. on STP ** PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE MAYOR and ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO. BY THE Chicago Commission on the Liquor Problem [Ml! < P C. PUBS.) CHICAGO DECEMBER, 1916 PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE MAYOR and ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO BY THE Chicago Commission on the Liquor Problem CHICAGO DECEMBER, 1916 \ CHICAGO COMMISSION ON THE LIQUOR PROBLEM Appointed by Mayor Thompson upon Order of the City Council to Make a Comprehensive Study and Report on the Medical, Moral, Political, Social, Financial, Economic and Other Aspects of the Use of Intoxicating Liquors in Chicago. MEMBERS OF COMMISSION Chairman. ALDERMAN JOHN TOMAN Alderman HUGH NORRIS Alderman CONRAD H. JANKE Alderman JOSEPH HIGGINS SMITH Mr. HENRY BARRETT CHAMBERLIN Alderman WILLIAM R. OTOOLE Prof. ROBERT WAHL Alderman WILLIAM E. RODRIGUEZ Mr. A. D. WEINER Secretary, FREDERICK REX. Municipal Reference Librarian 1005 City Hall. Chicago CONTENTS. Page Report of Commission 1-5 Order Creating the Commission 1 Number of Meetings Held 1 Conclusions . 1-3 Recommendations 3-5 APPENDICES. Appendix A. Distribution, Ownership, Physical Characteristics and Opera- tion of Licensed Saloons in the City of Chicago 7-44 Letter of Transmittal 9 Introduction 10 1. Investigation and Reports by License Officers 10 2. Analysis and Detailed Tabulation of Data 10-11 3. Scope of Statistical Analysis 11-12 4. Summary Tables and Exhibits 12 Part 1. Distribution of Saloon Licenses and Saloons 12-14 Part 2. Ownership and Control of Saloon Licenses, Saloon Fixtures, and Leases to Saloon Premises 14-15 Part 3. Physical Characteristics of Saloons 15 Part 4. Operation of Saloons 16 Description of General Tables: Table I. Statistics of Number of Licensed Saloons, License Fees, Total Population of Chicago and Ratios of Population to Each Saloon for Each of the Years Immediately Prior to and Since the Passage of the Harkin Ordinance 17 Table II. Number of Semi-Annual and Annual Saloon Licenses Issued by Months and Years, 1910-1916 18 Table III. Receipts for Saloon Licenses by Months and Years, 1906-1916 18 Table IV. Summary of Distribution of Licensed Saloons by Police Precincts. Statistics of Prohibition, Local Option, and Open Terri- tory Areas, Estimated Population and Ratios of Population and Areas to Saloons 19 Table V. Summary of Distribution of Licensed Saloons by Wards. Statistics on Areas, Estimated Population and Distribution of Population According to Nativity, Number of Saloons and Ratio of Population to Each Saloon Within Wards 20 Table VI. Control and Ownership of City Saloon Licenses 21 Table VII. Ownership of Saloon Leases 22 Table VIII. Ownership of Saloon Fixtures 23 Table IX. Control and Ownership of Saloon Licenses, Leases and Fixtures by Breweries 24 Table X. Ownership of Government Liquor Licenses 25 Table XI. Number of Saloons Nearer than 250 Feet to Schools, Churches or Other Public Buildings 26 Table XII. Number of Saloons Having Direct Entrances and Exits to Alleys, Yards or Open Grounds, in Addition to Street Entrances and Exits 27 Table XIII. Number of Saloons Having Direct Connections to Hotels and Rooms 28 11 Page Table XIV. Number of Saloons Having Partitions, Stalls, Wine Rooms, Restaurants, Cafes or Picnic or Palm Gardens in Connection 29 Table XV. Operation of Saloons 30 Table XVI. Number of Individual Owners, Partnerships, Operators and Employes Engaged in Saloon Business 31 Table XVII. Number of Saloons Having Amusements, Entertainments or Other Businesses in Connection with Saloon 32 Table XVIII. Summary Distribution of Revocations of Saloon Licenses During the Period Beginning Immediately Preceding the Passage of the Harkin Ordinance; (June, 1906) and Up to June, 1916 ?.?, EXHIBITS. A. Questionnaire Relating to the Distribution, Ownership, Operation and Physical Characteristics of Saloons 34 B. List of Names of Saloonkeepers, Locations and Dates of Revocations and Restorations of Saloon Licenses During Period Beginning Immedi- ately Preceding the Passage of the Harkin Ordinance 35-44 C. Police Precinct and Ward Map of the City of Chicago 45 Appendix B. Reply of the Chicago Brewers' Protective Association to the Questionnaires on the Financial and Economic Aspects of the Use of Intoxicating Liquors in Chicago 47 Appendix C. Digest of the Hearings Before the Chicago Commission on the Liquor Problem 48-65 Mr. E. J. Davis 49-50 Mr. Philip Freiler 50-53 Mr. Thomas Greif 53-54 Mr. 'R. L. Hill 54-55 Mr. George F. Lohman 55 Mr. Martin McGraw 55-56 Mr. John W. Maskell 56-57 Mr. Theodore Oehne 57.61 Mr. Horace Secrist 61 Mr. John A. Shields 61-64 Mr. George H. Wischman . .64-65 To His Honor the Mayor and The Honorable the City Council of the City of Chicago: Your Commission, officially known as the Chicago Commission on the Liquor Problem, appointed by his Honor the Mayor in conformity with an order passed by the City Council at its regular session, July 12, 1915, as fol- lows: "Ordered, That the Mayor be and is hereby authorized and directed to appoint a committe of six aldermen and three citizens, to consider in a comprehensive way the medical, moral, political, financial, social and economic aspects of the use of intoxicating liquors in Chicago; to consider the chief methods of licensing, regulating and prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors; and to recommend to this Council the best prac- tical policy for this municipality to pursue," begs leave to submit for your consideration a preliminary report together with such recommendations as an incomplete study of the problem at this time appears to warrant. The liquor problem has many ramifications affecting the political, social and economic interest of the city and your Commission is not yet prepared to make final suggestions. Further reports will be made from time to time as the inquiry proceeds. With this report are submitted three enclosures: Appendix A: Statistical Analysis as to the Distribution, Ownership, Physical Characteristics and Operation of the Licensed Saloons in the City of Chicago; Information collected by the License Officers of the Department of Police. Appendix B: Reply of the Chicago Brewers' Protective Association to the Questionnaire issued by your Commission. Appendix C: Digest of hearings before the Commission. Enclosure "A" constitutes the first set of official figures procured in Chi- cago or, in so far as we can ascertain, in any American city, on the four import- ant aspects of the saloon business mentioned. The investigation, which was made through the license officers of the Department of Police, will be found to cover all important features under these heads. Aside from such uses the Commission would make of this information the compilation was deemed to be of value for police administrative purposes, for use of public and civic organizations and for the general education of the large number of persons who must be directly or indirectly interested and con- cerned in these questions. It is our belief that for the purposes of police administration and for the general information of the public such reports should be made regularly by the license officers and made a part of the annual report of the police depart- ment. Twenty-one meetings have been held by the Commission and twenty-four witnesses have testified. The witnesses heard may be classified as follows: City officials ..3 Anti-saloon 3 Real estate 1 Brewers 3 Prohibitionists 2 Insurance 1 Saloonkeepers 3 Liquor dealers 1 Publicists 1 Labor unionists 3 Business 1 Dance hall owners .... 1 Economists 1 Throughout the hearings the fact which has most firmly impressed itself on the members of the Commission is that what Chicago needs in the way of better regulation of the sale of alcoholic beverages, is a strict enforcement of existing laws and ordinances. In some respects existing laws may be inade- quate to meet the situation and certain amendments may be necessary, but it would be futile to recommend the enactment of new legislation, while the present laws are not enforced. The Commission has found a woeful lack of law enforcement in connection with the regulation of the sale of alcoholic beverages. This lack of law enforcement does not apply particularly to the present administration and no such criticism is intended in this report. Under no administration, so far as the Commission can judge from the evidence disclosed, has there even been a real effort to compel the dealers in spirituous, vinous, malt and brewed liquors to comply strictly with the state laws and city ordinances regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages. This lack of law enforcement is so notorious that the public has grown callous and no longer accepts in good faith any order issued which has to do with the regulation of saloons and places where alcoholic beverages are sold. This disrespect for the law has a most dangerous tendency in a democracy. If the laws are violated in one direction and the violators are allowed to escape punishment, it has a tendency to break down our entire system of government. Lawlessness in any one particular direction breeds lawlessness in other direc- tions and the effect is utterly demoralizing to the community. Not only does our easy tolerance of violations of the liquor laws have a demoralizing effect on the community, but it works a great injustice to the law- abiding citizens who are engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages. From its investigations the Commission believes that a great majority of those engaged in the liquor business desire to conduct their establishments in accordance with the law. Such citizens are compelled to bear the odium heaped upon all engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages, because of the misdeeds of those who should not be permitted to engage in the business at all. Why are the laws regulating the sale of liquors not enforced? To say that they cannot be enforced is an insult to our law-making bodies as well as to those entrusted with the administration of government and the enforce- ment of law. Because they never have been enforced in the past, is far from an admission that they are unenforcible. The fault lies not alone with the laws, but with our whole system of law enforcement. Regulation of the liquor traffic is a principle so well established and so generally recognized that no argument in defense of it is necessary. Why, therefore, should the laws that regulate the conduct of a saloon not be enforced as equally and as fully as the laws regulating a grocery store or any other legitimate line of business? Why should some enjoy special privileges to the business disadvantage of their law-abiding competitors? Why should law- abiding saloonkeepers be penalized for observing the law? Yet that is what is happening every day in Chicago. Because of a sinister political influence law enforcement, as it applies to the liquor business, has become a joke and a by word. As soon as a police order is issued to "clean up" places of questionable character, this influence makes itself felt. The police are afraid to do their duty, because if they offend some one who is a political power in his ward, they find themselves transferred "sent to the woods" for the "good of the .service." The police are not to blame under such circumstances. The responsibility rests higher up. The whole system is vicious and