re- 
 puted author of the Liquor Tax Law, not only in New York and Brooklyn, 
 but in many other parts of the State. Being organized under the laws of 
 another State, it was debarred from doing business in New York, but for 
 "family reasons" this disability was removed through a special act of 
 the legislature. Other companies have come into the field since. The 
 latest comer is backed, so it is said, b}' a powerful Tammany man, and 
 expects to absorb most of the local business.
 
 SALOON MORTGAGES. 381 
 
 commissioner declared his inability to act as desired. At 
 the present time, however, no tax certificate in which a 
 brewer is pecuniarily interested can be transferred or sur- 
 rendered without the latter's consent. His " claim " is 
 recognized as valid, the application being indorsed to this 
 effect, or other written stipulation made. 
 
 It is a well-known fact that few of the smaller dealers 
 are their own masters in the sense of not being under 
 heavy pecuniary obligation to others. If not directly se- 
 lected to act as salesmen for the brewer, they are unable 
 to pay the tax, rent, fixtures, etc., out of their own pockets. 
 The wealthy brewer is their natural protector, since, in re- 
 turn for his aid, they can give him the exclusive privi- 
 lege of supplying the brand of beer to be sold. As fur- 
 ther security against loss, the brewer not only controls the 
 transfer of the tax certificate, but takes a chattel mortgage 
 on the saloon fixtures, often vastly in excess of their 
 value. 
 
 The results of an examination of the chattel mortgages 
 on saloon fixtures filed by brewers during the year 1897, 
 as reported in the " Real Estate Record and Guide," are 
 given in a table below. It does not pretend to be ex- 
 haustive, and necessarily takes into account only the mort- 
 gagors who could be easily identified, while a host of un- 
 identified persons holding mortgages, generally in small 
 sums, were excluded. Some out-of-town firms are repre- 
 sented in the table. The mortgagors are designated by 
 numbers, and ranked according to the value of the mort- 
 gages held by each.
 
 382 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 No. 
 
 
 Number of 
 
 
 
 
 Number of 
 
 
 gagors. 
 
 Chattel 
 Mortgages 
 
 Value. 
 
 Mortgagors. 
 
 Chattel 
 Mortgages 
 
 Value. 
 
 
 held. 
 
 
 
 
 held. 
 
 
 1 
 
 461 
 
 $1,410,175 
 
 No 
 
 23 
 
 41 
 
 $64,157 
 
 2 
 
 390 
 
 1,272,664 
 
 
 24 
 
 31 
 
 59,116 
 
 3 
 
 284 
 
 572,173 
 
 
 25 
 
 42 
 
 57,367 
 
 4 
 
 97 
 
 310,179 
 
 
 26 
 
 40 
 
 47,708 
 
 5 
 
 76 
 
 288,618 
 
 
 27 
 
 29 
 
 39,126 
 
 6 
 
 145 
 
 270,315 
 
 
 28 
 
 41 
 
 30,265 
 
 7 
 
 91 
 
 204,536 
 
 
 29 
 
 45 
 
 28,332 
 
 8 
 
 133 
 
 256,008 
 
 
 30 
 
 7 
 
 14,362 
 
 9 
 
 106 
 
 181,435 
 
 
 31 
 
 11 
 
 12,750 
 
 10 
 
 96 
 
 164,923 
 
 
 32 
 
 3 
 
 10,200 
 
 11 
 
 50 
 
 157,423 
 
 
 33 
 
 1 
 
 8,991 
 
 12 
 
 76 
 
 147,735 
 
 
 34 
 
 3 
 
 8,500 
 
 13 
 
 90 
 
 138,991 
 
 
 35 
 
 4 
 
 7,577 
 
 14 
 
 96 
 
 1.37,128 
 
 
 36 
 
 7 
 
 5,410 
 
 15 
 
 57 
 
 134,082 
 
 
 37 
 
 4 
 
 3,940 
 
 16 
 
 48 
 
 116,909 
 
 
 38 
 
 5 
 
 3,900 
 
 17 
 
 69 
 
 100,750 
 
 
 39 
 
 1 
 
 3,000 
 
 18 
 
 49 
 
 88,417 
 
 
 40 
 
 3 
 
 2,200 
 
 19 
 
 51 
 
 84,505 
 
 
 41 
 
 1 
 
 800 
 
 20 
 21 
 
 47 
 
 68 307 
 
 
 
 
 
 47 
 
 65,936 
 
 
 
 2,906 
 
 $6,703,362 
 
 22 
 
 28 
 
 64,362 
 
 
 
 
 
 To what extent the table justifies the inference that the 
 saloon-keeper is but a man of " straw," that the brewer 
 owns him, and that the control of so many saloons is equi- 
 valent to the concentration of an enormous and dangerous 
 power in a few hands, may for the most part be left unar- 
 gued. The danger of this power seems overrated. So far 
 as any legislation affecting the liquor trade is concerned, the 
 interests of the dealers and brewers are identical, whether 
 they are held together by pecuniary obligations or not. 
 Furthermore, the dealer is not always either an abject or 
 an honest creature. As he does not hesitate to cheat the 
 brewer in money matters on occasion, so he would not hes- 
 itate to act against him politically, were that course likely 
 to be of particular benefit to himself. There is no evidence 
 to show that the interests of brewers in saloons offer any 
 impediment to the enforcement of the law. Aside from 
 a desire for respectability which must be recognized, it is 
 good policy for them to have the statutory regulations ob- 
 served. Why the purveyors of spirituous liquors do not
 
 LICENSES UNDER THE OLD LAW. 383 
 
 become financially interested in saloons, in the same manner 
 and to the same extent as brewers, is ol)vious. 
 
 Since, under the Liquor Tax Law, the principal require- 
 ment of an applicant for a tax certificate is that he produce 
 the cash, the only effective barrier (the consent clause can- 
 not be considered as such) to a multiplication of saloons, 
 and, for that matter, of Raines hotels, is the amount of the 
 tax. The fact that the higher tax rate has not only pre- 
 vented an increase of liquor shops, but directly and materi- 
 ally reduced their number, has been hailed with much satis- 
 faction, and therefore merits close inquiry. For the sake 
 of comparison, some data from the Report of the Commis- 
 sioners of Excise for the year ending December 31, 1895, 
 must be given. The licenses of each class and grade issued 
 during that year were as follow^ : — 
 
 Hotel licenses . . -. . 
 
 Hotel licenses * 
 
 Saloon liquor licenses • , 
 Saloon restaurant licenses , 
 Saloon ale-and-beer licenses 
 Storekeepers' licenses . . . 
 Druggists' licenses . . . . 
 Additional licenses . . . 
 Additional licenses ^ . . . 
 
 Class. 
 
 Grade. 
 
 Number. 
 
 Pee. 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 13 
 
 1500 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 270 
 
 300 
 
 2 
 
 A 
 
 6,930 
 
 200 
 
 2 
 
 B 
 
 371 
 
 100 
 
 3 
 
 
 448 
 
 50 
 
 4 
 
 
 1,071 
 
 200 
 
 5 
 
 
 15 
 
 20 
 
 6 
 
 
 13 
 
 100 
 
 6 
 
 
 29 
 
 150 
 
 9,160 
 
 Applications rejected and licenses refused 324 
 
 Applications canceled or withdrawn 848 
 
 On December 31, 1895, there were, deducting 33 addi- 
 tional licenses (issued only to places having a regular 
 license), 9,058 licenses operative in New York city. The 
 total number selling for consumption on the premises was 
 
 1 Sales amounting to less than $40,000 per annum. 
 
 2 All-night licenses.
 
 384 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW, 
 
 7,984, or 349 restaurants without bars, 362 hotels,^ and 
 7,278 saloons ; of the last mentioned, 387 had restaurants 
 attached. At the time in question, 161 places were closed, 
 but holding unexpired licenses, they were, of course, at lib- 
 erty to open at any time. The storekeepers' licenses were 
 thus distributed : wholesale and retail dealers, 260 ; gro- 
 cers, 614 ; bottlers, 139 ; druggists, 39 ; total, 1,052. 
 
 Statistics furnished by the state commissioner of excise 
 show that from May 1, 1896, to April 30, 1897, 7,927 cer- 
 tificates were issued in New York city, or 6,997 of the first 
 grade (saloons, hotels, and clubs), 878 of the second (for 
 consumption off the premises), and 52 of the third (drug- 
 gists').^ 
 
 Taking the population of the city according to the state 
 census of 1892 (1,801,739), we get the following proportion 
 of inhabitants to licenses and certificates : — 
 
 1895 1896-07 
 
 Inhabitants to each license or certificate . . . 198 227 
 Inhabitants to each place selling for consumi^tion 
 
 on the premises 225 257 
 
 There has thus been a gain of twenty-nine inhabitants 
 for each place holding a certificate, and of thirty-two inhab- 
 itants for each place where liquor is sold for consumption 
 on the premises. Or, if we .take the number of licenses 
 (8,906) issued during 1895-96, as given in the First Annual 
 Report of the Commissioner of Excise, and compare it with 
 
 1 The increase in hotel licenses in force was caused by the annexation 
 of a new district in June, 1895, containing ninety hotels, which were 
 licensed undfr the provisions of the law applying; to towns. 
 
 2 During the year ending September 30, 1897, 8,310 certificates of all 
 classes were issued in New Yorlc, an increase due probablj- to the new 
 club law, and 827 were surrendered. On October 1, 1897, the actual num- 
 ber of certificates in force was 7,686, but under what subdivisions they 
 belonged is not known. The figures given above seem to afford the fair- 
 est basis for coniiiarison obtainable, and are most nearly representative of 
 present conditions, which is the main point. While no allowance is made 
 for certificates surrendered, so, on the other hand, the places licensed but 
 closed during part of 1895 are not taken into account.
 
 REDUCTION OF DRINK PLACES. 385 
 
 the number of certificates actually in force October 1, 1897, 
 we find a difference of thirty-two inhabitants in favor of the 
 new law. It might be objected tbat the difference is really 
 larger, since tbe clubs are now taxed. But making the 
 exceedingly liberal estimate of ninety-four bona-fide clubs, 
 and subtracting this number from the certificates in force at 
 the above date, gives only an increase of thirty-seven in- 
 habitants to each place over the old law. It is impossible 
 to demonstrate precisely what benefits a community derives 
 even from a marked diminution of places where intoxicants 
 are sold. The conclusion that an appreciable decrease in 
 drink-shops must of itself produce greater sobriety is, of 
 course, as fallacious as it is superficial. Yet such a de- 
 crease has been extolled as the most meritorious result of 
 the operation of the Liquor Tax Law in New York city. 
 Although, as we have shown, the average increase of inhab- 
 itants to each license seems rather insignificant, it is sup- 
 posable that some parts of the city have gained more than 
 others, and that the higher tax rate has worked the greater 
 changes in the poorer districts. 
 
 First of those affected by the new law were the proprie- 
 tors of small beer-and-ale shops. Nearly all of them, that 
 is to say about 400, were driven out of business by the six- 
 teenfold increase of the tax. As a class these shops were 
 the least obnoxious of all, and have so been regarded by 
 students of social conditions. They were scattered through 
 the tenement districts, and did a precarious business by sell- 
 ing beer, mostly by the bucket, for home use. A further 
 notable diminution took place among the liquor stores and 
 small restaurants without bars. Probably about fifty per 
 cent, of the places closed were ordinary saloons. To what 
 extent the poor districts have been affected by the new law 
 can best be shown by the aid of simple charts. A section 
 of the city containing a population of nearly 100,000 has 
 been chosen for illustration. Two thirds of it lie east of
 
 386 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW, 
 
 the Bowery, in the most densely populated down-town tene- 
 ment district ; the remaining third runs from the Bowery 
 to Broadway, includes a portion of the so-called " slum " 
 district investigated by the United States Department of 
 Labor, and contains a goodly number of large stores and 
 office buildings. Although contiguous, this section may 
 properly be divided, according to the principal nationalities 
 represented, into a German, a Jewish, and an Italian quar- 
 ter. For the present purpose it is unnecessary to describe 
 in detail the characteristics of these quarters, but the follow- 
 ing enumeration of the principal nationalities represented 
 and their numbers is of direct interest : — 
 
 
 6 
 
 i 
 
 .s 
 
 
 J3 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 Nationalities. 
 
 > 
 
 s 
 
 '$ 
 
 □0 
 
 |n 
 
 c8 
 
 =3 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 CS 
 
 ^ 
 
 l-t 
 
 m 
 
 
 a 
 
 H 
 
 German section 
 
 7,609 
 
 6,531 
 
 565 
 
 331 
 
 135 
 
 155 
 
 1,065 
 
 16,391 
 
 Jewish " 
 
 1G,927 
 
 5,210 
 
 21,443 
 
 553 
 
 404 
 
 512 
 
 4,310 
 
 49,359 
 
 Italian " 
 
 8,752 
 
 781 
 
 231 
 
 1,765 
 
 121 
 
 16,319 
 
 297 
 
 28,266 
 
 
 33,288 
 
 12,522 
 
 22,239 
 
 2,649 
 
 660 
 
 16,986 
 
 5,672 
 
 94,016 1 
 
 Most of the native-born are, of course, of foreign parents 
 age. 
 
 The computation of the present proportion of inhabit- 
 ants to saloons is made on the basis of the population of 
 1894. This is approximately correct, except for the Italian 
 quarter, where not a few tenement houses have been torn 
 down for street improvement. Elsewhere no appreciable 
 movement of population has occurred. As might be sup- 
 posed, the largest reduction of saloons has taken place in 
 the Jewish section. Nevertheless, in a district occupied 
 by a multitude of foreigners bearing the highest reputa- 
 
 1 For the above statistics as well as for tlie following charts showing 
 the number of saloons, etc., in 3894, the investigator is indebted to a pub- 
 lication entitled Social Stafi.itics of a City Parish, issued by the Church 
 Temperance Society, New York, 1894.
 
 EEDUCTION OF DRINK PLACES. 
 
 387 
 
 AV 
 
 tion for abstemiousness, enough drink-shops remain to 
 supply one for nearly all the corners of the forty-two 
 block.s, and a generous sprinkling of saloon hotels in addi- 
 tion ; the exact proportion being 3.7 saloons to the block.
 
 388 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 Less favorable is the showing for the German and Italian 
 quarters. To put the whole matter diiferently, under the 
 operation of the Liquor Tax Law, lOG.l inhabitants have 
 been added to each liquor shop in the Jewish quarter,
 
 REDUCTION OF DRINK PLAGES. 
 
 389 
 
 E.HOUSTON 
 
 ST 
 
 . 00 
 
 (A 
 
 ■ ■ 
 
 ■ ■ 
 
 STANTON 
 
 ■ ■ 
 
 JIVINCT ON 
 
 ST 
 
 00 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 
 
 
 -I 
 < 
 (/I 
 
 X 
 
 < 
 ui 
 
 ST. 
 
 ■ ■ 
 
 ■ ■ ■ 
 
 3ELAN C EY 
 
 BROOME 
 
 ST 
 
 
 a 
 < 
 z 
 u 
 a 
 
 ST. 
 
 CPANO 
 
 ST 
 
 HESTER 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 I 
 ■ ■ ■ 
 
 ■ 
 ■ ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 s 
 
 .T. 
 
 K) 
 &■ 
 
 z 
 o 
 
 p 
 < 
 
 a 
 
 a. 
 
 40.2 in the German, and 39.7 in the Italian, or an average 
 of 63.5 for the whole area covered. Without disparaging 
 in the least any efibrt to diminish the number of drink 
 places, it is apparent that the Liquor Tax Law has not in 
 this section worked changes of measurable value.
 
 390 OPEKATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 E.HOUSTON 
 
 ST. 
 
 ■ 
 
 STANTON 
 
 ST. 
 
 5 ^ 
 
 myiNCTON 
 
 AA 
 
 A 
 
 ST. 
 
 DELANCEV 
 
 _1|HJ 
 
 BROOME 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ■ 
 ■ 
 
 
 1 
 
 >T. 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ ■ 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ ■ 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 < 
 z 
 u 
 a 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 ST 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 QRAND 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ST. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 > 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 ■ 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 ■ 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ■■ 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 HESTE 
 
 .R 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 .T. 
 
 
 
 
 ♦ 
 
 Z 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 •< 
 tf) 
 
 X 
 
 u 
 
 < 
 
 
 I 
 m 
 
 (/) 
 
 Z 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 ^i 
 
 I/I o 
 " DC 
 
 u 
 
 ID 
 
 E 
 3 
 
 z 
 
 M 
 M 
 
 z 
 
 
 F 
 < 
 
 a 
 
 RAINES LAW HOTELS. 
 
 While one might have diflficulty in proving that the 
 hotel clause was purposely designed to act as a safety- 
 valve for the irrepressible demand for Sunday selling, it 
 did not require great penetration to see that it would 
 operate as such in cities like New York. But since the 
 nullification of Sunday prohibition was both in contraven-
 
 REDUCTION OF DRINK PLACES. 
 
 391 
 
 E HOUSTON 
 
 CANAL ST. 
 
 tion of Republican pledges and odious to a large section of 
 the party, some amendments to the hotel provision could 
 not be avoided ; and those adopted probably created the
 
 392 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 
 C AN AU 
 
 ST 
 
 impression that the hotel nuisance would be minimized. 
 To those who had given the matter serious thought, it was 
 apparent tliat the main effect of the new regulations would
 
 RAINES LAW HOTELS. 393 
 
 be to increase the cost of maintaining hotels. It seems 
 that if the aim had been to put a stop to Sunday selling, 
 regardless of the sentiment of the city Republicans, the 
 legislature would have resorted to the easy expedient of 
 taxing the pseudo hotel out of existence. It might have 
 been done without violating the principle of the law. 
 
 As amended, the hotel regulations are less easily en- 
 forced than before. It is supposed that the police make 
 an inspection now when a new " hotel " is opened, — how 
 searching an inspection is not known. On the other hand, 
 the best informed intimate that the affair is not taken seri- 
 ously, provided the intent to circumvent the law is not 
 too obvious. Once inspected, the hotels are left in peace. 
 From such personal inspection as it has been possible to 
 make, it seems indisputable that a goodly number of the 
 places in question are truly " fake " hotels in the sense 
 that they do not meet the legal requirements. Of the 
 ramshackle, dilapidated place advertising quarters over the 
 bar-room at )$1 per week, or twenty cents a night, and 
 board if desired, it is not necessary to speak at length. 
 All have this in common, that the hotel business is not a 
 bona fide venture, and is engaged in simply because it 
 legalizes Sunday selling. But the sleeping apartments 
 and the other extra rooms required involve a large ex- 
 penditure for which the saloon-keeper seeks other equiva- 
 lents than the increased income from selling liquor and the 
 legal sandwich on Sundays. He may be fortunate enough 
 to get one of the many clubs or associations to make its 
 home with him. And if all else fails, there is always the 
 last resort of turning his place into a house of assignation. 
 Any attempt to estimate the number of hotel-keepers who 
 stoop to this source of gain would be idle. It may be said 
 on the authority of the police, who would not be inclined 
 to exaggerate such a matter, that they are very numerous. 
 This kind of hotel business has become a distinct and grow-
 
 394 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 ing evil since the inauguration of the Eaines law. Many 
 dealers deplore it, of course, and are themselves careful to 
 advertise " furnished rooms for gentlemen only." Accord- 
 ing to the most reliable estimate, the saloon-hotels, includ- 
 ing the restaurants, which must also provide bedrooms in 
 order to sell liquor on Sundays with meals, number about 
 2,500, and they are constantly increasing. The accompany- 
 ing chart shows how abundantly some parts of the city are 
 supplied with these institutions. The section chosen for 
 illustration runs along the western water-front, from Morton 
 Street on the north to Duane Street on the south, and ex- 
 tends three blocks east ; it is about three quarters of a mile 
 in length. The lower half abounds in wholesale establish- 
 ments and shops, the upper half in warehouses and lumber 
 yards. It is thus far from being a densely populated tene- 
 ment district. There are not above half a dozen genuine 
 hotels, and these suffice to take care of the transient guests 
 who choose to stay in that part of the city. The others 
 cater principally to the hundreds of 'longshore-men, team- 
 sters, sailors, and dock-laborers, and on Sundays are welcome 
 lounging places for residents of the neighboring tenement 
 districts. Ko census of the population is obtainable. One 
 may, however, safely hold that the number of inhabitants 
 to each drink place is not above one hundred and twenty- 
 five. Probably a majority of the residents are Irish, or of 
 Irish parentage. Elsewhere saloon-hotels are particularly 
 numerous along the great avenues on the east and west 
 sides, but perhaps nowhere more abundant than in the 
 section shown. 
 
 DRINKING CLUBS. 
 
 The general tax of $800 on clubs accomplished in large 
 part a desirable end. Hundreds of associations, chartered 
 by the Secretary of State subsequent to the passage of the 
 new law, disbanded for purely financial reasons : they could
 
 DRINKING CLUBS. 
 
 395 
 
 CD 
 
 MowTON St. 
 
 cs - 
 
 > 
 
 r 
 o 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 (« 
 
 <0 
 
 Leroy St. 
 
 IV 
 
 Clarkson £t. 
 
 ^ 
 
 W.Houston St. 
 
 DesBROsses St. 
 
 <1 
 
 Vestry St. 
 
 3.t 
 
 Laicht St. 
 
 SHulert 9 St. 
 
 "' '"c — isr 
 
 "Pa 
 
 zLA_Jc«L 
 
 O Beacm i St 
 
 o| Is' 
 
 X 
 
 N... Moore . St. 
 
 i't 
 
 FRANKLIN St. 
 
 r 
 
 J^cn 
 
 bi 
 
 ^ 
 
 Ha whison St. . 
 
 JAY St. 
 
 E n.a.n»n 
 
 DUANK St 
 
 O. > 
 
 3ESBROSSES St 
 
 neither afford to pay nor could they escape the tax. The 
 amendment denying to clubs organized or incorporated 
 after March, 1896, the privilege of selling during the 
 otherwise prohibited liours, could easily have been cir- 
 cumvented by the purchase of old charters, but it became 
 necessary to have a tax certificate. All the remaining 
 drinking clubs, estimated at about two hundred, are pro- 
 tected by charters granted at some time to now defunct 
 organizations. Tlie traffic in old charters has proved quite 
 profitable. Plenty of them are in the market at prices 
 ranging from $75 to $200, or whatever sum can be ob-
 
 396 OPERATION OF NEW YOEK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 tained. A charter once held by " Sick-Benevolent 
 
 Fraternity " gives legal protection, it seems, to a drinking 
 club, at least up to the present time. 
 
 Within a short time some of the most notorious clubs, 
 which were nothing more nor less than resorts for prosti- 
 tutes and their companions, have been broken up and their 
 certificates revoked, but not until they had become public 
 nuisances. The vilest of them all remains unmolested, 
 owing to some mysterious " pull " with the authorities. 
 Perhaps a majority of these clubs make their home in 
 rooms above saloons, and have no other purpose than that 
 of supplying the members and those whom they may " in- 
 troduce " (i. e. persons willing to pay an initiation fee of 
 ten to twenty-five cents) with liquor after 1 A. M. and 
 on Sundays. The saloon-keeper then acts as steward and 
 general manager of the club. As a rule, the club pays for 
 its own certificate, few dealers caring to take the risk of 
 running both a club and a saloon on the same certificate. 
 So long as a drinking club can parade some kind of a 
 charter, pays the tax, 'and prevents violent disorders and 
 the free entrance of women of the streets, it is secure from 
 interference. One club is reported to have a membership 
 of about 3,000. All seem to flourish, although, with few 
 exceptions, they are rarely in full blast while the ordinary 
 saloon remains open. 
 