calls for immediate remedy. This pernicious system of political "pull" works an injury to the decent, law-abiding citizen engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages, who desires to comply with the law. Suppose that it is the 1 o'clock ordinance or the Sunday closing law that is under consideration. The law-abiding saloonkeeper closes his place promptly at the hour designated by the law. His competitor across the street is allowed to keep his place open. The policeman on the beat knows the law is being violated and so reports to his superior officer. The violation continues and the policeman learns in some indirect way that "things have been fixed." He does not want to be transferred to a beat out in Hegewisch, so he maintains a discreet silence. Thus is contempt for law bred in the minds of the men sworn to uphold it. The citizen who conducts an orderly saloon finds his trade going to his competitor who is permitted to violate the law. He has to pay the same license fee and he feels he is being treated unjustly. The temptation to violate the law, also, is strong in him. It becomes almost an economic necessity in order to keep his business. In this way does one saloonkeeper with political influence who openly violates the law, contaminate others until the entire community is affected. In this way do we breed contempt for law and order. There are phases of the problem included within the scope of the Com- mission's inquiry which have hardly been touched upon up to the present time. However, much valuable data has been collected so that the Commission, though it has far from finished its classifications and analyses, is in a position to speak with some authority. The necessity for law enforcement is here emphasized because it is difficult, or impossible, to point out the weaknesses and defects in laws, the efficacy of which have never really been tested. No one can say from experience how far it is possible to regulate the liquor indus- try under the existing laws, for the reason that the laws have not been en- forced. Keeping in mind, therefore, the fact that laws and regulations are worse than useless, unless they are strictly and rigidly enforced the Commission sub- mits for consideration the following recommendations: (1) The liquor business should be absolutely divorced from pernicious politics pull, preference and special privilege. (2) More care should be exercised as to the character of the individual to whom a license is issued. No man ever convicted of a felony should be granted the privilege of conducting a soloon. The history of revocations in this city shows that the trouble has been caused by men of unfit character, who went into the business with the idea of using it as an aid in furthering questionable activities in the field of crime or vice. Certain sections of the city, therefore, attracted this type of men. In the past eleven years, to illustrate, licenses of 671 saloons were revoked. Of this total 242 were in four police precincts. These are the 3rd, 4th, 27th and 38th, immediately north and south of the loop district. The 27th, with 248 saloons, had 92 revocations. (3) When the holder of a license has been found guilty of a minor viola- tion of the laws and ordinances pertaining to the regulation of places where liquors are sold, he should, for the first offense, suffer a fine. For a second offense he should be fined and have his license suspended for a period of thirty days. For a third offense his license should be revoked and he should never again be. granted a license to engage directly or indirectly in the liquor busi- ness. Of the 671 revocations in the last eleven years all but forty-six were restored .to the original owners or to persons obtaining the saloon through transfer or purchase of the license. That the great majority of men connected with the saloon business are themselves in favor of a more drastic punishment of those responsible for injecting vicious factors into the trade your Commission believes from the following paragraphs taken from the answer, already mentioned herewith, of the Chicago Brewers' Protective Association: "We believe that the public is not interested in curtailing its own liberties or restricting its own conveniences, further than to readjust cer- tain present circumstances of the liquor traffic; and that the agitation for prohibition proceeds from the persuasion, which we think wholly erroneous, that these circumstances are inseparable from any open conduct of retail distribution. "Among these circumstances may be mentioned the maintenance of saloons in excess of the natural economic demand; the consequent artific- ial stimulation of retail trade; questionable forms of entertainment; stalls, snugs, floor screens and the like; insanitary condition of physical properties; exaggerated advertisement; and complication of the retail traffic by in- volvement with problems of industrial efficiency and public health, as well as with more definite and specific social evils, such as gambling and pros- titution, whose relation to it is purely adventitious." One of the objects of Recommendation No. 3 and of Numbers 4, 5 and 6 is to bring about a gradual reduction in the number of saloons. There are at present too many, though conditions are improving. At the time the Harkin ordinance was enacted there were 8,097 saloons, or one for every 239 persons. At the close of the 1916 fiscal year, April 30, 1916, there were 7,094 saloons, or one to every 351 persons. The situation is not satisfactory, however, in many sections of the city. Subtracting the sixty-four square miles of prohibition territory gives us for the rest of the city fifty-three saloons to every square mile. And the distribu- tion of the saloons is very unequal. In the First Ward, for instance, there is one saloon for every seventy-seven resident persons. This does not include or consider the large business population that enters the loop every morning 3 and leaves it every evening. In the Eighteenth' Ward there is one saloon for every 195 residents and in the Fifth, one for every 198 residents. These three wards have, respectively, 675; 346 and 336 saloons. The brewers themselves are of the opinion that the number of saloons should be reduced, for they say in their answer: "For example, with regard to possibly the most difficult problem of all, we, ourselves, are in hearty agreement with the sentiment for reducing the number of saloons in Chicago to a point within the natural economic demand. A reduction of this nature can gradually, but with a degree of certainty, be accomplished by strictly enforcing the present ordinances. All violations of a cardinal nature should be cause for the revocation of license after an impartial hearing has been afforded the accused. No license so revoked should be restored. Through this method of elimination resorts of disreputable character could not exist." (4) A thorough revision should be made of all saloon licenses so that where saloons are being operated by others than the real owners and licensees, such licenses may be revoked. The investigations of your Commission show that 6,023 or 85 per cent of the saloons, are directly operated by the owners of the city saloon license. In 547 saloons, or eight per cent, the business is carried on by managers or agents and in 449 saloons, or seven per cent, by individuals other than licensees or managers or agents of breweries or other corporations. Approximately 70 per cent of the saloons, a total of 4,952, are more or less controlled by the breweries through ownership of licenses, fixtures or leases. (5) All licenses which are not issued should be cancelled. There are some 100 licenses, authorized under the so-called Harkin ordinance, which have not been issued. They should be cancelled. (6) License fees should be paid in full for a year in advance, on or before the first day of May. All applications should be accompanied by the proper bonds and certified checks and be in the hands of the City Collector on or before the date mentioned. The City Collector and the City Treasurer should be required to make a sworn statement of all licenses issued not later than May 15 of each year. No license should be issued after May 1 for that year. Any license for which no application, accompanied by the proper bonds and certified check, has been made on or before May 1 of each year, should auto- matically lapse. Such an arrangement would materially reduce the cost of collection. In the present fiscal year only fourteen licenses were issued for the twelve month period. The rest were six month licenses. A growing number of licenses, moreover, are not issued until one or more months after the begin- ning of the six month period. Fifty per cent of licenses are thus belated. (7) The display of all signs of brewers, distillers or wholesale liquor dealers on the exterior of buildings where liquors are sold, should be pro- hibited. No signs of any description should be permitted on the exterior of buildings used for saloon purposes, except the name of the owner (this should be mandatory) and the words "Buffet," "Cafe," "Saloon" or "Bar" to denote the character of the business. (8) All parts of the interior of saloons should be kept well lighted and the front of such saloon should be unenclosed and unobstructed except by transparent window glass so that a clear view of the interior of the premises of such saloon may be had at all times. All screens, blinds, curtains and other obstructions to a free and clear view of the interior of the saloon should be removed at all times from the entrances and windows of such saloon and other places where alcoholic liquors are sold. No booths, stalls, winerooms, closed or partially closed rooms of -any character should be allowed in places where alcoholic beverages are sold. Open settees might be installed in saloons frequented only by men. There are 1,811 saloons that have partitions, winerooms and stalls, not including kitchens and store rooms. As a related subject it should be noted that 3,022 saloons have direct connection with hotels, bedrooms or private rooms, but in the large majority of cases these are the living quarters of the proprietor. The 3,022, of course, includes the barrooms of the big loop hotels. (9) No gambling of any kind, or the shaking of dice for drinks should be permitted in places where liquors are sold. No intoxicating drinks should be sold to minors, intoxicated persons or to those who have the reputation of being habitual drunkards. (10) Treating of any kind among the customers or patrons of a saloon or the treating of such customers or patrons by the licensee, bartenders or other employes of the saloon should be prohibited and any violation of this prohibition on the part of the licensee, bartenders or other employes subject his license to revocation. Where pool tables are operated in connection with saloons, players should not be permitted to play for drinks. The use of pool tables should be charged for at a stipulated rate and drinks ordered by the players should be paid for as would be the case if there were no pool tables in the place. (11) All bartenders regularly employed in places where liquors are re- tailed should be licensed. The license fee should be low, probably $1.00, to be renewed annually. This would not apply to waiters in pleasure resorts or in cafes and restaurants where drinks may be served. The licensing of bar- tenders would give the city regulative authority over such employes. Many violations of law are attributed to them. It would serve as a protection to saloonkeepers against irresponsible bartenders. (12) No saloon should be permitted to open in a residence thoroughfare between two intersecting streets where there is no other kind of store, whether or not the consent of property owners has been obtained. Respectfuly submitted, CHICAGO COMMISSION ON THE LIQUOR PROBLEM, By Alderman John Toman, Chairman. APPENDIX A Distribution, Ownership, Physical Character- istics and Operation of Licensed Saloons in the City of Chicago INFORMATION COLLECTED BY LICENSE OFFICERS of the DEPARTMENT OF POLICE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND COMPILATION PREPARED for the CHICAGO COMMISSION ON THE LIQUOR PROBLEM By J. L. JACOBS MONADNOCK BLOCK CHICAGO JULY 3, 1916 Chicago, Ills., July 3rd, 1916. Honorable John Toman, Chairman, Chicago Commission on the Liquor Problem, Chicago, Illinois. Dear Sir: In accordance with the request of your Commisison on May 26th, 1916, I have made an analysis of the data and information relating to the distribu- tion, ownership, physical characteristics and operation of saloons within the City of Chicago, which was collected by the license officers of the Department of Police and submit herewith the following: 1: Detailed tabulation (118 sheets bound in separate part of report) of information and data relating to the distribution, ownership, physical characteristics and operation of 7,094 licensed saloons as included in the reports of the police license officers. 2: Report on statistical analysis and compilations of the information in the detailed sheets above referred to, with eighteen (18) summary tables and three (3) exhibits. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the co-operation and assistance given me by the officials and employes in the city departments and bureaus in which access to official records and supplementary information was found nec- essary. I desire to express special acknowledgment and appreciation of co-op- eration given me by Mr. Frederick Rex, Secretary of your Commission and Librarian of the Municipal Reference Library, in which is to be found a fund of valuable and easily obtainable information. Respectfully submitted, J. L. JACOBS. Statistical Analysis and Compilations Distribution, Ownership, Physical Characteristics and Operation of Licensed Saloons Within the City of Chicago Collected by License Officers of the Department of Police. INTRODUCTION. The Chicago Commission on the Liquor Problem was appointed on July 12th, 1915, by the Mayor of the City of Chicago, upon order of the City Coun- cil, "to make a comprehensive study and report on the medical, moral, political, financial and economic and other aspects of the use of intoxicating liquors in Chicago." Following the organization of the Commission, a program of procedure was adopted which included the preparation and submission to public and private officials of a series of questionnaires for the purpose of collecting such informa- tion and facts relating to the various aspects of the liquor problem as would be of use in this study. Among these questionnaires, the Commission prepared a set of questions, the purpose of which was to obtain definite and official information on the distribution, ownership, physical characteristics and operation of the licensed saloons in this city. No such official information had heretofore been collected and no complete compilation has been prepared in this city or insofar as it has been possible to find from publications and records, in any other city in this country. Aside from such uses the Commission would make of this infor- mation, the compilation was deemed to be of value for police administrative purposes, for use of public and civic organizations and for the general edu- cation of the large number of persons who must be directly or indirectly inter- ested and concerned in these questions. INVESTIGATION AND REPORTS BY LICENSE OFFICERS. The questions prepared by the Chicago Liquor Commission on this phase of the liquor problem are contained in Exhibit "A." Request was made by the Commission upon the Superintendent of the Police to have the information col- lected and reported on by that division of the Police Department which has to do with the investigation of the character of applicants for saloon licenses, of saloon locations and of the saloon business generally. An official order was issued by the Superintendent of Police on March 10th, 1916, directing that the license officers make such an investigation and submit answers to the ques- tions for each of the licensed saloons within their respective police precinicts. The reports returned to the Commission were signed by the license officers making the investigations and were approved by their commanding officers. The reports were thus made official and responsibility for completeness and correctness was definitely placed on these civil service employes. Reports were returned by the license officers for each of the 7,080 of the 7,094 saloons. The remaining 14 saloons were reported to be out of business or had not taken out licenses at the time of the investigation on or about March 15th, 1916. Licenses for these were however issued before the ex- piration of the license period ending April 30th, 1916. ANALYSIS AND DETAILED TABULATION OF DATA. Following the arrangement of these reports according to police precincts and alphabetically according to the streets within police precincts, complete tabulation was made of the information included therein as a basis for the analysis and compilation of summary tables and for use of the Commission and others for future reference. The data included in the separate reports has been tabulated on the 118 detail sheets which are submitted in separate part of this 10 report. All the information included in the police license officers' reports is to be found on these sheets. An idea of the detail involved in tabulating the information on each of the 7,080 license officers' reports can be obtained from the fact that approximately 275,000 entries wer_e made on the detail sheets. Each entry was subjected to a back check and later counted from one to three times in the preparation of summary tabulations. The headings on the detail sheets above referred to were arranged to include all the answers to the ques- tions- sent out by the Commission, and such additional related data as was obtainable from official records. The headings on the detail sheets are as follows: Columns. Headings. 1. Number of Police Precinct and ward. 2. Number of Saloon License. 3. Address of Saloon. 4. Name on City saloon license. 5. Owner of City saloon license. 6. Assignment Recorded. 7. Who operates and conducts saloon? 8. Name on Government liquor license. 9. Ownership of fixtures by licensee. 10. Ownership of fixtures by Owner of saloon. 11. Ownership of fixtures by Saloonkeeper and Operator. 12. Ownership of lease by Licensee. 13. Ownership of lease by Owner of Saloon. 14 Ownership of lease by Saloonkeeper and Operator. 15. Employes Bartenders. 16. Employes Porters. 17. Employes other employes. 18-19. Revocation License Record at Present Location. 20-21. Restorations License Record at Present Location. 22. Distance to Schools, etc., if less than 250 feet. 23. Saloon Entrances and Exits. 24. Saloon Entrances and Exits on alleys. 25. Saloon Entrances and Exits on yard or open grounds. 26. Saloon Connections to Hotels 27. Saloon Connections to Bedrooms ^Rear, Side or Overhead. 28. Saloon Connections to Private Rooms 29. Interior arrangements Partitions. 30. Interior arrangements Stalls. 31. Interior arrangements Winerooms. 32. Interior arrangements Tables in Barrooms. 33. Interior arrangements Chairs in Barrooms. 34. Picnic or Palm Gardens in connection. 35. Cabarets run in connection. 36. Dances run in connection. 37. Electric Pianos. 38. Pool Tables. 39. Other amusements or business run in connection. 40. License officer reporting. 41. Remarks. SCOPE OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. Analysis of the data and information included in the reports of the license officers and set out in the detail sheets present certain definite and general statistical facts which are of value for police administration and control and are of public interest and use in setting out: 1. Distribution of the 7,094 saloons within the City of Chicago: Informa- tion of saloon distribution according to police precincts, to political divisions, to areas and nativity, and distribution of population. Also the receipts from and issuance of saloon licenses. 2. Ownership or control of the city saloon licenses, saloon leases and fixtures and government liquor licenses, by licensees, breweries, corporations, agents or managers, and the percentage control of each. 3. Physical characteristics of saloons: Location with reference to schools, churches and other public institutions, exterior and interior arrangements of 11 saloon premises, connections with hotels, rooms and with restaurants, cafes, picnic or palm gardens, and other amusements. 4. Operation of saloons by owners, managers or agents, number of persons directly engaged in the saloon business in this city, connection of the saloon business with other businesses, such as pool and billiard halls, bowling alleys, restaurants,- cabarets, dancing and other amusements; and the history of the character of saloons and saloonkeepers as shown by records of revocation of saloon licenses. Analysis of the reports of the license officers and the detailed tabulations shows that for the most part the answers of the license officers are definite and relatively complete. The degree of completeness of the license officers' reports can only be determined after a separate check or by supplementary inquiry through the police department or other similar body. In several cases the officers did not answer the questions fully and the in- formation was indefinite. This applied particularly to the question concerning the license record of saloon keepers and saloon locations, to the question con- cerning direct connection of the saloons to hotels and private rooms, the ques- tion on the number of saloons having cabarets and other amusements run in connection therewith, and the question relating to the ownership of saloon li- censes, leases and fixtures, in which case some of the license officers did not give the names of breweries or individuals or corporations owning or control- ing same. For the purpose of police administration and for the greater publicity and education on the general character and extent of the saloon business, similar reports should be made regularly by the police license officers. Sum- mary compilation of the more important facts should be made and published by the police department in its annual reports. That the information collected in the future be more uniform and complete, the questions should be drawn up in a more specific form and the license officers should be instructed as to the purpose, meaning and uses to be made of same, previous to the investi- gation. SUMMARY TABLES AND EXHIBITS. Compilations and summary tables have been prepared from the entries on the detail sheets. The information and data are presented in 18 general sum- mary tables and two exhibits, which cover the following specific and general subjects: Part 1 Distribution of saloon