 ARRESTS FOR EXCISE VIOLATIONS AND DRUNKENNESS. 
 
 It is a singular fact that the present law has been and 
 continues to be enforced with greater rigor in New York 
 than in any other large city in the State. Police efforts 
 are mainly directed against Sunday selling by dealers who 
 are not fortunate enough to be hotel proprietors. A num- 
 ber of excise arrests is reported every Monday, but not so 
 many as there might be. If the saloon-keeper has the 
 necessary kind of " influence," he may go on selling in
 
 ENFORCEMENT. 397 
 
 peace at all hours, on every day and night of the week, 
 although a near-by competitor is arrested without ceremony 
 for doing the same thing. On the wliole, the present en- 
 forcement is signally lacking in uniformity of purpose. 
 One cannot wonder at the prevalence of a feeling among 
 a certain class of dealers that at least a partial return to 
 old conditions is not very far off. It is expected that the 
 protection now enjoyed by some will be extended to others 
 for a consideration. 
 
 To show the utter lack of comparative data on which to 
 base any conclusions as to the effect of the present law on 
 the arrests for drunkenness, it seems enough to mention 
 that the arrests for intoxication fell from 26,002 in 1891 
 to 19,729 in 1894, followed the next year by an increase 
 to 22,497, as the result of special efforts to clear the streets 
 of drunken persons. The whole matter of arrests for this 
 offense is so much a question of police caprice that one can 
 find statistics to prove almost any theory. 
 
 DISPOSITION OF EXCISE CASES. 
 
 When the Court of Special Sessions, then just organized, 
 took up excise violations in July, 1895, many old cases 
 awaited trial, and the weekly arrests furnishing new ones 
 assumed proportions hitherto unknown. The Avork of the 
 court, unexampled both for aggressiveness and results, was 
 abrogated when the Liquor Tax Law took effect in 1896, 
 since it provided that all proceedings should be by in- 
 dictment and trial by a court of record. By the law as 
 amended in 1897, jurisdiction in excise cases is again given 
 the Court of Special Sessions, unless it appear during the 
 preliminary examination by magistrates tliat a crime not 
 triable by this court, which sits without a jury, has been 
 committed. Some cases are, therefore, sent direct to the 
 Court of General Sessions.
 
 398 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 DISPOSITION OF EXCISE CASES IN THE COURT 
 OF SPECIAL SESSIONS JULY 1 TO DECEMBER 31. 
 
 1895 1896 1897 
 
 Convictions 1,280 254 11 
 
 Acquittals 163 162 50 
 
 Dismissed 21 43 28 
 
 Discharged on own recognizance . 37 4 
 
 Demurrers allowed 3 35 
 
 Transferred to General Sessions . . 698 319 775 
 
 Fines collected $38,205 $6,775 $125 
 
 The Court of Special Sessions, although somewhat handi- 
 capped by the penalties now provided, deals as thoroughly 
 with excise offenses as ever, but comparatively few cases 
 come before it. Defendants have learned that their chances 
 of escaping punishment are much improved by securing a 
 transfer to General Sessions. Here the process of indict- 
 ment and trial by jury must be gone through, and the prob- 
 ability is that the case will never again be heard of. It is 
 estimated that not over five per cent, of the cases transferred 
 in 1897 have been tried, and it is safe to say never will be. 
 
 BROOKLYN. 
 
 Both under the old and the new laws, the conditions of 
 the liquor traffic in Brooklyn have been so similar to those 
 observed in New York that, in order to avoid tedious repe- 
 titions, they may be discussed in a few words. Although 
 not blessed with excise boards more faithful and competent 
 than its larger neighbor, Brooklyn has never supported a 
 like proportion of saloons. The reasons for this are its 
 comparative poverty, the fact that a large part of its popu- 
 lation bring trade to the New York saloons during the day, 
 and that the transient traffic is small. While the tax on 
 drink places is at present $150 less than across the bridge, 
 a slightly larger reduction in proportion to the population
 
 BROOKLYN. 899 
 
 has resulted ; there has been a gain of thirty-four inhabit- 
 ants for each place holding a certificate over the places 
 licensed in 1895-9G, against twenty-five in New York. 
 Yet the proportion of saloon, club, and hotel certificates to 
 1,000 inhabitants is the same in both, namely, 3.6. The 
 explanation offered is that fewer bottle shops found it profit- 
 able to continue business. The reduction is to be sought 
 among these and the small beer-shops in the German dis- 
 tricts. 
 
 Few drinking clubs are left since the law was amended ; 
 but the saloon-hotels remain prominent institutions, and 
 present the general characteristics already described. A 
 Brooklyn brewer is authority for the statement that one 
 third of his customers have taken to letting rooms for im- 
 moral purposes. The extent to which saloon-hotels give 
 shelter to the social evil is freely commented upon by citi- 
 zens not otherwise particularly observant. 
 
 Enforcement of the hotel regulations seems feebler than 
 in New York. It sounds exaggerated to say that all a 
 dealer has to do is to put a sign reading, " Hotel now open" 
 in his window, to sell undisturbed on Sundays, but in- 
 stances are known of this happening. Since the consolida- 
 tion of the two cities the police are displaying more activ- 
 ity on Sunday. Up to September 30, 1897, the State 
 treasury had been enriched to the amount of $10 from fines 
 imposed for violations in Kings County. It is not expected 
 that the higher tax, which will go into effect on the expira- 
 tion of the present certificate, will further diminish the 
 number of saloons ; but this result is looked for in other 
 places now a part of Greater New York. Notable among 
 them is Long Island City, where under a tax of $350 the 
 ratio of inhabitants to each certificate is 103, and where 
 police regulations are still laughed at by many dealers.
 
 400 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 ALBANY AND NEIGHBORING CITIES. 
 
 The cluster of cities at the head of navigation of the 
 Hxidson aptly ilhistrates the fact that an adjustment of the 
 liquor tax rate on the scale adopted in the present law 
 affects closely related municipalities simply according to 
 their size, and therefore in an unequal and unjustifiable 
 manner. In other Avords, of two practically adjoining 
 cities, with different tax rates, the smaller is almost sure to 
 retain the larger proportion of saloons ; or, if the tax rate 
 be the same, the benefit from a reduction of saloons is in 
 inverse order. For the sake of convenience, use is made 
 of statistics contained in the Second Annual Report of 
 the Commissioner of Excise, which give the proportion of 
 saloons to each 1,000 inhabitants, and are computed on the 
 basis of places holding tax certificates of the first grade 
 (saloons, hotels, and clubs) on September 30, 1897. 
 
 Albany, population (census 1892), 97,120, has 4.4 drink 
 places to each 1,000 inhabitants. On the opposite bank of 
 the Hudson, and quickly reached from Albany by electric 
 cars, lies the recently incorporated city Rensselaer, popula- 
 tion 8,000. It is practically a suburb of Albany, the home 
 of less well-to-do people, and not a business centre ; yet 
 the proportion of drink places — and there are hardly any 
 bona fide hotels and no clubs — is 5 to each 1,000 people. 
 Why ? Because the tax here is but $300 as against $500 
 in Albany. Some dealers who could not afford to continue 
 business in the latter — at least could not open hotels — 
 found a home across the river. 
 
 A few miles to the north, on the eastern bank of the 
 Hudson, is Troy. Although its population is smaller than 
 that of Albany by about 32,000, the liquor tax rate is the 
 same. In consequence, the proportion of drink places is 
 smaller, being only 3.8 as against 4.4 in Albany. But 
 under the old law Troy had relatively more saloons than 
 its larger neighbor.
 
 ALBANY AND NEIGHBORING CITIES. 401 
 
 Nearly opposite Troy, but in Albany County, are the 
 two cities Cohoes and Watervliet, populations 23,234 and 
 14,000 respectively. In both, the ratio of drink places to 
 1,000 inhabitants is the same, namely, 4.8, or one more than 
 in Troy, foj the tax rate is $150 less and rents are lower. 
 It must not be understood that the saloons have decreased 
 in Troy, and increased in the smaller adjacent places. A 
 distinct diminution has taken place in the latter as well. 
 The point is, that whatever benefit accrues from such dimi- 
 nution is unequally shared, and that the law operates less 
 advantageously in the small cities. One fails to see why 
 a tax of $500 should not produce even better results in 
 Cohoes than in Troy, provided it be the aim to reduce the 
 number of saloons. It is also evident that under the pre- 
 sent law Watervliet would have fared better than it has, 
 but for the proximity of Troy with its higher tax rate. 
 
 Another effect of the law in this part of the State is to 
 make saloons move across city limits, or to near-by villages, 
 where a smaller and almost nominal tax may be enjoyed. 
 
 There is no tangible evidence that the reduction of drink 
 places in the cities mentioned has caused greater sobriety ; 
 for, after all, the changes have not been sweeping. Com- 
 pared with the last year of the old law, the number of 
 inhabitants to each place holding a license or certificate has 
 risen in Albany from 130 to 173; in Troy from 117 to 
 157; in Cohoes from 111 to 155; and in Watervliet from 
 76 to 147. These figures seem to contradict the statement 
 made above concerning the unequal operation of the tax 
 rates ; since the increase in population to each certificate 
 issued is relatively greater in the two small cities. Never- 
 theless, the proportion of drink places remains as given ; 
 one cannot go behind the official returns. The increase in 
 inhabitants to each certificate is explained by the disappear- 
 ance of a multitude of bottle shops that ceased to be profit- 
 able imder the new law.
 
 402 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 The gain represented by the diminution in licensed 
 places is probably fully offset by the appearance of the 
 saloon-hotel. Police estimates give Albany about 100 of 
 them ; and Troy and the other three cities have their quota 
 in similar proportion. Police officials state in most positive 
 terms that a majority of these hotels have become abodes of 
 other vices than that of drunkenness alone, and are practi- 
 cally beyond their control. No inspection is made either 
 before or after the certificate has been obtained ; conse- 
 quently no one knows just how many there are, and to 
 what extent hotel regulations are observed. 
 
 "It is putting it mildly to say that the law is indiffer- 
 ently enforced," remarked a high official of the Excise 
 Department, speaking of the cities under consideration. 
 During the last excise year, not one cent in fines was paid 
 into the state treasury from Pensselaer County, and only 
 $100 from Albany County. This is, however, not equiva- 
 lent to saying that the police shirked their duties. Espe- 
 cially in Albany, the Sunday law was fairly well observed 
 by the ordinary saloons. So far there is a decided improve- 
 ment over former years, thanks to some sensible provisions 
 in the law. But the dealers fear the discomforts and noto- 
 riety of being arrested rather than conviction for violations. 
 Public officials did not hesitate to declare at the outset that 
 they would not help to make the law effective. Apparently 
 they keep their word ; for cases backed by the strongest 
 evidence continue to be thrown out of court. Many such 
 could be cited ; it is enough, however, to refer to the fact 
 that no fines worth mentioning are collected. Politics 
 enters largely into the question of enforcement, and even 
 more so the feeling, shared by many who cannot be accused 
 of enmity toward the law, that the penalties provided are 
 too severe.
 
 CITIES IN CENTRAL NEW YORK. 403 
 
 ROCHESTER AND SYRACUSE. 
 
 Events in Rochester have in a measure refuted the con- 
 tention that the new law would take the liquor question 
 out of politics. The overthrow of the Republican majority 
 in the city and county, the " Republican banner-county in 
 the State " at the last election, is attributed directly to dis- 
 satisfaction with the Raines law. This year a state elec- 
 tion is pending, and for fear of rousing further animosity 
 to the law, so it is alleged, eflforts at enforcement are abat- 
 ing in vigor and the side doors are again open on Sundays. 
 This is the test ; for throughout the State enforcement has 
 become synonymous with Sunday closing. So far as known, 
 only one conviction has been secured for violations, and 
 that is said to have been the result of " spite " against the 
 offender. From the whole county $525 have been collected 
 in fines. 
 