licenses and saloons. Part 2 Ownership and control of saloon licenses, fixtures and leases. Part 3 Physical characteristics of saloons. Part 4 Operation of saloons. PART 1. Distribution of Saloon Licenses and Saloons. One of the sections of the Harkin ordinance provides that "all lawful licenses issued and in force on the 31st day of July, 1906, for "keeping of a saloon or dramshop within the City of Chicago, shall be re- "newed or re-issued upon strict and full compliance with the laws and "ordinances in force in the City of Chicago at the time of the application "for such renewal of re-issue, but no new license * * * for the keep- "ing of a saloon or dramshop shall at any time thereafter be granted or "issued until the number of licenses in force at the time shall be less than "one for every five hundred of the population of the City of Chicago as "ascertained by the then last preceding school census" Table I presents data obtained from official records relating to the number of licensed saloons, license fees, total estimated population of Chicago and ratios of population to each saloon for each of the years immediately prior to and since the passage of the Harkin ordinance. Preceding the passage of the ordinance there were in existence 8,097 saloons or an average of 239 people to each saloon, the estimated population at that time being 1,941,880. At the close of the fiscal license year, April 30th, 1916, the number of licensed saloons was 7,094, which with the present estimated population of 2,491,939, makes the ratio of population to each saloon, 351. Up to and including June 30th, 1916, there have been issued since the 12 beginning of the present fiscal saloon license year, viz: May 1st, 1916, 6,931 saloon licenses, .of which 6,917 were semi-annual licenses and 14 licenses were issued for the full year. The number of semi-annual and annual saloon licenses issued during each of the months since the beginning of the fiscal year 1910 is shown in Table II. These figures show a decrease in the number of licenses issued previous to the beginning of the license periods and an increase in the number of licenses issued during the two months following the beginning of the periods. Of the total of approximately 7,100 saloon licenses issued each year, an average of 3,000 licenses are issued before the beginning of the first period and an aver- age of 3,500 licenses are issued before the beginning of the second semi-annual period. Approximately 50% of the total saloon licenses issued each semi- annual period are issued during the month following the beginning of the period and 40% are issued immediately preceding the beginning of the license period, the issuance of the remaining 10% of the saloon licenses being scattered over the remaining four months of the semi-annual periods. Receipts of fees for saloon licenses by months and years vary according to the number of licenses issued. The deferring of issuance of licenses de- creases the interest which the city obtains on its deposits and gives to certain owners of saloons privileges not enjoyed by those who pay their license fees immediately preceding the beginning of license periods. With the exception of the fiscal year ending April 30th, 1916, the amounts received for saloon licenses during the past seven years have approximated $7,150,000.00 each year, i. e., 7,152 licenses at $1,000.00 per license. There was a decrease of 54 saloon licenses issued during the second license period ending April 30th, 1916, reducing the total number of renewable saloon licenses to 7,094. Up to and including June 30th, 1916, 6,931 saloon licenses had been issued for the license period beginning May 1st, 1916. The distribution of the issuance of licenses and receipts by months and years are shown in Tables II and III. Tables IV and V present data on the distribution of the 7,094 licensed saloons in this city according to police precincts and wards. They show for each precinct and ward the number of licensed saloons, the estimated popu- lation and areas and the ratios of population and areas to licensed saloons. The boundaries of the present police precincts and the wards are shown In Exhibit "C." For the purpose of police administration the City of Chicago is divided into 26 districts. These districts are divided into police precincts, of which there are a total of 45. In some cases there are two precincts within one district, in others, the boundaries of the precincts are co-terminus with the boundaries of the district. Following is list of the districts and the precincts within the respective district territory. Districts Precincts Districts Precincts 1 1 14 21-22 2 2 15 23-25 3 3 16 24-26 4 4 17 27 5 5 18 28-29 6 10-11 19 30-31 7 12-13 20 32-33 8 15-16 21 34-35 9 9-14 22 36-37 10 17-18 23 38-39 11 19-20 24 40-41 6 25 42-43 13 7-8 26 44-45 The area in square miles of the prohibition, local option and open terri- tory within each police precinct and for the entire City of Chicago, is shown in Table IV. The divisions for the entire city are as follows: Prohibition territory area 64.089 square miles Local option territory area 62.448 square miles Open territory area 72.460 square miles Total area city 198.997 square miles 13 In the combined areas of the local option and open territory, amounting to 134.908 square miles, there were at the close of the saloon license period ending April 30th, 1916, 7,094 saloons or an average of 53 saloons to each square mile of "wet" territory. The distribution of saloons within precincts according to the estimated population shows the greatest proportion of saloons to population within the precincts in the business section of the city. For the purpose of comparison, consideration should be given to the transient population which it is estimated approximates 200,000 persons per day and which is largely to be found in these sections of the city. Based on the estimated population for 1916, of 2,491,939, there are on an average of 351 people to each of the 7,094 saloons in this city which were licensed at the beginning of the period May 1st, 1916. For the purpose of showing the distribution of licensed saloons according to the political divisions in the city, Table V has been drawn up. This table presents data on the number of licensed saloons in each of the wards, the ward areas and the total estimated population and the distribution of population according to nativity within each ward and for the entire city. The location and boundaries of the wards are described in Exhibit "C." The wards having over 200 licensed saloons are in order as follows: Ward Number of Saloons Ward Number of Saloons 1st 675 2nd 223 18th 346 16th 218 5th 336 14th 214 8th 295 27th 214 29th 293 24th 212 21st 278 4th 209 17th 271 20th 204 llth 264 30th 203 9th 225 22nd 202 The 3rd, 6th, 7th and 25th wards each have less than 100 licensed saloons, the number being as follows: 3rd 40 25th 61 6th 42 7th 64 According to ratio of population to each saloon, exclusive of transient pop- ulation, the order of wards having less than 300 people to each saloon is as follows: 1st 77 people to each saloon 18th 195 people to each saloon 5th 198 people to each saloon 21st 232 people to each saloon 8th 233 people to each saloon llth 263 people to each saloon 17th 265 people to each saloon 2nd 290 people to each saloon 29th 292 people to each saloon The 6th, 3rd, 25th and 7th wards have respectively 1,806, 1,651, 1,443 and 1,123 people to each saloon. PART 2. Ownership and Control of Saloon Licenses, Saloon Fixtures, and Leases to Saloon Premises. Statistics of the ownership and control of city saloon licenses, saloon fix- tures, leases to saloon premises and ownership of government liquor licenses, are given in Tables VI to X inclusive, according to separate police precincts and for the entire city. Approximately 53% or 3,698 of the 7,094 city saloon licenses in this city are controlled or owned by the licensees; 3,043 saloon licenses or about 43% of the total are owned by breweries and the remaining 255 saloon licenses or approximately 4% are owned by individuals other than the licensees and brew- 14 eries and consist largely of persons who are related to licensees or have some connecticn with the breweries. The leases to saloon premises are owned by the holders of the city licenses in 3,847 saloons or approximately 58% of the total number of licensed saloons. The breweries own 34% or 2,232 saloon leases, 296 saloon leases are owned by operators and saloon keepers other than licensees; 209 leases are owned by individuals other than licensees, operators or breweries and the scattering 14 leases are owned by landlords other than any of the above. Breweries own fixtures in 4,689 saloons or approximately 67% of all the saloons in the city. 1,903 saloon fixtures or approximately 27% are owned by the licensees, while the remaining 6% or 375 saloon fixtures are owned by operators and individuals other than any of the above. Approximately 70 per cent, or 4,952 licensed saloons in the city are more or less under the control of the breweries, insofar as control is obtained by ownership by breweries of saloon licenses, fixtures and leases to premises of saloons. In 1,600 saloons the breweries control and own the combination of the city saloon license, fixtures and leases to saloon premises. In 1,206 saloons the breweries control and own both the saloon license and fixtures. In 27 saloons the breweries own both city saloon license and leases to premises. The combi- nation of saloon fixtures and leases are owned by breweries in 551 saloons. In 1,322 saloons the breweries own fixtures alone. In 209 saloons and in 37 saloons the breweries own the city saloon licenses or the leases respectively. City saloon licenses own the government liquor licenses in 6,086 cases out of the total number of 7,094 saloons. The remaining 927 or 13 per cent, of the government liquor licenses are owned by persons designated as managers, agents or operators of saloons and by individuals other than any of these or the licensees. PART 3 Physical Characteristics of Saloons. The data furnished by the police license officers in answer to the questions relating to the physical characteristics of saloons, was not entirely definite or complete. Tables XI to XIV, inclusive, present information by police precincts and for the entire city on the proximity of saloons to schools, churches and public buildings; the exterior and interior arrangements of saloon premises, their connection with hotels, rooms and with restaurants, cafes, palm gardens and other amusements and businesses. A total of about 366 saloons in this city are nearer than 250 feet to schools, churches and other public buildings. Of this number at least 140 saloons are within this distance to schools, 172 to churches and 29 to other public institu- tions. Twenty-five other saloons are near similar buildings, the character of which are not specifically set out in the reports. Besides the entrances and exits which saloons have on the main streets and thoroughfares, the reports show that 1,553 saloons have entrances and exits to yards or open grounds, and 1,041 saloons have entrances and exits to alleys. Table XIII shows that there are a total number of 3,022 saloons which have direct connections to either hotels, bedrooms or private rooms which are either in the rear, side or over the saloon proper. Of this total 1,527 have such connec- tions in the rear, 1,364 overhead and about 20 on the side of the saloon 'proper. Information furnished by the license officers with reference to the existence of partitions, stalls and wine rooms within saloons was found to be indefinite, due possibly to the fact that the officers had different ideas as to the meaning of partitions, wine-rooms, etc. For this reason Table XIV has been drawn up to show the totals rather than the separate numbers of saloons having parti- tions, those having wine-rooms and those having stalls. The reports show that 1,811 saloons have such partitions, wine-rooms and stalls. In addition to these there are about 136 saloons which have similar rooms and partitions which are used as store-rooms and kitchens. There are also 471 saloons which run restaurants and cafes in connection with the saloon business and 63 saloons have picnic or palm gardens run in connection with the saloons. The data with reference to the number of saloons having tables, chairs or settees in the bar-room does not seem to be complete, the total number shown being 286 out of a total of over 7,000 saloons. 15 Part 4. Operation of Saloons. Tables XV to XVIII, inclusive, present statistics on the operation of the 7,094 licensed saloons in this city. Approximately 85 per cent., or 6,023 licensed saloons in the city are shown to be operated and conducted by the owners of the city saloon licenses; 547 of the saloons or about 8 per cent., are operated and conducted by managers or agents, and 449 saloons or about 7 per cent, are operated by individuals other than licensees or managers or agents of corpora- tions or breweries. The reports of the license officers in all cases give the names and ad- dresses of operators and saloonkeepers, and of bartenders, porters and other employes engaged by them. The total number of persons directly engaged in the saloon business in this city is shown to be 17,882. Of this number 5,609 are bartenders, 2,734 are porters and 1,889 are miscellaneous employes, making a total of 10,232 employes. In addition, there are 6,392 individual owners and 629 corporations or partnerships, the members of which are operators and are directly engaged in the saloon business. Assuming that an average of two persons are engaged in the operation and conduct of saloons where the owner- ship lay in a partnership or corporation, the total number of owners and operators of saloons is 7,650. In a large number of saloons and particularly in those located in the sec- tions of the city where the foreign population predominates, the license officers' reports show that the wives of saloon keepers assist in the carrying on of the business. These have not been included in the totals of owners and employes engaged in the saloon business. The reports of the license officers on the number and character of amuse- ments run in connection with saloons, are not as definite and complete as might be desired. The information is incomplete, particularly with reference to the saloons having cabarets, restaurants and cafes in connection. The re- ports show that there are about 4,550 amusements and businesses run in con- nection with the 7,094 saloons. Of this number approximately 633 have restau- rants, cafes and cabarets and in addition 242 similar amusements or businesses which are not specifically designated in the license officers' reports. Seven hundred and eighteen or about 10 per cent, of the total saloons have connections to rooms or halls in which dancing is permitted. Electric pianos are to be found in 2,420 of all the saloons, 89 saloons having bowling alleys and 448 have pool and billiard tables. Because the ownership of saloons usually changes where the saloon license has been revoked and then restored, the reports of the license officers were not adequate in this respect. Records in the office of the Mayor and in the Department of Police show that during the past 11 years there have been 671 revocations of saloon licenses, all of which with the exception of 46, were restored to the original owners or to persons obtaining the saloon through transfer or purchase of the license. The names of the owners and addresses of saloons at the time of revocation of the licenses, dates of revocation and restoration of the licenses, and the location within police precincts, are shown in Exhibit "B." For the purpose of showing the general character of saloons, an analysis was made of the number of revocations of saloon licenses during the past 11 years. Table XVIII shows the distribution of saloon license revocations accord- ing to precincts. The largest number of revocations are shown to be in police precincts 3, 27, 38 and 4. These precincts have the following records: 27th Precinct 248 saloons with 92 revocations 3d Precinct 168 saloons with 65 revocations 38th Precinct 259 saloons with 57 revocations 4th Precinct 112 saloons with 28 revocations These precincts, as shown in Exhibit "C," are located immediately north and south of the central loop district. 16 TABLE I -TATISTICS OF NUMBER OF LICENSED SALOONS, LICENSE FEES, TOTAL POPULATION OF CHICAGO AND RATIOS OF POPULATION TO EACH SALOON FOR EACH OF THE YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO AND SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE HARKIN ORDINANCE. Fiscal Year (See Number of Licensed Annual License Population of Chicago based Ratio of Population to Note 1) Saloons Fee on U. S. Census each Saloon 1905 8,097 $ 500 1,941,880 239 1906 7,353 1000 1,990,541 270 1907 7,226 1000 2,039,202 282 1908 7,180 1000 2,087,862 290 1909 7,152 1000 2,136,525 298 1910 7,152 1000 2,185,283 305 1911 7,152 1000 2,238,344 313 1912 7,152 1000 2.298,711 321 1913 7,152 1000 2,346.018 329 1914 7,152 1000 2,393,325 335 1915 7,150 1000 2,442,632 341 1916 7,094 1000 2,491,939 351 1917 6,931 (See 1000 Note 2) NOTES: (1) Fiscal year for saloon licenses is from May 1st to April 30th, inclusive. Semi-annual periods begin on May 1st and November 1st. (2) Includes saloon licenses issued up to and including June 30, 1916. In addition to these, the issuance of 13 licenses have been withheld by the City Clerk pending payment of amounts due the city by the applicants for the saloon licenses. The City Collector has also accepted a number of checks for saloon licenses which had not been issued on June 30, 1916, and which it is claimed are being held pending investigation. A portion of these checks have been deposited with the City Treasurer. 17 03 rj CO 13 D t-> = ^ a Os OS s OS Cs ^> 5^ r^ g IN O s s W O Os o ' f. = ^ Tl OS . . I & ;/. o . ^' J p: Csl IQ ts- o * CO CM J < D B ^ * B < s> 00 t^ CN c >O sS 15. ^ a fe n ^! " s CO 3 _x n -^ Cl t~ t. f~ >-s 1C IN 1-1 o a g 1 G 'O 1 OS cc S : ?; 3 o g o IN 1 CO t- j < en CO CO CN C~l S < tJ C re o '-2 I O * * o ( M CO j Q * CO CO c^ co o. vP ? ;.e oB "o "o g ti a (M CO IN CO 3 : g c i - 00 o 2 CO OJ 1 | g ? s S ^ - s"" i CS s 01 CS 1C O OS-" CO U5 O K P; 1 2 t^ O CO K* CS OS 00 CO ?0 CO CN co * c. n i cc ? g * 3 CO t-. CS CO ^J* O 01 Cl CM H M CO " 10 * *"" B | j| CS cs c. O CS o .1 .2 1 O J, 1 CO 4. 7 72: us eo'~' -. OS CS a Cs cs c as os o o'-'.Q 5 *' COS* - S r 1 H O ~ Q OO^-1-lr-li p-4 ( CSOSOsOSOsOSOfCS 8QOCOCPOOO pppOCDOOOCD 'cOOOOOC3QOCO OOOOOQOQOO rH O) * t^ Tf OHO N oooooSooSos Oi t>T -H" lC t-T 10 O * tO 00 8888S8 OOO OOO JOOOOOOPOOO ;qqqqqooppo 'pdcJocJododis ^Soooocoooo Ocsoot-cci^-ooioco oooeoooooccoe ooqqqqqqqqcoc -OOST*C^iOTj'CO OOlNOOCOCOlOCOtOO--! 8 888 :88 HO -oTto 88 -8 -888 8883S oqcqoscq oooT^oioo ts-t-tts-b- -H 01 CO * iO 00 Is- ts- t>- ts. c C3o IS 18 o.2-g s .2jrS 2- s WOn II CO O t^ O --S -i ffl >0 O 30 -I- CO - 1 1~ U5 c^ 01 S ^< O rH CO X5 (O 00 "* * "5 N M (O -Q h- "O !OOO 5 UStO^< O .-1 1-1 Tf CO 00 "3 ^ O5 O' TJ< O O C<5 O5 TJ< O t^ W t^ "S-HN O> iH 00 5 S C3y~ CO -i I !* *! ""^ i-* iH i-l O) MCOWC^COi^rHi ic^i ! N 06 I-i >5 1- ** P P I I P r^t H f-H * ( i I P f-H C^ P iH i^ i-HOi f* CO pH P i-H rH M C< * M CO P CO I-* P i^ i^ ** *N c*4 O " % a I 5t? *NCO -CpQ C 35 OO -OCO O O H iO O^* ^*^* 00 N iO *OOO OO -O 8 S * * ^H *^ w 5 p 5 '1 " PPP -PPPPC^?4M-HI>ICOPPC g a'-S^JS 1 1 2 -s-g s -" 3 ^ 3 Uli Sg i465S|f 03 O~ n 5 rf ** 3 S ill 1*1 19 1 a e 33 ; i.- c ~ c c-j re ri c~. '-c oc ~: 'c c. -r o ) -,= r: s. ~i rt ro o ^: r cc ^r :-: rj cc x ^ < c/3 >c i - c> "t r s. i- >^ n r re -r T r: r< rt ~ >; i- lO i-l OO 00 5O Ol N M CO t- >O ^< O 00 -< 00 O5 O3 O5 00 O O 00 N O i fji w w V C^ <--> " n J ' ' (.N ^^ "^r 1 <^j i.v wj i-* <^> ^A; *^v tv j ^w j i-^ w* Q G, " W(2 - O O OOO O O O O O Z, tt* K !z 9 S> '"Si o O g C g . M pH rt i-l i-l M i-H r-l -OrHi-l !-( -i-l rH i-l i-l rH i-l i-l PH r4 C4 i-l (N -* ' * CCi-i N i-lNTl< ' N*" 1 -^ O'- Cj 0*3 >_0 -55 X OOOSi-KN -i-il^ -IN * -i-lOCOt~00 -CCNiH . O j3 oS"3^^ iH -CO Wi-l- COO' -!-lO*i-l f-l -M C.^-^*'"- x 32 1&2N^^ Z -tN -CO -in "H -CO tO r4 ^OOg: Sgj^g^o^ ;S QJ n >II- IH -i-iNt- -co N os IH i-i o co to t^ TI 05 , M.I WM 2-H PH MiHW(N 2 U5 '- | ' iHi-IMi-l -iHi-ITjlp-1 . ... ... re i-iT US iH CO * r-l i-l W U) CO tO CO i-l CO * CO t- H I-H p ft N i-l (N i-l i-l N N CO (N iH -rHC ut!ouomy Sco* ' ' ro> ~ 1 co -i-i -i-ii-i OUJIH 'a>s6i ; Hc5'O6cMC'i~~HMU3' psj 20 K ? 2 - t- 3 * JJ.i M 0> -a G o O i T3 IE SOOr-ji OCOM I-H co co 1-1 1~ co TH . IN oo r- --i r>. -owoor^ IM > O -f< O5 CO t^ (O -H T)I 00 _i 00 IM rH t^ CO tO * O5 O Tf cc -< s;2^: 3 9 3 9 >3 '''' i CSj r d Hl I 21 86 .-.a II O a Ho ill! J 111 3 C a < .00 -M -c5c>aoo>Moo -^ ii-i <-! -t) -fUiaci 22 Ili! B 1! a a> 9 4*5 III 3 C O 1 < iHN: < STjiP4CMMC-)MMMCccocccorcccccccMf7-w'<] 9 O < W CO .BOOO O5 ffl ^> ^< i-l -< C5 f N lO-* >; 23 I a 3 c^ Zv Is 1 M a S 2 -n-i -< N IN -c ^ -H ^ CO i-ll 5-< . <* i-H 00 OOQCOSOWOOO t^tOWOOOr^W*l0 .^ON^OIN-J-^ -^i * -1- CO CO 'H CO >O t^ CO M -^ -" -H (N ^ CO O9 O * "5 * CO -I i-ico N^>ooO'. pa I 1 ._*.* g) I li 9 a a -3 tO N W N * W O 00 * "5 -" * O <" (O 00 b. 00 IN. O 00 ^OON^W rtTfrt -IN .t-l -NN Ct-CSl*CSC v O>OOOOeOCOi-l "5 N oo a -" ^i ^ O -H Tjl 00 tH -1O .^(lO<"i-li-IN '.I tO 00 * (O t^ ^ t tHCOiH^H 1-1 "^ CO CO CO - 00 ^^ -< i^ * <^ CO I-* i-t ^^ i^ f-( W t^ *H >^NNi-IM iH <-l N i-l i-l i-< W N <-l N il CM>-ll-li- "5 g c ^ ! 25 TABLE XI NUMBER OF SALOONS NEARER THAN 250 FEET TO SCHOOLS. CHURCHES OR OTHER PUBLIC BUILDINGS. SALOONS NEARER THAN 250 FEET Police Licensed To Other To Public Precinct Saloons To To Public Buildings Total Schools Churches Buildings not Specified 1 332 2 177 'i '7 '& 3 168 1 '4 'i 5 11 4 112 1 1 1 2 5 5 145 1 2 3 6 6 184 8 8 16 7 118 1 1 8 82 'i 3 4 9 21 10 17 t f 11 75 'i 'i '2 12 65 13 69 '2 '2 14 143 '3 3 6 15 199 3 10 13 16 95 1 a . 1 17 242 18 34 19 219 i 20 341 '3 4 7 21 277 11 13 "e 'i 31 22 204 12 19 2 33 23 350 7 19 i t . 27 24 108 10 6 2 18 25 164 2 3 , , 5 26 133 3 3 f 6 27 248 3 2 1 '2 8 28 138 4 1 2 7 29 116 1 , . , . 1 30 126 1 i t , 2 31 32 378 16 12 '2 '3 27 33 255 27 18 45 34 197 1 6 2 9 35 236 'i 1 36 158 'i 1 37 101 38 259 'i 'i i 'i 7 39 177 4 5 9 40 130 11 7 8 26 41 183 3 5 ^ f 8 42 99 3 6 9 43 103 3 1 4 44 98 . ^ 45 4 Note (1) 14 .. Totals 7094 140 172 29 25 366 NOTE: (1) Total of 14 saloons for which licenses had not been issued, or which were out of business at the time of the investigation by police license officers. Licenses for these were issued before expiration of period, viz.: April 30, 1916. TABLE XII NUMBER OF SALOONS HAVING DIRECT ENTRANCES AND EXITS TO ALLEYS, YARDS, OR OPEN GROUNDS, IN ADDITION TO STREET ENTRANCES AND EXITS. SALOON ENTRANCES AND EXITS Number of Saloons Questions To Yards Police Licensed Reported Not or Open Precinct Saloons Closed Answered Grounds To Alleys 1 332 2 1 71 2 177 . . '8 80 3 168 'i , , 13 32 4 112 3 17 41 5 145 4 13 20 6 184 62 7 7 118 13 26 8 82 'i 50 14 9 21 . 