 Syracuse is another of the cities that have registered a 
 political protest against the present liquor law. Yet it 
 belongs to the group of municipalities most beneficially 
 affected, so far as a reduction of licensed places goes ; for 
 here the proportional increase in inhabitants to each license 
 has been greater than in any other city in the State, being 
 nearly fifty. Had the dissatisfaction expressed been directed 
 against the growth in saloon-hotels, instead of against the 
 tax features and the abolition of home rule (that is, a " wide- 
 open " condition), it would have been more intelligible. 
 For, if the words of the chief of police are to be trusted, 
 the saloon-hotels in Syracuse are little better than brothels. 
 There are many of them. Witli regard to enforcement, it 
 is enough to say that so far no fines have been collected in 
 the city for the whole county of Onondaga. 
 
 In all the places visited, the county treasurers appear to 
 issue certificates and collect taxes in harmony with the pol- 
 icy insisted upon by the Department of Excise.
 
 404 OPERATION OF NEW YOKK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 BUFFALO. 
 
 With seventy-two inhabitants to each license place in 
 1887, Buffalo stood preeminent among the cities of the 
 State as a saloon centre. Under the later administration 
 of excise affairs by a board of police and excise commission- 
 ers a slight gain was made, so that nine years later Buffalo 
 had been reduced to the sixth place and added forty-three 
 inhabitants to each license. This board was distinguished 
 from those of other cities by being of bi-partisan character, 
 and having control also of the police. When dealing with 
 the police, the mayor sat as an ex-officio member of the 
 board, but not when it passed on excise matters. Thus it 
 was sought to shut out politics, and with some success. On 
 the whole, the board seems to have exercised its discretion- 
 ary powers for the exclusion of objectionable characters 
 from the trade. Under the small license fee of $125, how- 
 ever, the number of saloons remained near high- water mark. 
 Except for a short time when the back-wash from the great 
 reform wave which had swept over New York touched 
 Buffalo, the Sunday laws were ignored, that is, the side 
 doors were open. 
 
 One is forced to infer that in fixing the present tax rate 
 the fathers of the law did not contemplate a wholesale 
 reduction of drink places in Buffalo. A certificate of the 
 first grade now costs $500, which, in spite of a population 
 four and a half times as large, is the rate obtaining in Troy. 
 Why Buffalo, although a city of the first class (Art. XII. 
 sec. 11, Constitution of State of New York), has been so 
 singularly favored in the matter of liquor taxes, when com- 
 pared with other cities both above and below it in point of 
 population, is not clear, but the result is clear : Buffalo has 
 now more drink places (saloons, hotels, and clubs) than 
 any other city in the State excepting three. One of these 
 three is its near neighbor, Niagara Falls ; the other two are
 
 BUFFALO. 405 
 
 Long Island City and Mount Vernon, both of which gained 
 some of the liquor dealers lost to Brooklyn and New York. 
 The effect of the new law on the number of licensed 
 places will be seen from this comparative statement : — 
 
 Licenses issued in 1895-9G to Certificates issued in 1896-97 to 
 
 Hotels 34 Hotels, saloons!, and clubs . 1,751 
 
 Saloons 2,248 Storekeepers, etc 110 
 
 Storekeepers and druggists . 136 Druggists 24 
 
 Total 2,418 Total 1,885 
 
 On the basis of the population in 1892, the number of 
 inhabitants to each license is now 147 as against 115 to 
 each license in 1895-96. 
 
 Certificates are issued by a deputy commissioner, who dis- 
 charges this function in the same manner as his colleagues. 
 He is an active politician. While censure of his work 
 is not wanting, evidence of shortcomings is wanting. A 
 branch of the Fidelity Surety and Deposit Company of 
 Maryland assumes responsibility for liquor bonds. Even 
 less is done than in New York city to keep the saloon- 
 hotels within bounds. There are about 400 of them at 
 present, according to police estimates ; no record exists 
 showing the exact number. Neither before nor after a 
 " hotel " opens, is an inspection made of the premises. For 
 the force at the disposal of the deputy commissioner to 
 make effective inspections is out of the question. It is not 
 even incumbent upon him to notify the police when a cer- 
 tificate is issued to a saloon-hotel keeper. For a short time 
 the police sought to supervise such institutions, but they 
 do so no longer. There is no statute or ordinance requir- 
 ing them to make inspections. The force is not adequate 
 for this purpose, and '•' in order to keep the hotels under 
 proper surveillance, it would be necessary to station a man 
 in each." They are, therefore, practically beyond the con- 
 trol of the police, whose much respected chief characterized
 
 406 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 the ordinary saloon as " bad enough, but not a tenth part 
 as bad as the hotel." In plain words, these hotels are 
 largely houses of assignation and other vices. They are 
 not all bad, however. All grades are found, from the law- 
 obeying German hotel to the vile dive selling mixed ale at 
 three cents a glass, where neither pocket-book nor life is 
 safe. All hotels are wide open on Sundays, and so, for 
 that matter, are not a few saloons. Dealers report that they 
 are less " troubled " by the police than formerly. Orders 
 to enforce the Sunday regulations are as stringent as ever. 
 But one can well understand a growing disposition among 
 the rank and file of officers to wink at violations, so long as 
 convictions do not follow arrests, and grand juries are loath 
 to accept anything but the most compelling evidence. Just 
 $485 have been collected in fines for excise offenses from 
 Erie County in twelve months, and it should be remembered 
 that the fine for some violations must at least equal the 
 amount of tax for one year. Of the " fake " clubs little 
 was learned except that a number exists. 
 
 OPERATION OF THE LIQUOR TAX LAW IN 
 
 GENERAL. 
 
 EFFECT UPON THE NUMBER OF LIQUOR SHOPS. 
 
 From a temperance point of view, interest in the work- 
 ings of the law centres about its effectiveness as a means of 
 reducing the number of places where drink is sold. One 
 cannot very well enter a plea for it as a temperance mea- 
 sure on any other ground. In saying this, the usefulness 
 of some of the general restrictions placed upon the traffic is 
 not overlooked, but their value depends entirely upon the 
 extent to which they are enforced, and they do not differ 
 essentially from those contained in the old law. Moreover, 
 granting that in some respects the liquor business is under
 
 LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES. 407 
 
 better supervision than before, the gain seems fully counter- 
 balanced by the absence of discretionary power in issuing 
 certificates and the unrestrained abuse of the hotel privi- 
 leges. The changes wrought by the law with regard to the 
 number of liquor-selling places and the proportion of inhab- 
 itants to each one are shown in two tables, the first embra- 
 cing the cities, the second the counties exclusive of cities.-^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 Inhab- 
 
 
 
 
 Inhab- 
 
 itants 
 
 
 Licenses 
 
 Certificates 
 
 itants 
 
 to each 
 
 Tax 
 
 granted, 
 
 issued, 
 
 to each 
 
 Certifi- 
 
 Rate. 
 
 1895-96. 
 
 1896-97. 
 
 License. 
 
 cate. 
 
 Cities. 
 
 New York |800 8,906 7,927 202 227 
 
 Brooklyn 650 4,702 4,025 203 237 
 
 Buffalo 
 
 500 
 
 2,418 
 
 1,885 
 
 115 
 
 147 
 
 Rochester 
 
 <( 
 
 669 
 
 596 
 
 216 
 
 243 
 
 Albany 
 
 (( 
 
 744 
 
 559 
 
 130 
 
 173 
 
 Syracuse 
 
 « 
 
 706 
 
 515 
 
 130 
 
 178 
 
 Troy 
 
 « 
 
 555 
 
 413 
 
 117 
 
 157 
 
 Utica 
 
 350 
 
 455 
 
 322 
 
 102 
 
 144 
 
 Long Island City 
 
 (( 
 
 357 
 
 344 
 
 100 
 
 103 
 
 Binghamton 
 
 (( 
 
 167 
 
 153 
 
 206 
 
 225 
 
 1 The comparative statement made in the tables is based on the number 
 of licenses of all classes granted in 1895-96, and the number of certificates 
 of all grades issued from May 1, 1896, to April 30, 1897. The total of the 
 latter is smaller than the whole number of certificates issued during the 
 fiscal 3'ear ending September 30, 1897, for the reason, perhaps, that all 
 clubs are now required to pay a tax, but the earlier year is considered by 
 the Excise Department to furnish the fairest basis for comparison. Since 
 certificates may be had for less than a whole year, and can be surrendered 
 at any time without loss to the holder, many are surrendered, and the 
 total number of certificates issued during the year is, therefore, greater 
 than the number in force at any particular date. On the other hand, it 
 must be remembered that numerous certificates are intended for use only 
 during the summer season at country and seaside resorts ; and that else- 
 where certificates are frequently surrendered only for a short time, — for 
 instance, when a brewer has made up his mind that a new man must be 
 placed in charge of his saloon. It was true of the licenses as well that by 
 no means all were made use of during their entire term, although no 
 rebates were paid. For these reasons no account is taken in the tables of 
 the number of certificates surrendered.
 
 408 OPEBATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Inhabi- 
 
 
 
 
 
 Inhabi- 
 
 tants 
 
 
 
 Licenses 
 
 Certificates 
 
 tants 
 
 to each 
 
 
 Tax 
 
 granted, 
 
 issued, 
 
 to each 
 
 Certifi- 
 
 Cities. 
 
 Rate. 
 
 1895-96. 
 
 1896-97. 
 
 License. 
 
 cate. 
 
 Yonkers 
 
 $350 
 
 208 
 
 214 
 
 151 
 
 146 
 
 Elmira 
 
 (( 
 
 273 
 
 203 
 
 109 
 
 147 
 
 Auburn 
 
 a 
 
 153 
 
 119 
 
 161 
 
 207 
 
 Newburgh 
 
 a 
 
 168 
 
 154 
 
 146 
 
 159 
 
 Cohoes 
 
 a 
 
 209 
 
 149 
 
 111 
 
 155 
 
 Poughkeepsie 
 
 (4 
 
 158 
 
 136 
 
 146 
 
 170 
 
 Schenectady 
 
 il 
 
 160 
 
 148 
 
 142 
 
 154 
 
 Oswego 
 
 n 
 
 152 
 
 104 
 
 144 
 
 211 
 
 Kingston 
 
 ii 
 
 183 
 
 141 
 
 117 
 
 152 
 
 Jamestown 
 
 n 
 
 56 
 
 63 
 
 332 
 
 295 
 
 Amsterdam 
 
 11 
 
 116 
 
 120 
 
 159 
 
 154 
 
 "VVatertown 
 
 (( 
 
 61 
 
 69 
 
 278 
 
 246 
 
 Lockport 
 
 n 
 
 105 
 
 104 
 
 153 
 
 154 
 
 Niagara Falls 
 
 ii 
 
 150 
 
 129 
 
 105 
 
 122 
 
 Mt. Vernon 
 
 a 
 
 72 
 
 88 
 
 215 
 
 176 
 
 Watervliet 
 
 ii 
 
 183 
 
 95 
 
 76 
 
 147 
 
 Gloversville 
 
 « 
 
 54 
 
 68 
 
 272 
 
 216 
 
 Rome 
 
 <( 
 
 106 
 
 57 
 
 128 
 
 239 
 
 Ithaca 
 
 (( 
 
 54 
 
 65 
 
 249 
 
 207 
 
 Ogdensburg 
 
 a 
 
 51 
 
 47 
 
 234 
 
 254 
 
 Hornellsville 
 
 (i 
 
 86 
 
 61 
 
 138 
 
 195 
 
 Middletown 
 
 <( 
 
 77 
 
 67 
 
 150 
 
 173 
 
 Dunkirk 
 
 u 
 
 73 
 
 62 
 
 137 
 
 161 
 
 Corning 
 
 « 
 
 67 
 
 43 
 
 149 
 
 233 
 
 Little Falls 
 
 300 
 
 69 
 
 52 
 
 142 
 
 189 
 
 Hudson 
 
 (( 
 
 111 
 
 86 
 
 86 
 
 112 
 
 Johnstown 
 
 (( 
 
 34 
 
 37 
 
 275 
 
 252 
 
 Oleau 
 
 (( 
 
 69 
 
 61 
 
 132 
 
 149 
 
 Three cities, Geneva, North Tonawanda, and Hensselaer, 
 were not incorporated prior to the enactment of the present 
 law, and are hence necessarily excluded from this table, but 
 appear in the next with the villages. 
 
 Averaging the number of inhabitants to each license and 
 to each certificate for the cities classed according to the 
 amount of first grade taxes, we obtain these results : —
 
 LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES. 409 
 
 Average No. of Inhabitants Increase in Average 
 
 to each No. of Inliabitants 
 
 Tax. Cities. License. Certificate. to each Certificate. 
 
 $800 1 202.30 227.29 24.99 
 
 650 1 203.56 237.80 34.24 
 
 500 5 141.92 180.10 38.18 
 
 350 27 163.79 183.59 19.80 
 
 300 4 159.13 175.77 16.64 
 
 Our averages illustrate forcibly tlie unequal operation of 
 the present system of grading the liquor taxes. In other 
 words, the benefit to a city from a reduction of drink places 
 is, on the whole, in proportion to the amount of tax paid : 
 the smaller the tax, the less the benefit ; consequently the 
 cities paying the smallest tax retain the largest proportion 
 of saloons. The five cities having a first grade tax of $500 
 seem to form an exception, but here, for obvious reasons, 
 the smaller, Syracuse, Albany, and Troy, fare better than 
 Buffalo and Eochester. The point emphasized will perhaps 
 be better perceived by showing the proportion of first grade 
 certificates (covering saloons, clubs, and hotels), to 1,000 
 inhabitants, in force September 30, 1897, for the cities 
 classed according to the rate of tax, as given in the Second 
 Annual Report of the State Commissioner of Excise, pp. 
 105,106: — 
 
 Drink Places per 
 1,000 Inliabitants. 
 
 New York city, Tax, $800 3.6 
 
 Brooklyn, " 650 3.6 
 
 Average for cities paying 500 4.3 
 
 " " " " 350 4.5 
 
 1 " " " " 300 4.8 
 
 Highest average (Long Island City) 8.1 
 
 Lowest " (Jamestown) 2.6 
 
 It deserves attention that in the last mentioned city, as 
 well as in seven others, all of which pay a low tax, the 
 number of inhabitants to each place authorized to sell liquor 
 1 Includes the three cities not given in our table.
 
 410 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 has fallen off under the present law. For the thirty-eight 
 cities the average number of inhabitants to each license is 
 162.48, and to each certificate 184.95, an average gain of 
 22.47 in favor of the present law. 
 
 Outside the cities there are paid for tax certificates of 
 the first grade $350 by 4 villages, $300 by 21, $200 by 
 161, and $100 by 222. The last-named sum is the lowest 
 tax allowed by law, and is therefore the one prevailing in 
 the strictly rural districts. The next table is a comparative 
 statement of licenses and certificates by counties exclusive 
 of cities, hence exclusive of New York and Kings counties. 
 An asterisk denotes that the county contains one or more 
 cities : — 
 
 
 Number of 
 
 Number of 
 
 
 Number of 
 
 Number of 
 
 
 Licenses 
 
 Certificates 
 
 
 Licenses 
 
 Certificates 
 
 
 granted, 
 
 issued, 
 
 
 granted, 
 
 issued. 
 
 Counties. 
 
 1895-96. 
 
 1896-97. 
 
 Counties. 
 
 1895-96. 
 
 1896-97. 
 
 *Albany 
 
 82 
 
 154 
 
 Livingston 
 
 Ill 
 
 138 
 
 Allegany 
 
 65 
 
 82 
 
 Madison 
 
 174 
 
 158 
 
 *Broome 
 
 41 
 
 61 
 
 *Monroe 
 
 207 
 
 210 
 
 *Cattaraugiis 130 
 
 169 
 
 *Montgomery 140 
 
 149 
 
 *Cayuga 
 
 62 
 
 69 
 
 *Niagara 
 
 160 
 
 134 
 
 *Chautauqu 
 
 a 74 
 
 101 
 
 *Oneida 
 
 228 
 
 215 
 
 *Chemung 
 
 48 
 
 48 
 
 *Onondaga 
 
 256 
 
 286 
 
 Chenango 
 
 92 
 
 104 
 
 *Ontario 
 
 146 
 
 140 
 
 Clinton 
 
 138 
 
 136 
 
 *Orange 
 
 288 
 
 280 
 
 *Columbia 
 
 125 
 
 136 
 
 Orleans 
 
 75 
 
 67 
 
 Cortland 
 
 42 
 
 72 
 
 *Oswego 
 
 130 
 
 116 
 
 Delaware 
 
 95 
 
 97 
 
 Otsego 
 
 160 
 
 144 
 
 *Dutchess 
 
 246 
 
 269 
 
 Putnam 
 
 61 
 
 49 
 
 *Erie 
 
 533 
 
 472 
 
 *Queens 
 
 1,285 
 
 1,302 
 
 Essex 
 
 96 
 
 110 
 
 *Rensselaer 
 
 353 
 
 277 
 
 Franklin 
 
 99 
 
 105 
 
 Richmond 
 
 543 
 
 505 
 
 *Fulton 
 
 53 
 
 57 
 
 Rockland 
 
 236 
 
 217 
 
 Genesee 
 
 86 
 
 86 
 
 *St. Lawrence 142 
 
 162 
 
 Greene 
 
 173 
 
 181 
 
 Saratoga 
 
 401 
 
 321 
 
 Hamilton 
 
 46 
 
 33 
 
 *Schenectady 45 
 
 51 
 
 *IIerkimer 
 
 183 
 
 181 
 
 Schoharie 
 
 74 
 
 81 
 
 *Jefferson 
 
 168 
 
 173 
 
 Schuyler 
 
 48 
 
 46 
 
 Lewis 
 
 111 
 
 120 
 
 Seneca 
 
 118 
 
 109
 
 LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES. 
 
 411 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Number of 
 Licenses 
 granted, 
 1895-96. 
 
 Number of 
 
 Certificates 
 
 issued, 
 
 1896-97. 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Number of 
 Licenses 
 granted, 
 1895-96. 
 
 Number of 
 Certilicatea 
 
 issued, 
 1896-97. 
 
 *Steuben 
 
 131 
 
 158 
 
 Washington 
 
 173 
 
 216 
 
 Suffolk 
 
 243 
 
 324 
 
 Wayne 
 
 128 
 
 132 
 
 Tioga 
 
 95 
 
 95 
 
 *Westchestei 
 
 • 602 
 
 675 
 
 *Tompkins 
 
 *Ulster 
 
 34 
 
 310 
 
 44 
 
 297 
 
 Wyoming 
 Yates 
 
 92 
 41 
 
 89 
 48 
 
 Warren 
 
 152 
 
 146 
 
 
 
 
 In- thirty -two out of the fifty- five counties considered, 
 there has been an increase of certificates over licenses ; in 
 eighteen a decrease ; and in four no change. For all the 
 counties we find 243 inhabitants to each license and 238 to 
 each certificate (census of 1892), — a loss of five inhabitants 
 under the present law. Bringing the totals into compari- 
 son, the following exhibit is obtained : — 
 
 Number of 
 
 Licenses, 
 
 1895-96. 
 
 In counties outside cities . 10,320 
 In cities 22,937 
 
 Number of 
 
 Certificates, Inhabitants to each 
 1896-97. License. Certificate. 
 
 10,547 
 19,481 
 
 240 
 175 
 
 For the whole State 
 
 33,257 30,028 195 
 
 235 
 206 
 
 216 
 
 With an average gain of twenty-two inhabitants in cities 
 for each place where liquor is sold, and a loss of five inhabit- 
 ants for each such place outside the cities, it does not seem 
 demonstrable that the Liquor Tax Law has become a potent 
 temperance factor. Most striking is the discrimination in 
 favor of the rural liquor traffic. It may be objected that 
 our comparisons are not quite just, because the unlicensed 
 selling, which certainly flourished to a greater extent under 
 the excise boards than now, is not taken into account. But 
 that would be dealing with unknown quantities. Nor 
 would it make any appreciable difference if allowance were 
 made for the clubs that now pay a tax (the bona fide ones 
 are few), or for those certificates surrendered which really 
 signify places that have gone out of business.
 
 412 OPEEATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 LOCAL OPTION. 
 
 Only sixty-two towns voted on the four questions sub- 
 mitted in the spring of 1896 ; the remaining 880 voted in 
 the spring of 1897 with the following results : — 
 
 Against all sales 263 
 
 For sales under all four propositions 359 
 
 For sales by pharmacists and hotels only . , . 117 
 
 For sales by hotels only 105 
 
 For sales by pharmacists only 34 
 
 Sixty-four were variously divided upon the different 
 questions ; total towns, 942. 
 
 There are now twenty fewer "absolutely no-license" 
 towns than when the Liquor Tax Law took effect. As an 
 offset to this loss, it is pointed out that there are " very 
 many less saloons and groceries where liquors are dis- 
 pensed." But, unfortunately, "hotels" have become far 
 more pernicious than the ordinary saloon, both in small and 
 large places. On the other hand, it is probably true that 
 local prohibition is better enforced than formerly. The 
 experiment with local option is too new to warrant any 
 general conclusions. But the criticism that the law is 
 clumsily drawn, if not contrived to make complete pro- 
 hibition difficult of attainment, is not unreasonable. In 
 sixty-four towns, the results of the first vote were evidently 
 so confusing as to make a classification impossible. The 
 invitation to discrimination against the saloons in favor of 
 the hotel (see law) may prove a kind of balm to the con- 
 science of some people, but the resulting semblance of local 
 prohibition is worse than none. 
 
 ENFORCEMENT, CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, AND CIVIL 
 
 ACTIONS. 
 
 It is but faint praise to indorse the official statement, 
 " The Liquor Tax Law has been better observed and better
 
 ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTIONS. 413 
 
 enforced than any former excise law of the State," (Second 
 Ann. Rep. of the State Commissioner of Excise, p. 10.) 
 Former laws were not enforced at all, except for brief peri- 
 ods in a few localities. Nor could the fact that ampler 
 legal means for compelling olDedience to the law are now 
 available, both to officials and citizens, afford much consola- 
 tion were it not that signs of a healthier public sentiment 
 are visible. Through honest and unremitting efforts the 
 Excise Department has made itself respected. To be sure, 
 it cannot do much more than collect taxes and prod officials. 
 But this has a salutary effect. Dealers have now a realiz- 
 ing sense, formerly lacking in more than one locality, that 
 the tax must be paid to the last farthing ; and much of the 
 illegal traffic has been stopped. Local officials are no longer 
 so prone to repudiate all responsibility for enforcement. 
 Excise cases obtain wider publicity than before, and citizens 
 have an opportunity of learning what magistrates and attor- 
 neys are about. In short, there is a livelier public con- 
 sciousness of the fact that liquor - selling is regulated by 
 law ; and that is a decided gain. Although enforcement is 
 still, on the whole, feeble and in some places farcical, such 
 bold-faced violations as were the order of the day in some 
 localities not many months ago are not likely to recur. But 
 it should not be forgotten that the saloon-hotel keepers enjoy 
 a measure of freedom from interference whereby the problem 
 of enforcing the Sunday laws has been much simplified. 
 
 The ugliest feature of the present situation is the rarity 
 of convictions for violations. So long as public prosecutors 
 and juries treat excise offenses with marked leniency, the 
 police cannot be counted on to keep up the rather purpose- 
 less work of arresting offenders. 
 