7 4 10 17 7 2 11 75 'i 16 15 12 65 1 t 32 8 13 69 8 4 14 143 82 7 15 199 'i 64 19 16 95 . 39 1 17 242 '5 . 26 16 18 34 27 2 19 219 '4 160 35 20 341 5 i 7 100 21 277 8 . 69 35 22 204 17 50 23 350 , 113 31 24 108 23 13 25 164 . 47 1 26 133 . 53 16 27 248 'i , 36 40 28 138 44 14 29 116 15 13 30 126 'i 75 11 31 . 32 378 'i 24 74 33 255 71 21 34 197 'i 'i 8 21 35 236 , , 27 35 36 158 '3 . . 64 9 37 101 i , , 73 38 259 11 55 39 177 i 32 25 40 130 18 16 41 183 "2 'i 24 42 42 99 . . 51 9 43 103 2 . . . . 6 44 98 . . . . 3 . . 45 4 . . . . 4 . . Note (1) 14 Totals 7094 51 5 1553 1041 NOTE: (1) Total of 14 saloons for which licenses had not been issued or which were out of business at the time of the investigation by police license officers. Licenses for these were issued before expiration of license penod ending April 30, 1916. 27 TABLE XIII NUMBER OF SALOONS HAVING DIRECT CONNECTIONS TO HOTELS AND ROOMS. (See Note 1). HOTELS AND ROOMS HAVING DIBECT CONNECTIONS Police Precinct H uuiuer ui Licensed Saloons OUIW11B Reported Closed Side Overhead Rear Location . Not Specified Total 1 332 2 5 25 30 2 177 'i 1 17 19 3 168 'i 3 9 '3 3 18 4 112 3 29 10 2 41 5 145 4 'i 2 1 1 5 6 184 22 113 135 7 118 ^ f 88 70 158 8 82 'i 50 31 81 9 21 . . 13 8 21 10 17 , . 'i 1 11 75 'i 12 65 i '2 's 23 33 13 69 20 20 14 143 'e 27 33 15 199 'i 'i 150 74 225 16 95 . 2 33 46 81 17 242 5 1 19 2 22 18 34 11 ^ t 20 19 219 '4 i 12 66 9 79 20 341 5 2 238 254 492 21 277 8 18 35 ~2 55 22 204 'i 49 138 9 t 188 23 350 54 253 307 24 108 29 22 . . 51 25 164 '2 15 100 117 26 133 i 27 28 27 248 '4 55 1 *3 59 28 138 7 . B , 7 29 116 'i . f , , 1 30 126 'i , . 52 16 68 31 . . . 32 378 'i - 3 53 '2 58 33 255 24 1 . . 26 34 197 'i 88 44 132 35 236 36 158 '3 . . . . . . . . 37 101 i 'i 8 9 38 259 35 8 43 39 177 8 *3 11 40 130 16 8 '3 26 41 183 '2 145 57 202 42 99 38 8 46 43 103 '2 'i 46 23 , f 70 44 98 , , a , . . 45 4 . . 4 'i , . 5 Note (2) 14 Totals 7094 51 19 1364 1572 67 3022 NOTES: (1) Information furnished by police license officers on this subject is mot uniform and is in- complete. (2) Total of 14 saloons for which licenses had not been issued or which were out of business at the time of the investigation by police license officers. Licenses for these were ifsued before expiration of license period ending April 30, 1916. 28 TABLE XIV NUMBER OF SALOONS HAVING PARTITIONS, STALLS, WINE ROOMS, RESTAURANTS, CAFES OR PICNIC OR PALM GARDENS IN CONNECTION. Police Precinct Number of Licensed Saloons Saloons Reported Closed Partitions and Rooms Used as Store Rooms and Kitchen Saloons Having Tables in Bar Room Saloons Having Partitions, Wine Rooms and Stalls Restaurants and Cafes in Con- nection Picnic or Palm Gardens in Con- nection 1 332 2 19 47 3 2 177 12 , 3 168 'i f f 27 5 4 112 3 7 64 6 5 145 4 f B 56 23 1 6 184 11 3 7 118 ^ B 5 8 m 9 8 82 1 '4 16 9 ^ m 9 21 5 4 1 10 17 *5 6 4 2 11 75 'i 7 2 3 12 65 i 1 7 13 69 13 1 'i 14 143 40 m . 3 15 199 'i ii 25 7 5 16 95 i 90 15 5 B . 17 242 '5 106 11 2 18 34 8 1 19 219 '4 'i 'i 73 's . . 20 341 5 2 58 2 1 21 277 8 7 '4 64 27 3 22 204 18 3 23 350 '7 'i 14 20 2 24 108 7 55 16 25 164 1 'i 31 23 '2 26 133 2 75 8 27 248 '4 '2 49 17 28 138 85 1 29 116 73 9 'i 30 126 'i '8 76 11 1 31 32 378 'i 54 'i 87 16 . . 33 255 3 18 16 . . 34 197 'i 9 79 7 1 35 236 3 39 67 11 36 158 '3 132 70 13 13 37 101 i '9 2 38 259 2 80 16 39 177 51 21 40 130 67 19 41 183 '2 69 19 1 42 99 '5 51 21 3 43 103 '2 10 8 6 44 98 66 5 5 45 4 t f 3 1 1 2 Note (1) 14 rotate 7094 51 136 286 1811 471 63 NOTE: (1) Total of 14 saloons for which licenses had not been issued or which were out of business at the time of the investigation by police license officers. Licenses for these were issued before the expiration of license period ending April 30, 1916. PI CC C-l M * O CO N i-l N ;8 : O -^ < t^ 1-1 W N CO CO -ieO IM -! ')'!Ovi'*i>O)inn t-l 1-1 i-l f W !-" IN 1-1 iH P5 tHl-C cc HI-I . .1-1 .U5 CC -H i-l i-l IH i-i -H O C4 O <-< "O N O i-l m 1-H i-H IN C* i-l 5O IOO5 Cs O! CO t> OS t^ OS >O 12/28/15 I/ 7/16 Robbs, James J .3800 Wallace St 6 1/12/16 1/21/16 Roehr, Gus .2025 W. 35th St 7 1/13/16 3/ 1/16 Reichert, Herman .2108 Wabash Ave 3 1/25/16 2/25/16 Roncoli, Philip . 734 N. Western Ave 32 2/ 3/16 2/ 7/16 Roncoli, Mrs. Rose . 2401 W. Chicago Ave 32 2/ 2/16 2/ 7/16 Ripstein, Wm . 1800 Belmont Ave 43 2/15/16 2/19/16 Rudman, Joseph .1800S. Morgan St 22 4/ 7/16 4/19/16 S Smith, Bernard . 1027 Van Buren St 29 11/14/05 11/27/05 Schultz, Jacob . 219 W. Randolph St 27 12/21/05 Not Snell, W . 49 N. Clark St 38 2/ 9/06 6/22/06 Simpson & Co . 3865 Cottage Grove Ave. . . . 5 2/ 9/06 2/19/06 Schroeh, Geo .9100 Erie Ave 15 7/27/06 8/ 6/06 Seropoulos, Andrew . 324 S. Halsted St 21 10/10/06 10/23/06 Sehroen, Geo .9100 Erie Ave 15 10/14/07 Not Skinner, W. W . 45 N. 20th St 3 8/ 1/10 10/31/10 Sypinerski, John .8410 Commercial Ave 15 8/15/10 10/31/10 Siegel, Louis . 3026 E. 92nd St 15 9/ 7/10 9/19/10 Sweeney, Patrick . 703 So. 48th Ave 26 11/22/10 11/30/10 Sullivan, Michael . 1459 W. Polk St 21 12/13/10 12/20/10 Stermer, Joseph . 5605 Grand Ave ... 37 3/ 3/11 3/11/11 Sheehan, John . 2657 Clybourne Ave 32 3/ 3/11 3/ 9/11 Sullivan, Wm . 478 E. 31st St ... 4 5/23/11 6/ 6/11 Schoop, Paul . 415 Wells St.. . ... 38 7/29/11 10/20/11 Smith, Henry; Harry Landan, Mgr. 933 W. Lake St 27 ll/ 9/11 11/13/11 Stonovitch, Paul . 17 W. Union St 27 11/20/11 1/10/12 Shannon, Edward . 1500 W. 12th St 21 5/23/12 7/25/12 Swan, Frank E .6401 S. Park Ave 12 6/13/12 10/31/12 Sullivan, Michael . 1425 W. 63rd St 17 7/17/12 7/25/12 Schoop, Paul . 421 Wells St ... 38 8/20/12 10/ 2/12 .3558 W. 12th St 26 8/23/12 9/ 3/12 Shannon, Ed .1500 W. 12thSt 21 10/10/12 ll/ 1/12 Shannon, Edward . 1500 W. 12th St ... 21 12/ 7/12 Sidias, James . 1149 Wabash Ave 2 ' 1/25/13 2/11/13 Sidias, James . 1149 Wabash Ave 2 4/19/13 4/30/13 Slaughter, Fred .2971 State St 4 12/ 2/12 12/19/12 Schoop, Paul . 421 Wells St 38 8/20/13 2/28/13 Shannon, Ed .1500 W. 12th St 21 10/ 9/12 5/ 2/13 Sullivan, G. A . 264 N. Western Ave . . . . 29 7/ 9/13 7/15/13 Schneider, Walter P , 5901 S. State St 11 7/ 9/13 7/11/13 Sheehy, Wm. P 4147 S. Halsted St 19 9/ 8/13 9/16/13 Scholl, John B . 6830 Stony Is]. Ave 12 1/25/12 4/21/13 Swan, Frank E .6401 8. Park Ave 12 6/13/12 7/ 2/13 Smith, C. N 2118 State St 3 7/ 3/13 10/29/13 Smith, David , 513 LaSalle Ave ... 38 10/14/13 10/28/13 Sukzrla, Joseph 2458 S. Oakley Ave 23 12/31/13 2/26/14 Sundbrrg, Alex .891 6 The Strand 15 2/11/14 4/ 8/14 42 EXHIBIT "B" Continued NAME Address at Time of Revocation Present Poljce Precinct Date Revoked Restored Sukzda, Joseph 2458 S. Oakley Ave 23 12/31/13 2/26/14 Shaughnessy & Mulligan 38 S. Peoria St 27 3/14/14 3/16/14 Sidias, James 1149 Wabash Ave 3 4/19/14 5/ 5/14 Stanbury, B. J 18 and 22 E. 22nd St 3 8/25/14 10/29/14 Sanders, Ernest L 823 W. Monroe St 27 8/24/14 9/ 3/14 Stephen, Philip 941 Washington Blvd 27 8/25/14 10/ 7/14 Schreiber, Max 538 N. Clark St 38 10/ 2/14 10/30/14 Saunders, Ernest L 823 W. Monroe St 27 10/14/14 10/30/14 Stanbury, B. J 18 and 22 E. 22nd St 3 8/24/14 1/13/15 Snell, John 1208 Wells St 39 1/14/15 1/20/15 Siraguska, A 833 W. Grand Ave 32 1/16/15 1/26/16 Sobota, Stanley 614 N. Racine Ave 32 4/26/15 4/30/15 Swanson, Otto 3260 N. Clark St 42 6/10/15 7/ 6/15 Stulginsky, Anna 4501 S. Paulina St 21 6/22/15 7/16/15 Sage, Al 613 W. Madison St 27 7/1/15 7/13/15 Soltes, Steven 956 W. 119th St 9 7/2/15 7/16/15 Singer, Joseph 5600 N. Clark St 44 8/3/15 8/28/15 Stanke, John 1703 S. Racine Ave 22 10/ 1/15 10/28/15 Schmid. Fred 3501 Irving Pk. Blvd 36 10/ 8/15 10/26/15 Sachs, Jacob 31 E. Grand Ave 38 10/28/15 ll/ 6/15 Shaughnessy, Ed. J. & Mulligan ... 3S S. Peoria St 27 12/ 6/15 12/10/15 Simon, Geo, 737 S. State St 2 12/17/15 1/17/16 Sablon, Albert 1230 School St 43 12/22/15 12/30/15 Schneider, Walter P 5901 State St 11 12/30/15 12/31/15 Schithe, Wm. Phil 6001 State St 12 1/27/16 2/1/16 Smith, U. S 3867 Grand Ave 34 1/27/16 2/ 7/16 Sutter, Martin 3258 N. Ashland Ave 43 2/ 1/16 2/ 5/16 Sacks, Leopold 6356 St. Lawrence Ave 12 2 /8/16 2/16/16 Sullivan, Wm 478 E. 31st St 4 2/23/16 3/ 1/16 Simalasz, Adam 2459 S. Washtenaw Ave 23 3/ 6/16 3/ 8/16 Stanlin, Thomas 1557 W. 12th St 21 3/ 8/16 3/ 9/16 Sullivan, Frank 931 W. Madison St 27 3/21/16 3/31/16 Sacks, Jacob 31 E. Grand Ave 38 3/30/16 6/12/16 Stensen, Martin & Patrick 806 Rush St 38 3/28/16 4/ 1/16 Smith, Frank J 648 N. Dearborn St 38 5/ 9/16 5/18/16 T Tuska, Joseph ... . . 748 Allport. . . 22 8/10/05 8/18/05 Tillatson, A. C 26 E. 16th St 3 1/23/06 2/ 1/06 Thomas, Robt 809 W. Lake St 28 10/17/07 10/31/07 Thompson, Chas 813-815 Monroe St 27 5/13/12 6/17/12 Trepeck, Abe 2601 S. State St 4 6/13/12 7/19/12 Townlews & Greinerich 2325 S. Leavitt St 23 8/ 5/12 8/10/12 Tuckhorn, Simon 24W.QuincySt 1 12/5/12 4/30/13 Trautman, Albert ". 2059 N. Halsted St 40 1/11/13 1/24/13 Thompson & Enwright 768 Van Buren St 27 2/11/13 3/11/13 Thomas, John 2037 Wabash Ave. 1 3 4/12/13 4/30/13 Tuckhorn, Simon 24 W. Quincy St 1 12/31/12 5/22/13 Tourney & Shinglcton 12 E. 28th St 4 7/ 9/13 7/11/13 Terhan, F. J 1001 W. Madison St 27 3/14/14 3/23/14 Torio, John 2001 Archer Ave 3 5/29/14 6/ 1/14 Torria, John 2001 Archer Ave 3 7/30/14 10/26/14 Tompewsky, Julius UN. Western Ave 29 8/29/14 10/ 1/14 Tampersky, Julius UN. Western Ave 29 8/29/14 12/21/14 Taylor, Edward 3122 Cottage Grove Ave 5 12/30/14 1/13/15 Truszunski, Geo 900 W. 38th St 6 12/ 4/15 12/30/15 Taney, Archie 100 W. 47th St 11 2/16/16 2/21/16 Trojan, Michael 1100 Jefferson St 21 5/19/16 5/23/16 U Ulrich, Henry. .. .. .2126 Wabash Ave. . 3 2/9/06 Not Uhelhorn, Herman 833 W. Lake St 27 1/27/13 2/24/13 Urbutis, C. & F. Yogel 4458 S. Ashland Ave 20 3/27/16 6/ 8/16 V Van Dusen, Frank 155 E. Washington St 1 3/14/06 5/ 3/06 Valpe, Dixnito 616 N. Sangamon St 32 3/ 3/11 3/ 9/11 Vlack, Jos. F 2000 Wabash Ave 3 7/8/13 10/31/13 Van Hessen 9174 Harbor Ave 15 11/7/13 4/6/14 Vogel, Charles 1440 S. Halsted St 21 4/6/14 4/27/14 Van Hessen, M. S 9174 Harbor Ave 15 ll/ 7/13 4/ 6/14 Volkman, John 4058 Madison St 30 9/20/15 3/6/16 43 EXHIBIT "B" Continued Present Address at Police Date NAME Time of Revocation Precinct Revoked Restored W Weisse, Louis E . .3464 Auburn Ave 6 6/13/05 6/22/05 Weiss, Edward . . 438-440 S. State St 2 9/29/05 Not Weborg, Andrew and Co . . 341 Milwaukee Ave 32 9/12/06 10/23/06 Wyman, J. B . . 948 W. 63rd St 17 10/ 8/06 10/30/06 Wojtyla, Michael , . . 30 Kascinski 35 10/23/06 ll/ 2/06 Williams, C. A , . .4845 S. Ashland Ave 20 ll/ 8/06 11/13/06 Ware, Arthur . . 16 N. Green St . .. 27 4/ 8/08 4/30/08 Ware, B. Arthur . . 238 W. Lake St 27 4/ 8/08 4/30/08 Wall, H. F . .4201 Archer Ave 8 3/ 3/11 3/ 7/11 We xler, Samuel . . 446 LaSalle Ave 38 7/25/11 9/28/11 Wiggenhauser, Julius . . 954 W. Lake St 27 4/11/12 4/30/12 Walsh, Jas. ; Nick Berror, Mgr. . . . .6314 Cottage Grove Ave. . . . , .. 12 4/ 4/13 4/18/13 Williams, Harry; H. J. Crick & Thos. Awens, Props . .2120 Wabash Ave 3 7/ 3/13 10/29/13 Woods, Edward . . 1602 Wabash Ave 3 7/ 3/13 8/ 1/13 Wilson, H. C. & J. Herman . .6331 S. Halsted St 17 8/ 8/13 8/19/13 Woods, Edwards . . 1602 Wabash Ave 3 7/ 3/13 9/ 2/13 Weiss, Ed . . 32 W. 22nd St 3 10/21/13 12/ 1/13 . .9026 The Strand 15 12/26/13 6/ 9/14 Weiss, Ed . .2136 N. State St , 3 2/ 2/14 5/ 5/14 Washa, Anton . . 3860 Madison St 30 6/17/14 7/ 8/14 Weiss, Ed . . 32 W. 22nd St 3 2/ 2/14 6/19/14 Wenghoffer, Joseph . . 