 Data published by the Excise Department furnish the 
 measure of the present enforcement of the law, and show 
 also the extent to which the punitive sections become 
 operative. All indictments and convictions for violations,
 
 414 OPERATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 as well as the preliminary examination by magistrates of 
 persons charged with such violations, are reported to this 
 department. The statement below is practically complete 
 for the whole State as to indictments and convictions, but 
 not as to persons held for grand juries. The law compel- 
 ling magistrates to make reports is of more recent date, and 
 is said not to have been fully complied with : — 
 
 Indictments found September 30, 1896, to October 1, 
 
 1897 1,006 
 
 Indictments found prior to October 1, 1896 662 
 
 Verified complaints submitted to district attorneys for 
 
 prosecution 377 
 
 Indictments dismissed March 23, 1896, to October 1, 
 
 1897 351 
 
 Convictions 119 
 
 Fines imposed ... * $16,089.32 
 
 Fines collected and paid 6,834.32 
 
 Indictments pending October 1, 1897 1,198 
 
 Persons held to await the action of grand juries . . . 741 
 
 Taking only the total number of indictments (1,668) 
 found, and supposing prosecution to have been brought on 
 each, we find that convictions resulted in but 7.13 per cent. 
 of the cases. As a matter of fact, it is not known how 
 many trials took place on indictments and the verified com- 
 plaints submitted. Curiously enough, the law requires re- 
 ports to be made of indictments and convictions, but not 
 of the cases hung up in the offices of district attorneys. 
 Probably in hundreds of instances no effort is made to 
 bring about a trial. The fines imposed averaged but 
 $135.20 for each of the 119 convictions. In thirty-four 
 out of the fifty-seven counties not a cent has been collected 
 in fines. The largest amount came from New York city, 
 namely, $1,382. It appears that not a single fine has been 
 collected for illegal traffic ; for that is always to be twice 
 the amount of the tax. So far, the value of the authority 
 delegated to the excise commissioner of beginning a civil
 
 AERESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS. 415 
 
 action to recover a penalty of $50 for each violation of the 
 law, to he exercised in cases where local authorities cannot 
 or will not do their duty, has not been demonstrated. 
 
 Only the more important civil actions and proceedings 
 during the year ending September 30, 1897, need be noted. 
 Eleven proceedings were instituted by tlie Department of 
 Excise to restrain illegal traffic, resulting in injunctions 
 being issued in eight cases. By the department twenty- 
 two, and by citizens fifty-three, actions were instituted to 
 revoke and cancel liquor tax certificates ; thirty-six were 
 revoked, and twenty-six cases dismissed or discontinued ; 
 thirteen cases are still pending. Five actions were brought 
 to enforce the penalty on bonds. 
 
 The nuuaber of certificates revoked is not so surprisingly 
 small when we remember how few convictions are obtained. 
 Conviction must precede revocation. 
 
 ARRESTS FOB DRUNKENNESS. 
 
 Since it has been officially asserted (Second Annual Re- 
 port of the State Commissioner of Excise, p. 5) that arrests 
 for drunkenness have decreased under the present law, the 
 facts upon Avhich this statement is made must be briefly 
 examined. Under an act of May 23, 1895, justices of 
 peace are required to keep "a Justices' Criminal Docket," 
 giving a complete record, among other things, of arrests for 
 drunkenness. Some time elapsed before the act became 
 generally operative. From these dockets agents of the 
 Department of Excise have tabulated the number of arrests 
 on the charges " drunk," " drunk and disorderly," and 
 " public intoxication " under the one head of " intoxica- 
 tion." The department observes : " In some instances, the 
 docket records show a tendency on the part of officials to 
 conceal real causes of arrest. Some justices never commit. 
 ... In some localities drunkenness is hardly considered 
 a crime of which official cognizance should be taken j in
 
 416 OPEKATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 others, apparently little heed has been given to the observ- 
 ance of a statute requiring a criminal docket to be kept." 
 Mention is made of " these obstacles, . . . together with 
 the destruction of records by fire, or their removal by out- 
 going officials." 
 
 Furthermore, comparative data for any whole year under 
 the former liquor law are unobtainable, since the act re- 
 quiring records to be kept did not become operative until the 
 latter half of 1895. The available statistics under the pre- 
 sent law do not extend beyond September 30, 1897. One 
 may, therefore, justly say of the statistics of arrest fur- 
 nished by the Department of Excise not only that " at best 
 this information is somewhat incomplete and unsatisfactory," 
 but that it is absolutely worthless as a basis for any safe 
 conclusions. For the whole State a decrease of 3,798 ar- 
 rests in 1896 as compared with the preceeding year is shown 
 by the dockets. But this total hardly represents more than 
 the fluctuations observed in a single city from one year to 
 another. Thus in Buffalo the arrests for drunkenness and 
 disorderly conduct show an increase in 1897 of 3,474 over 
 1896 ; yet it would be unwarrantable to argue from this 
 isolated fact that under the Liquor Tax Law there is less 
 sobriety than before. 
 
 It is quite possible, but not probable, that drunkenness 
 has perceptibly diminished within two years ; no one can 
 tell. We know nothing about the consumption of liquor, 
 and of production only that the output of the breweries in 
 the State has decreased ; but this is also true of States in 
 which there has been no change in legislation, for instance 
 in Illinois and Ohio. 
 
 FINANCIAL RESULTS. 
 
 The unqualified success of the Liquor Tax Law as a 
 revenue-producer, and the economy of state control of the 
 traffic, may be gleaned from the following comparative 
 statement : —
 
 FINANCIAL RESULTS. 417 
 
 Total receipts under the old law for twelve 
 
 months ending April 30, 1896 $3,172,376.58 
 
 Expenses of collection 252,782.77 
 
 Net revenue $2,919,593.81 
 
 Ratio of expenses of collection, 8.65 per cent. 
 
 Total receipts under the Liquor Tax Law from 
 
 October 1, 1896, to September 30, 1897 . . $12,267,012.59 
 Rebates paid during above period $517,971.09 
 County treasurer's fees .... 61,488.31 
 
 Expenses of Excise Department . 263,647.43 
 
 840,106.83 
 
 Net revenue $11,423,205.76 
 
 Amount paid into state treasury (one third) . $3,914,906.76 
 
 to cities 6,938,180.13 
 
 " to towns 834,466.30 
 
 
 Bitter resentment against the State's sharing the excise 
 revenue is shown by many who regard it as a scheme to 
 " bleed" the cities for the benefit of the rural districts where 
 a low tax is paid, or, in some places, none. Such was 
 doubtless the intention of the framers of the law. But 
 under the operation of the Equalization Table of 1897, pre- 
 pared by the State Board of Assessors, each locality is a 
 beneficiary in the tax moneys turned into the state treasury 
 in proportion to the amount of excise tax it pays. In other 
 words, a locality is relieved from direct taxation to the 
 amount raised indirectly by taxes on the liquor traffic. 
 The excise money paid to the State in excess of its percent- 
 age of the state tax accrues to the locality. This arrange- 
 ment would seem to benefit the real-estate owner and rent- 
 payer. 
 
 To illustrate how the system works : —
 
 418 OPEKATION OF NEW YORK LIQUOR TAX LAW. 
 
 In New York city for the year ending Septem- 
 ber 30, 1897, the net revenue was .... $5,392,275.20 
 
 City's share (two thirds) 3,594,850.13 
 
 State's share (one third) 1,797,425.07 
 
 The city received in rebated state taxation on 
 
 account of the state excise revenue .... $1,842,428.30' 
 
 As stated above, it paid to the state treasury . 1,797,425.07 
 
 Direct gain to the city over and above what it 
 pays to the State 145,003.23 
 
 The total receipts in license fees in New York city in 1895 
 was $1,790,530, or $1,804,320.13 less than during the last 
 fiscal year under the present system, and the expense of 
 collection was much larger in 1895. Of the gross excise 
 receipts in the State, $8,920,855.91, or over two thirds, are 
 contributed by the three counties. New York, Kings, and 
 Erie. A uniform tax on the traffic regardless of popula- 
 tion would, of course, have yielded very different results. 
 
 With all its palpable defects, the tax feature of the law 
 has demonstrated beyond peradventure that the weight of 
 tax which can be borne by the liquor trade has not yet 
 reached its limit, and that a reduction of drink places fol- 
 lows very nearly in proportion as the tax rate is raised. 
 These are lessons of positive benefit, and new in the State 
 of New York. 
 
 Apart from considerations of the law, the question 
 whether the system of state control provided has proved its 
 superiority over the preceding system of local control must, 
 on the whole, be answered in the affirmative. Remember- 
 ing that the excise boards generally were not what they 
 might have been, disinterested persons cannot mourn their 
 abolition. Against the present lack of discretionary author- 
 ity to prevent objectionable persons from engaging in an 
 admittedly dangerous business must be held the fact that, 
 while this authority existed, it was not commonly used in
 
 CONCLUSIONS. 419 
 
 the interests of public morality. And, aside from the dif- 
 ficulty in keeping the boards free from venal politics and 
 other contaminating influences, their administration was 
 usually inefficient and always expensive. In the latter re- 
 spects the Department of Excise presents a pleasing con- 
 trast. Instead of scores of methods or no method at all, 
 there is uniformity and systematized control. For the first 
 time in the history of the State, it is made possible to obtain 
 some reliable information about the various phases of the 
 liquor traffic in all localities. This again is a positive bene- 
 fit, and has doubtless resulted in quickening public interest 
 in the liquor problem as a whole.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Albany, N. Y., liquor trafiflc in, 
 
 400-402. 
 
 Alleglieny County, Pa., liquor traffic 
 in, 268-283 ; local laws, 270, 271 ; 
 illegal sales, 272; number of li- 
 censes, 273 ; juries in, 274, 275 ; elec- 
 tion of judge, 276 ; license court, 
 277 ; Brooks law, 279. 
 
 Androscoggin County, Me., 67-70. 
 
 Anti-Saloon League in Ohio, 305. 
 
 Appleton, Gen. James, proposes 
 prohibition by law in Maine, 24. 
 
 Aroostook County, Me., 70, 71. 
 
 Arrests for drunkenness, 16, 60, 69, 
 80, 83, 176-180, 200, 202, 213-218, 225, 
 258-262, 283, 301, 302, 334, 335, 397, 
 415. 
 
 Augusta, Me., liquor traffic in, 73. 
 
 Bangor, Me., liquor traffic in, 78-80. 
 
 Bar Harbor, Me., violation of law in, 
 71, 72. 
 
 Bars, public, in Massachusetts, 200. 
 
 Bath, Me., liquor-selling in, 82. 
 
 Bee be, Roderick, case of, 308, 309. 
 
 Belfast, Me.," sarsaparilla '' industry 
 in, 84. 
 
 Berks County, Pa., German stamp 
 of, 288 ; licenses in, 289. 
 
 Biddeford, Me., liquor traffic in, 85, 
 93. 
 
 " Blind tigers," 150, 167, 180 6. 
 
 Board of control, 180 a. 
 
 Boies, Gov. Horace, 123, 124, 126, 127. 
 
 Bonds of licensees, 10, 184, 186, 192, 
 202, 360, 380. 
 
 " Boot-leggers," 115. 
 
 Boston, Mass., police commissioners 
 of, 183, 184, 191-196; license com- 
 missioners, 188-190 ; liquor-selling 
 at the end of tlie prohibitory pe- 
 riod, 188 note; violations of li- 
 censes, 189, 190, 194, 195, 203 ; sure- 
 ties on liquor bonds, 192 ; metropol- 
 itan board of police commissioners, 
 197 ; limitation law, 199 ; illicit 
 traffic. 200 ; license fees, 203 ; work- 
 ing of the law, 203-205 ; arrests and 
 prosecutions of dealers, 206-212 ; 
 arrests for drunkenness, 213-218 ; 
 penalties imposed, 219, 220. 
 
 Breweries, in Iowa, 116; in South 
 Carolina, 167; in St. Louis, 331- 
 336. 
 
 Brooklyn, N. Y., liquor traffic in 
 
 398, 399. 
 Brooks law, the, in Pennsylvania, 
 
 239 se({. 
 Brunswick, Me., liquor traffic in, 
 
 67. 
 Buffalo, N. Y., a saloon centre, 404- 
 
 406. 
 Burlington, Iowa, mob in, 106 ; non- 
 enforcement of law in, 138. 
 
 Charleston, S. C, liquor traffic in, 
 171 ; arrests for illegal selling, 174; 
 arrests for drunkenness, 176. 
 