3925 Montrose Ave , ... 36 9/ 8/14 9/10/14 Walsh, Jas . .6314 Cottage Grove Ave. 12 4/ 4/13 11/20/14 Wirizenburg, Jno. W . .3035 S. State St 4 3/ 1/15 3/24/15 Wanrzvusski, Ignatz . .4324 S. Ashland Ave , 20 6/22/15 11 1/15 Widovich, Daniel . . 9427 Ewing Ave 15 ll/ 6/15 11/30/15 Weghun & Jones ..2501 W. LakeSt . . 29 11/18/15 12/18/15 Withersen, Clara . .3625 Fullerton Ave 35 12/11/15 12/17/15 Wedzumas, Geo. W . .3857 S. Kedzie Ave 8 12/17/15 12/20/15 Wozruck, Geo. V . .5200 Roscoe St .. 36 1/21/16 2/ 3/16 Webber, Joe . . 428 Milwaukee Ave 32 1/10/16 3/11/16 Wallace & O'Brien . . 437 S. Racine Ave 27 2/23/16 3/24/16 Wilson, Chas. C . . 2443 Armitage Ave .. 34 3/13/16 Not Winrie r Louis . .4000 Lincoln Ave 43 5/18/16 5/29/16 White, Gus . 10003 Ewing Ave 16 6/12/16 Not Y Yinsos, Phillip.. . . .2806 Cottage Grove Ave 4 6/10/15 9/29/15 Yarbich, Mike . .8957 Green Bay Ave 15 12/23/15 1/17/16 Yuknis, Anne . . 1620 S. Union St 22 4/12/16 4/18/16 Z Ziska, Charles . . 2514 Princeton Ave 3 '2/11/11 2/23/11 Zemek, Thomas . . 1934 W. Harrison St 24 3/ 6/14 3/13/14 Zellen, Ben 6E. 22nd St 3 2/15/15 5/25/15 Zallinski, A . .3232 Drake Ave .. 36 12/ 6/15 12/11/15 Zallinski, Andira . .3232 Drake Ave 36 2/16/16 3/29/16 Zacharias, A . . 1256 Sedgwick St .. 39 5/ 3/16 5/15/16 Zrezich, John ..2294 Blue Isl. Ave .. 23 6/ 1/16 6/13/16 44 EXHIBIT "C APPENDIX B Deply of the Chicago Brewers' Protective Association to the Questionnaire issued by the Chicago Commission on the Liquor Problem on the Financial and Economic aspects of the use of Intoxicating Liquors in Chicago APRIL, 1916 NOTE The Reply on account of its length is not reprin- ted herein. Copies of the reply of the Chicago Brewers' Protective Association are available for free public inspection and use in the Municipal Reference Library, Room 1005 City Hall. APPENDIX C Digest pf Hearings BEFORE THE CHICAGO COMMISSION ON THE LIQUOR PROBLEM Mr. E. J.. Davis. Chicago District Superintendent, Anti-Saloon League of Illinois. The idea is suggested that it would be better for economic conditions to have the unfortunate victims of the liquor traffic continue to be drunken and worthless than to give them a chance to become sober, self-respecting and earning members of the community. The questions relating to the economic side of the liquor problem are mostly silly or worse. To argue that there is an economic benefit to the public at large from the liquor traffic is an absurdity. It would be as silly to recommend to the people the purchasing every year of a hundred million dollars worth of merchandise which it does not need and de- stroy it in order to help labor and business and -stimulate real estate values, etc., as to advocate the same expenditure for booze for economic reasons. It would be less silly, there would be no expense for caring for the dependents caused by the expenditure. You are asking for the payment of a hundred mil- lion dollars per year by the people for the benefit of the liquor lords and trying to fool the people into thinking they are getting something for their money. The hundred million dollars will be spent whether it goes into the tills of the saloonkeeper and brewers or into the tills of legitimate merchants. A man spending $18 at retail for a barrel of beer gives employment to only one-third as much labor as though he spend it for shoes, or for furniture, or for other legitimate merchandise. If he spends $18 for beer he has nothing of value for himself or his family. If he spends it for useful articles he not only has employed more labor but he has something of value for himself. It is quite true that saloons rent buildings, employ bartenders, teamsters, blacksmiths, and many kindred lines of labor, but what of that? So also would the purchasing of merchandise which was immediately destroyed cause the employment of labor. Consider the labor that will be demanded to make a hundred million dollars worth of useful merchandise. When the hundred mil- lion dollars now spent in Chicago for booze is spent for useful things each merchant's trade will be largely increased, each factory will have more orders, and it will require more labor. The expenditure of a hundred million dollars in the legitimate channels of trade will mean at least twenty-five million dollars gross profit in the tills of the merchants and manufacturers from which they could well afford to pay the eight million dollars which the liquor interests pay for the privilege of collecting the hundred million dollars from the people over their bars. This will be true even though there were no decrease in the ex- penses of the city government nor increase in the amount of taxable property. All of the above is figured on the basis of people destroying the hundred million dollars worth of merchandise as soon as they buy it as they would then certainly be no worse off than if they had spent it for booze, and the general public will be far better off because of the increased amount of labor which the money expended in the legitimate channels of trade will employ. Even under such conditions the economic community will be far better off than when the money is spent in the saloons. But consider what will happen to a community when the hundred mil- lion dollars is not only spent for valuable merchandise but the merchandise is saved by the purchaser then not alone will labor and merchandise profit by the expenditure but the purchases will increase the valuable holdings of the people. Soon there will be a great increase in taxable property and also the legitimate merchant having done an increased business his profits will increase and he will become more prosperous and a larger taxpayer. On the other hand, crimes and disorder will grow less, 'the cost of government will diminish and the income through the legitimate channels of taxation will be larger. This is not only common sense for Chicago, but it is the experience of every community which has set its heel upon the liquor traffic and ground it to pieces. Under the wet regime the taxes in the City of Rockford were $5.48 per hundred of assessed valuation; under the dry regime it is $4.51 and it is con- stantly decreasing, brought about by the above process decrease in the cost of government and the increased amount of taxable property. The same thing is true all over the State of Illinois and throughout the country where the law has been enforced. It is true there will be a period of re-adjustment to go through, there will be some expense in the prosecution of lawless violations of the prohibitory law, but the fines paid by the lawbreakers will more than compensate for the expense of prosecutions as has been demonstrated all over 49 the State of Illinois in the prosecution of bootleggers, in dry territory. In the single city of Decatur the fines against bootleggers at one term of court aggre- gated over $42,000 and everywhere over the state the fines have been much larger than the cost of prosecution. In closing I want to say regarding the whole question of the economic aspect of the liquor question, it would be just as silly, but no more so, to argue war as an economic asset. The manufacture of war material employs labor but war is a waste. The whole matter may be compared to the village on the New England sea coast in early days which lived almost entirely from the salvage of wrecked vessels. These villagers sent a delegation to their state legislature protesting against the erection of a lighthouse claiming that it would stop the wrecks and injure their means of a livelihood. To be sure it would. No individual was ever known to drink himself rich and no amount of sophistry can make it true that a community can do so either. Mr. Philip Freiler. I was formerly in the wholesale whiskey business in Elgin. My residence is in Elgin, Illinois. My occupation you might put down as a distiller, because I still operate a distillery in Louisville. Elgin has been a dry city since a year ago last May. The town was voted dry the 7th of April, or the first Tuesday in April, and went dry 30 days after that. There were 34 saloons in the city when Elgin was wet. There were two breweries. All the saloons were wiped out when Elgin became dry and one of the breweries went into the hands of a receiver and the other is still operating. Some of the buildings occupied by the 34 saloons are still vacant. The Ramsey House had a saloon. The place that Mr. Bodenschatz was in has been vacant ever since. The landlady who owned the place opened up a little 5 and 10 cent store, but closed it after four or five weeks. The saloons were all in good locations. In a city the size of Elgin, all the business property is in what they call the fire limits, one little square of about four square blocks. There were no saloons in the residence sections, as there is a city ordinance prohibiting saloons outside of the fire limits. The fire limits is practically the business center. Then there was Charles Anderson whose place is being run as a club room, with soft drinks. This place of Anderson's was formerly rented for $65 a month, and he now pays $30. Then there was the place J. T. Mullins occu- pied. He now occupies a place right opposite our public park, in Cook County. His building rented for $100 a month and now brings $87 for a 5 and 10 cent store. C. H. Cordes' place brought $62 a month as a saloon, and there is a tin shop in there now paying $50. The place occupied by Henry Mack formerly brought $90 a month, and they now run a club room in there that brings $60 a month. P. Gilles ran a saloon, and now that is rented for a shoe repair shop. He paid $75 a month and it is now renting for $75 a month. Siems & Ramsay's former building is rented for an ice cream parlor at about the same rate, $100 a month, but the owner spent $1,500 for repairs. Gus Peterson's place which formerly brought $115, now has a drug store in it which brings $90. Broder- son's place is now run as a pool and billiard hall. They pay $110, the same as they formerly paid. W. H. Snow is running a club and is holding the building pending Elgin ever going wet again, if it goes wet again. He is run- ning a club room there. He paid $125 but the building is now under lease for $200. The Eisenbraun is a building that he refused $16,500 for six months prior to the election. After Elgin went dry he rented the whole building for $70 a month, and there is a billiard and pool hall in there now. Nick Goedert's place has a dyers and cleaners in it now. That formerly paid $50 a month, and is now paying $50. Herman Vierke paid $60 a month. The Fox River Express Company is now in that place, and paying- $30; and in fact, they are renting it from day to day, for $1.00 a day. L. Humbracht's place formerly brought $60. There is a club room in there now paying $40. There is a pool and billiard hall in Frank DeLancey's place now. He formerly paid $80, and it is now bringing $30. Charles Hintt is running a soft drink parlor in the place he formerly paid $85 for, and is now paying $50. The Washington House turned into a soft drink parlor. The Elgin Eagle headquarters formerly paid $70 a month, and has been vacant ever since the town has gone dry. The Elgin National Headquarters paid $45 a month. There is a club there now at a lower rental. My own building has been vacant ever since the town went dry. It is 50 a two-story and basement 50 foot front by 70 deep, that I refused $35,000 for six months prior to the election. One of