 Church officials as indorsers of ap- 
 plications for licenses, 245, 246. 
 
 Cincinnati, O., arrests in, 302 ; num- 
 ber of saloons in, 302 ; Sunday 
 liquor-selling, 304 ; Municipal Ke- 
 form League, 305. 
 
 Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, 
 cited, 316 note. 
 
 Clubs, liquor, 253, 254, 289. 
 
 Cohoes, N. Y., liquor tax and saloons 
 in, 401. 
 
 Columbia, S. C, trials of dispensary 
 cases in, 175; arrests for drunken- 
 ness, 177, 178. 
 
 Columbus, O., arrests in, 301. 
 
 Commissioner, state liquor, 26, 30, 91, 
 92, 351, 356. 
 
 Constitutional amendment in Maine, 
 29-34. 
 
 " Cork-Screw, the reign of the," 121. 
 
 Courts, as licensing authorities, 9, 
 231, 240-242, 262-264, 277-279, 323 ; 
 dealing with liquor cases, 13-15,54, 
 55, 88-91, 209-212, 223; and the 
 South Carolina dispensary law, 
 156-160, 175, 180 a. 
 
 Cumberland County, Me., 66, 67. 
 
 Cunnnins, A. B., 118, 119, 127. 
 
 Darby, Pa., notable license case In, 
 
 263, 264. 
 Darlington, S. C, riot in, 155. 
 Dauphin County, Pa., licenses in, 
 
 267. 
 Davenport case, the, 105. 
 Davenport, Iowa, saloons in, 124 ; 
 
 non-enforcement of law in, 138. 
 Delaware County, Pa., 262-264 ; work 
 
 of license court in, 264. 
 Des Moines, Iowa, disturbances in,
 
 422 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 107 ; International Distillery at, 
 116 ; selling " drugs," 132 ; saloons, 
 135; restriction of liquor trafiic, 
 138, 139. 
 
 Dispensary law in South Carolina, 
 1, 7, 17, 20, 146 ; financial feature of, 
 149, 152, 162-164; development of. 
 152, 153; leads to riots, 154, 155; 
 declared unconstitutional, 156 ; de- 
 cision reversed, 159; extent of the 
 system, 161 ; distribution of dis- 
 pensaries, 161, 162; revenue from, 
 163, 164, 169, 170 ; as a political ma- 
 chine, 164-170 ; inherent defects of, 
 166-108 ; violation of, 169 ; negroes 
 the chief patrons of dispensaries, 
 169 ; enforcement of the law, 170, 
 173 ; convictions, 173, 174 ; drunken- 
 ness diminished, 176-180; law re- 
 enacted, 180 a ; changes in, 180 a ; 
 present condition of, 180 b. 
 
 Distilleries in South Carolina, 173. 
 
 Distillery, The International, 104, 
 116, 117. 
 
 Dow, Gen. Neal, 25, 34. 
 
 Drinkmg habits at the beginning of 
 this century, 22. 
 
 Druggists, liquor sales by, 13, 36, 43, 
 
 68, 111-114,135, 254, 317,318. 
 Drunkenness, arrests for. 16, 60, 61, 
 
 69, 80, 83, 176-180, 200, 202, 213-218, 
 225, 258-262, 283, 301, 302, 334, 335 ; 
 penalties for, in Maine, 32, 33 ; fre- 
 quency of, in Portland, Me., 59, 60, 
 62 ; in South Carolina, 172, 176-180 ; 
 penalties in Massachusetts, 219; 
 frequency of, in Philadelphia, 237 ; 
 in Pittsburgh, 283. 
 
 Dummy warrants, 51. 
 
 East Machlas, Me., early temper- 
 ance movement in. 22. 
 
 Eastport, Me., prohibitory law in, 
 84. 
 
 Excise, boards of, in New York, 340- 
 348,354 ; officials, 356 ; department, 
 373-377, 419; arrests for violation 
 of law, 396-398. 
 
 Express companies and the liquor 
 traffic, 45, 73. See, also. Inter- 
 state conmierce, Transportation 
 of liquor. 
 
 Fairfield, Me., 83. 
 
 Fanshaw, E. L., quoted, 37, 38. 
 
 Farmiugton, Me., prohibition in, 63- 
 65. 
 
 Fidelity Surety and Deposit Com- 
 pany of Maryland, 380 note, 405. 
 
 Franklin County, Me., 71. 
 
 French Canadians in Maine, 63, 67, 
 68, 70, 72, 83. 
 
 Gardiner, Me., liquor-selling in, 73, 
 74. 
 
 Gear, John H., Republican candi- 
 date for governor of Iowa, 102. 
 
 German influence, in Iowa, 97, 99; in 
 Berks County, Pa., 288; In Mis- 
 souri, 319. 
 
 German quarter, in New York city, 
 386-389. 
 
 Good Citizens' League in Indiana, 
 318. 
 
 Greenville, S.C, arrests for drunken- 
 ness in, 178. 
 
 Hancock County, Me., 71, 72. 
 
 Harrisburg, Pa., characteristics of, 
 265 ; licenses in, 266 ; drunkenness 
 in, 267. 
 
 Haynes, Tilley, on liquor traffic in 
 Boston, 196, 197. 
 
 Hotel, definition of, in New York 
 liquor tax law, 363. 
 
 Hotels, liquor sales at, 42, 369, 379, 
 390-394. 
 
 Hubble, George E., on the prohibi- 
 tory law in Iowa, 124. 
 
 Imprisonment, as a penalty, 14, 
 91 ; in Massachusetts, 182, 213 ; in 
 Pennsylvania, 257-259, 282. 
 
 Indiana, liquor legislation in, 2, 7, 
 306-318 ; new constitution adopted, 
 306 ; local option, 307 ; prohibitory 
 law, 307 ; case of Roderick Beebe, 
 308, 309 ; Supreme Court opinions, 
 308, 309 ; license law, 310 ; Baxter 
 law,310,31l ; repealed, 312; Nichol- 
 son law, 313-316; the Moore bill, 
 317 ; Good Citizens' League, 318. 
 
 Indianapolis, Ind., enforcement of 
 law in, 317, 318. 
 
 Informers in liquor cases, 14, 133, 
 159. 
 
 Intemperate persons, system of 
 posting, 222, 223. 
 
 Interstate commerce, 119, 120, 151, 
 180. See, also, Transportation of 
 liquor. 
 
 Intoxicating liquors, as defined in 
 Mas.saehusetts, 182, 199. 
 
 Iowa, liquor legislation in, 2, 18 ; pro- 
 hibition, 96-140 ; local option, 96 ; 
 German influence, 97, 99 ; prohibi- 
 tory amendment, 104; mobs and 
 riots, 106 ; defiance of law, 108 ; the 
 Clark act, no ; the pharmacy act, 
 112 ; illicit sales. 115 ; the Interna- 
 tional Distillery, 115-117; "the 
 reign of the cork-screw," 121 ; the 
 Wilson bill, 122; the mulct law, 
 128-130 ; results of prohibition in, 
 130. 
 
 Iowa State Register, the, quoted, 
 125, 127. 
 
 Iowa City, Iowa, mob in, 106, 107. 
 
 Italian quarter, in New York city, 
 386, 389, 391, 392.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 423 
 
 Jessup, Dr. Elias, and the "Jessup " 
 
 campaign in Iowa, 101, 102. 
 Jewish (luarter, iu New York city, 
 
 386, 388-390. 
 Judges as Ucensers, 240-242, 262- 
 
 264. 
 Jug law, thp, in Pennsylvania, 232. 
 Juries in liquor cases, 109, 133, 1.34, 
 
 15-', 174, 175, 189, 256, 274, 275, 282, 
 
 304. 
 
 Kasson, John A., quoted, 105. 
 
 Kennebec County, Me., 72-74. 
 
 Keokuk, Iowa, sale of '' temperance 
 drinks " in, 108. 
 
 Kidd, Joiiu S., owner of the Interna- 
 tional Distillery, 104. 
 
 Kitchen bars, iu Maine, 42, 78, 79, 
 83; in Boston, 207,218. See, also, 
 " Speak-easies." 
 
 Knox County, Me., 75, 76. 
 
 Koren, John, his studies of Uquor 
 laws, 1. 
 
 Law and Order League, in Boston, 
 191, 193, 195, 200, 210 ; in Pittsburgh, 
 273-275. 
 
 Law and Order Society in Philadel- 
 phia, 239, 243, 249. 
 
 Lewiston.Me., Uquor traffic in, 67-70, 
 93. 
 
 Lexow Investigating Committee, in 
 New York, 349. 
 
 Licenses, 8-11; classes and condi- 
 tions of, in Massachusetts, 181, 
 182 ; violations of, 189, 190, 194, 195, 
 203; conditions and fees, in Penn- 
 sylvania, 232, 233 ; indorsers of ap- 
 plications for, 244-24tj ; transfers 
 of, 248, 264, 325 ; in Philadelphia, 
 248 ; use of fees, in Ohio, 299 ; con- 
 ditions of, in Missouri, 323-325; 
 taxes and revenues, 324; in New 
 York, .340, 383, 407-411. 
 
 Lichty, Norman, on the Iowa phar- 
 macy act, 113, 114. 
 
 Lieber, Albert, on the Nicholson law, 
 316 note. 
 
 Lincoln County, Me., 76. 
 
 Liquor legislation in several States, 
 1, 2, 7-9 ; theoretical difficulties of, 
 17-19; as a promoter of temper- 
 ance, 19, 94, 115, 136: in politics, 
 19-21, 94, 403 ; in Maine, 22-92 ; in 
 Iowa, 96-140; iu South Carolina, 
 
 141-180. 
 
 Liiiuor tax law in New York, 338- 
 419; enactment of. 349-355; sum- 
 mary of, 356-368 ; certificates, 357- 
 360, 378, .380,407-411. 
 
 Liquor traffic, corruption of, 6, 80 ; in 
 politics, 9, 49, 56, 69, 75, 94, 99, 162, 
 192, 193, 198, 205, 221, 226, 243-247, 
 273-276, 279, 285, 302, 303, 335, 336, 
 350 ; private profit in, 17 ; in Port- 
 
 land, Me., 34-62; in Bangor, 78-80 ; 
 extent of, in Maine, 86-94 ; strength 
 of, in Philadelphia, 238 ; under high 
 license, 239, 240 ; status of, in Ohio, 
 292, 294, 298. /See, also. New York. 
 
 Local option, 6-8 ; in Iowa, 96, 131 ; 
 in Massachusetts, 183, 226-228 ; in 
 Pennsylvania, 247; in Ohio, 293, 
 299, 305; in Indiana, 307 ; in Mis- 
 souri, 322, 323 ; in New York, 338, 
 339, 342. 348, 364. 
 
 Luzerne County, Pa., mixed popula, 
 tion of, 283, 284 ; licenses in, 284, 
 285. 
 
 Maine, prohibitory legislation in, 1, 
 22-92 ; first temperance movement 
 in, 22 ; first prohibitory law, 24 ; the 
 Maine Law, 25; the prohibitory 
 amendment, 29 ; liquor tax payers 
 in, 47, 48, 64, 67, 70-74, 76, 78, 81, 83- 
 86 ; Statistics of sales, 93. See, 
 also, Portland. 
 
 Maine Register, The, cited, 23. 
 
 Massachusetts, liquor legislation in, 
 1, 7, 8 ; restrictive system, 181-230 ; 
 classification and conditions of li- 
 censes, 181, 182 ; license law amend- 
 ments, 183-187; license fees in- 
 creased, 186 ; the traffic in Boston, 
 188-220 ; in North Adams, 220-226 ; 
 local option, 226-228 ; effects of no- 
 license, 229, 230. 
 
 Militia, in South Carolina, refuse to 
 obey the governor, 155. 
 
 Missouri, liquor legislation in, 2, 7, 8 ; 
 local option law, 319-337; provi- 
 sions of the law, 322-325 ; evasions, 
 325-330; dramshop in Forest Park, 
 326 ; " the Lilliputian lots," 327 ; 
 case of " The Czar," 327. 
 
 Mobs, in Iowa, 106 ; in South Caro- 
 lina, 154, 155. 
 
 Moonshiners in South Carolina, 172. 
 
 Mortgages on saloons, 381, 382. 
 
 Mulct law, in Ohio, 2,9,18, 292-305; 
 in Iowa, 128-130, 136, 137. 
 
 Municipal Keform League in Cincin- 
 nati, 305. 
 
 New York, liquor tax law in, 338- 
 419 ; early li(iuor legislation in, 338, 
 .339; law of 1892 in, 340; excise 
 commissioners, 340 ; licenses, 340, 
 341 ; liquor traffic under license 
 law, ,342-348 ; local option, 348,412 ; 
 enactment of li(|uor tax law, 349 ; 
 work of the Lexow committee, 349 ; 
 action of the Republicans, 350 ; the 
 Raines law, 351 ; summary of the 
 law, 356-367; constitutionality af- 
 firmed by courts, 367 ; first effects 
 of the law, ,368 ; Raines law hotels, 
 369,379, 390-394 ; Raines clubs, 370, 
 394-396 ; the law amended, 372 ; de-
 
 424 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 partment of excise, 373-377 ; oper- 
 ation of the law in New Yorlc city, 
 378-397 ; in Brool<lyn, 398, 399 ; in 
 Albany and neigliboring cities, 
 400 ; in Rochester and Syracuse, 
 403 ; in Buffalo, 404 ; effect of higher 
 tax rate, 383 ; effect of the law on 
 number of liquor shops, 406-411 ; 
 enforcement of the law, 412-415; 
 revenue, 417, 418. 
 New York city, licenses in, 346 ; "sur 
 render " rule, 346 ; Sunday sales, 
 347; crusade against liquor deal- 
 ers, 349 : operation of liquor tax 
 law in, 378-397 ; Statistics of Ger- 
 man, Italian, and Jewish quarters, 
 386-392. 
 
 No-license policy in Massachusetts, 
 227-230. 
 
 North Adams, Mass., liquor traffic 
 in, 220-226 ; population of, 221 ; li- 
 censes in, 221 ; illicit traffic and 
 prosecutions, 223, 224; arrests for 
 drunkenness, 225. 
 
 Nuisance, liquor, 27, 90, 91, 310. 
 
 Ohio, mulct law in, 2, 9, 18 ; liquor 
 tax, 292-305; liquor selling not a 
 crime in, 292 ; local option, 293 ; 
 intent of the constitution, 293, 294 ; 
 opinions of supreme court, 294-297 ; 
 the Pond law, 294 ; the Scott law, 
 295 ; the Dow law, 297 ; present 
 state of the law, 298, 299 ; revenue, 
 how used, 299; amount of revenue, 
 300 ; number of saloons, 300 ; Anti- 
 Saloon League, 305. 
 
 Old Orchard, Me., violation of law 
 in, 85. 
 
 Original packages, 119-123, 180 a. 
 
 Oxford County, Me., 77. 
 
 Pennsylvania, liquor laws of, 1, 231- 
 291 ; a peculiar feature of, 231 ; 
 law of 1887, 232-234. See, also, Al- 
 legheny County, Delaware County, 
 Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Head- 
 ing, Wilkes Barre. 
 
 Penobscot County, Me., 77-81. 
 
 Perjury, under prohibition, 62, 63, 
 1.33. 
 
 Philadelphia, " most American " of 
 our large centres, 235 ; Board of 
 Licensers and Excise Commission, 
 236; public intoxication, 237; 
 strength of the liquor traffic, 238; 
 the Brooks law, 2.39; wholesale 
 trade, 240; judges as licensers, 240- 
 242; conditions of licenses, 242, 
 243 ; liquor element in city politics, 
 243; indorsers of applications for 
 licenses, 244-246; transfers of li- 
 censes, 248; improved character 
 of saloons, 249; evasions of law, 
 250 ; illicit traffic, 251-254 ; police 
 
 and the liquor traffic, 246, 247, 252, 
 253; prosecutions in liquor cases, 
 255-258; police magistrates, 255, 
 256. 
 
 Piscataquis County, Me., 81. 
 
 Pittsburgh, Pa., character of the 
 population, 268 ; citizens' petition 
 about municipal affairs, 269; li- 
 censes, 273; Law and Order 
 Leagues, 273-275; a "whiskey 
 town," 283. 
 
 Pocket peddlers, in Maine, 37, 42. 
 
 Politics, liquor traffic in, 9, 49, 56, 69, 
 75, 94, 99, 162, 192, 193, 198, 205, 221, 
 226, 243-247, 273-276, 279, 285, 302, 
 303, 335, 336. 
 
 Portland, Me., enforcement of the 
 law in, 34-62; saloons in, 39; 
 kitchen bars, 42 ; hotels, 43 ; drug- 
 stores, 44 ; wholesale liquor deal- 
 ers, 45; drinking clubs, 46 ; Liquor 
 Agency, 46, 93; United States 
 liquor taxes, 47, 48. 
 
 Portland Argiis, The, quoted, 89 
 note. 
 
 Portland Express, The, quoted, 53 
 note. 
 
 Profit, private, in liquor traffic, 17. 
 
 Prohibition, success of, 4; failure of, 
 5; concomitant evils of, 5; in 
 Maine, 24-92 ; and temperance, 36 ; 
 results of, in Portland, Me., 57, 58, 
 62; in Farmington, Me., 63-65; in 
 Maine generally, 86-92, 94 ; cost of 
 prosecutions under, 125 ; a fair test 
 of, 130; results in Iowa, 130; ob- 
 stacles to its success, 132-134 ; diffi- 
 culty of enforcement, 133; bene- 
 fits of, 135, 136 ; local, in Ohio, 299 ; 
 in Indiana, 307. 
 
 Protection of liquor-sellers, 43, 49, 
 50, 53, 68, 73, 75, 82, 193. 
 
 Railroads in politics, 123, 124. 
 
 Raines clubs, 370, 394-396. 
 
 Raines law, the, 351 ; enactment of, 
 355 ; summary of, 356-367. 
 
 Raines law hotels, 369, 379, 390-394. 
 
 Reading, Pa., clubs in, 289 ; saloons, 
 290 ; only public statue, 290 ; drunk- 
 enness, 290. 
 
 Rensselaer, N. Y., liquor tax rate 
 and licenses in, 400. 
 
 Restrictions on the sale of liquor, 11, 
 .362. 
 
 Riots In Iowa, 106 ; in South Caro- 
 lina. 154, 155. 
 
 Rochester, N. Y., liquor question in, 
 403. 
 
 Rockland, Me., intemperance in, 75. 
 
 Sagadahoc County, Me., 82. 
 
 St. Louis, Mo., French and German 
 influence in, 319 ; territorial, polit- 
 ical, and religious divisions, 320,
 
 INDEX. 
 
 425 
 
 322; Sunday liquor selling, 329; 
 disregard of law, 329; breweries 
 and tlieir influence, 331-336; pub- 
 lic sentiment, 332-33(5; general 
 good order, 336; number of li- 
 censes, 336, 337. 
 
 Saloons, restrictions on, 10-12 ; in 
 Maine, 39, 08, 78, 79; in Iowa, 108, 
 112, 116, 124, 132, 135; in South Car- 
 olina, 149, 150, 180 ; in IJoston, 203, 
 204, 206 ; in Philadelphia, 248-250 ; 
 in Harrisl)urg, Pa., 266; often 
 owned by brewers and wliole- 
 salers, 280, 331, 381; in Willves 
 Karre, Pa., 286, 287; in Heading, 
 Pa., 290 ; number of, in Ohio, 300 ; 
 in St. Louis, 325-330, 334-336; iu 
 New York, 344-346, 381. 
 
 School directors as indorsers of ap- 
 plications for licenses, 244. 
 
 School fund, and profits of liquor 
 traffic, 180. 
 
 Schoolhouse law in Massachusetts, 
 193. 
 
 Scott and Donald, case of, 180 a. 
 
 Screen law, in Massachusetts, 184, 
 195, 204. 
 
 Sioux City, Iowa, tavern ordinance 
 of, 108. 
 
 Skowhegan, Me., dramshops in, 83. 
 
 Social evil, the, and the liquor traffic 
 in New York, 378, 393, 394, 399, 402, 
 403, 406. 
 
 Somerset County, Me., 83. 
 
 South Carolina, dispensary law in, 
 1, 7, 17, 20, 141-180; political and 
 social conditions, 141-143 ; early 
 liquor laws, 143; growth of tem- 
 perance sentiment, 144; dispen- 
 sary system adopted, 146, 147 ; 
 riots in, 154,155; militia refuse to 
 obey the governor, 155 ; dispensary 
 law declared unconstitutional, 156 ; 
 decision reversed, 159; metropoli- 
 tan police bill, 160 ; enforcement of 
 the dispensary law, 170-180 ; dis- 
 tilleries in, 173; arrests for drunk- 
 enness, 176-178; good results of 
 dispensary law, 179, 180 ; present 
 condition of the system, 180 b. 
 
 " Speak-easies," 251-253, 259. 
 
 State Board of Control, 180 a. 
 State constabulary in Maine, 27, 35. 
 Sunday, licpior selling on, 11, 12, 42, 
 
 44, 138, 203, 249, 251, 252, 254, 255, 
 262, 266, 286, 289, 304, 318, 329, 347, 
 358, 368, 393, 394, 399, 406. 
 
 Sureties on liquor bonds, 184, 186, 
 192, 202. 
 
 Syracuse, N.Y., operation of Kaines 
 law in, 403. 
 
 Tax, liquor, practical effect of, 383; 
 rate, etc., several New York cities 
 and counties, 407-411. 
 
 Temperance and law, 6, 19, 94, 115, 
 116, 1.36, 166, 172, 179, 180, 189, 198, 
 225, 228, 230, 259, 260, 261, 267, 283, 
 288, 300, 335, 337 ; first movement in 
 Maine, 22 ; advance in, 36. 
 
 Terre Haute, Ind., disregard of law 
 in, 317. 
 
 Tillman, Gov. B. F., extracts from 
 messages and speeches of, 145, 146, 
 152, 158, 174. 
 
 Transportation of liquor, 15, 28, 40, 
 
 45, 119, 170, 180. 
 
 Troy, N. Y., liquor tax and saloons 
 in, 400-402. 
 
 Vance v. Vandercook Company, case 
 of, 190 a. 
 
 Waldo County, Me., 83, 84. 
 Walton, John T., quoted, 24. 
 Washington County, Me., 84. 
 Washingtonian movement, 24. 
 Waterville, Me., liquor selling in, 74. 
 Watervliet, N. Y., saloons in, 401. 
 Westbrook, Me., 66. 
 Wilkes Barre, Pa., Intemperance 
 
 common in, 286 ; citizens' petition 
 
 against violations of liquor law, 
 
 287. 
 Wine and Spirit Gazette, The, 
 
 quoted, 127. 
 Wines, Frederic H., 1 ; his studies of 
 
 liquor laws, 2. 
 Women as unlicensed liquor sellers, 
 
 208. 
 
 York County, Me., 85.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 
 pTfi' 
 
 ft »>/M*- 
 
 SEP 1 3 m? 
 
 
 1"! 
 
 «f 
 
 RECO 
 
 DEC 1 
 
 
 FonnL9 — 15?n-10,'48(B1039)444 
 
 U Pi 1 V P. KS ii i O l^' t : A LI f '. • tuxiM 
 
 AT 
 
 LOS .<i>!Gii,LES 
 
 LIBRARY
 
 Illl II illMI |lli |i ,,.,., 
 
 3lTW§ft''«« 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 430 673 4