the leading drys sent his emissary to me about four or five months after the election and, by the way, those gentle- men were claiming prior to the election that rentals and real estate value would increase very materially if the town went dry. This man had the nerve to tell me that if I would entertain a proposition of from $15,000 to $16,000 he could find me a buyer, for a piece of property that a few months before election I had refused $35,000 for. Frank Lasher who ran the best place in town, leased his place for an ice cream and soft drink parlor for $175 a month. He owns the property and it is the best location in town; and to illustrate to you about the actual value of that store, there is a drug store right across the street from his place that you might put four of into Mr. Lasher's place, and it is on the wrong side of the street, too, but they pay $150 a month for rent. Lasher's place, how- ever, is being rented for an ice cream parlor for $175. William Hess paid $45 a month, and there is a shooting gallery in there now paying $45 a month. C. E. Pond's place formerly brought $65 a month, and is now under lease for $45, but is vacant. In the Fritz & Ottoe place, the owners started a clothing store, and ran a clothing store there so as to occupy the place after the building had been vacant for some time, but they have not made expenses, and an option has already been given to a saloon man, in case the town goes wet. The Freiler estate owns a building there that was rented for $65 the store was. There is a tailor shop in there now, a tailor repair and shoe repair shop two tenants. They pay $33.50 a month. I got $65 for it when the town was licensed. The Jacobs' place is one of the few places in Elgin that has been rented to advantage since the town has gone dry. Very fortu- nate for the owners of the building, after they spent $3,000 in fixing it 'up, they got the new speedometer company that has started in Elgin to rent it for a term of years; but that was just a chance shot. In Gribble Bros.' place they paid formerly $70 a month, and it is now occupied by a paint and wall paper concern that is paying $35. The Keegan place paid $70 formerly, and there IB a grocery store in there now paying $60. The Beier place is occupied by the Wells-Fargo people, who moved out of a very good building which has been vacant ever since they moved out, because the Beier saloon was right along- side of the St. Paul tracks, and they do their business all over the St. Paul road. The Niles place which paid $100 a month has been vacant ever since the town has gone dry, but the place is under lease and I think the landlord is get- ting rent. Van Meter's place is run now as a soft drink parlor, and there are some 15 vacant stores. After the town went dry quite a few businesses started there on account of getting cheaper rent. We had four or five restaurants started, but two of them went broke within six months. We recently had a failure there, in a large ready-to-wear ladies clothes business, of something like $15,000. I do not think they will get ten cents on the dollar the creditors. The only chance I have had of renting my building was to one of these Italian clothing merchants, who wanted to rent it for a purpose of that kind, because it was the season when the merchants there expected to do some business that was some time last fall and he only wanted to go in there for a week or ten days. In fact, he would not rent it for more than one week at a time, and I would not have rented it, anyway, because I would have had to do a lot of fixing up in order to get a tenant for a week, and it would not have been worth it. I was going to say about this speedometer concern, that the man who owned that building had to spend about $3,000 in improvements to fix it up, just for them. He really spent two or three years' rent in order to get a tenant. Now, as to the pool rooms and clubs that I referred to one of our papers that was very dry during the last campaign claimed at one time that there were 86 blind pigs in Elgin. Most of them are in the places that I designated as pool rooms or club rooms. They fine them, and fine them repeatedly, but it does not amount to anything. They open right up again. I think that they have been fined, according to what one of the papers stated the other day, some- thing like $3,600 in fines that have been imposed in a very short time on what they call blind pigs. But those were operated as club rooms. The revenue people were there a short time ago, and compelled about 25 of them I do npt know as this is just accurate, but it was rumored around, and in fact the papers so stated, that there were 25 of them compelled to take out a revenue license, because they were selling liquor without having a license. The revenue from the saloon licenses in Elgin was thirty-four thousand 51 dollars; one thousand dollars a year, payable in two payments. No new banks have been started since Elgin went dry, but I can tell you the financial con- ditions of the present banks. That was one of the stock remarks of the drys, that savings would immediately increase when a community goes dry. I can give you the figures taken right from the banks. I wish to say that our banks within the last two years our savings banks have adopted the same method that some of your Chicago banks have had for years, of advocat- ing little savings clubs of ten cents or a quarter; and that, naturally, would bring a great deal more business. On June 4th I took these dates in going over the trial balance at the banks, and the figures I got from the statements about the time that the town went dry. In June, 1913, the money on hand in the two leading savings banks there are two (the others also have some sav- ings accounts which I did not get on account of being only national banks) was $2,394,560.14. In June, 1914 this was during the wet regime there was $2,449,810.45. June, 1915, after the town had been dry one year, there was $2,367,419.44, or a loss of about $80,000 in savings in the savings account in the two large banks there; which conclusively shows to me that it is a fallacy to claim, that the savings account will increase, and the poor people will save more money. The cash on hand in the corporate funds of the City of Elgin on January 1, 1912, was $4,364.86. That was when the town was wet. On January 1, 1913, there was in the corporate funds on hand $2,164.22. On January 1, 1914, there was no cash on hand. On January 1, 1915, there was no cash on hand. On January 1, 1916, there was no cash on hand. On the first of January, 1914, anti- cipation tax warrants outstanding amounted to $7,591.12. There were none prior to. that; they never had any anticipation tax warrants that I know of. On January 1, 1915 that is when they began to feel, the shortage from the saloon licenses there were no corporate funds on hand, and the anticipation tax warrants outstanding amounted to $32,113.86. On January 1, 1916, there were no corporate funds on hand, and the anticipation tax warrants outstanding amounted to $34,999.83. In other words, Elgin is in the hole today 17 cents less than $35,000, and it is- the first time in the history of Elgin, within my recollec- tion, and I have lived there for 35 or 36 years, that they ever had to issue anti- cipation warrants. They simply have to retrench and a great many contemplated improve- ments will not be accomplished if the town remains dry. In the last year par- ticularly, the drys claim that it is owing to the crooks being driven out of Chi- cago, we have had some burglaries there, more than we ever had before, and our chief of police claims that it is owing to the lack of enough policemen. I think that if our city marshal was asked right now, he would say that he should have half a dozen or ten more officers. I have gathered statistics for a number of years in our wet and dry fights, and from about 10 years ago the number of drunks kept decreasing each year, kept going down. I remember one report taken from the police magistrate's- office and they only have one there, so he has all these cases, they all come before him and there were something like 600 drunks arrested in one year; and then it dwindled down from year to year, growing less each year, until the year 1914, when we had our fight. That former record from January, 1913, to January, 1914, I think showed 231 drunks arrested for drunkenness in a town with a population of approximately 27,000 which I think is an unbeatable rec- ord. The police adopted a method since the town has gone dry of not arresting a man for being drunk unless he is so intoxicated that he cannot navigate. Then they put him on a street car, and tell the conductor to let him off at his house, or the nearest place to his house. In Dundee on Saturday north of us they have had more drunks since Elgin has gone dry than they ever had before in their entire history, and it is one of the oldest towns in the state. There are fully as many there, but in Elgin itself there are not so many, from the very fact that I have just stated to you, that the police force, instead of putting a man in the "jug," sends him home, puts him on a street car and sends him home unless he is so drunk that he cannot navigate, and then they take him to the station. I think the entire town has suffered. I may be biased in my opinion, but I am pretty level-headed, and I would not say 'this unless I thought so. I know that I had nine men in my employ, and only two of them got work, and it was by very hard work that I got them positions. One of them today, a man who 52 was with me 21 years, is an assistant starter down at the car barn now, getting about $45 or $50 a month, where I paid him $20 a week. Another is a motorman and I do not know what he is getting. I paid him $20 a week. Mr. Thomas Greif. The statement in regard to the objectionable saloons from Mr. Oehne, is to a certain extent all right, but I think you will find very few saloons that are ob- jectionable where the party owns the license and the fixtures. A man who owns his own license and fixtures and has his own money invested looks to it that he is carrying on his business in a straight way. Once we had a new captain in our section, the Shakespeare avenue police station. He called in a lot of the saloonkeepers in that section and gave us a lecture as to how we should conduct our saloons and if we did not follow that our licenses would be revoked. I asked him what would be done with those licenses controlled by the brewery. "Well," he says "we are not here to debate this, the attorney will take care of their license." A man that has a license controlled by a brewer doesn't care a continental; he runs it to make money. In Chicago there are 7,150 saloons and I claim that out of the 7,150 saloons, roughly estimating, there are 2,000 saloons losing money every day. Two thousand make a living; 3,000 make money and maybe 2,000 make a nice little saving. A thousand may make a fortune. These 2,000 losing money are always replaced by the breweries; when you go to a brewer and want to get a saloon they do not ask your char- acter: they ask you how much money you have I had that experience myself. There are certain breweries that are very careful about who they put in, and there are some of them who do not care anything about it; they do not care as long as the place is going. After the time the Harkins' ordinance was passed for the first couple of years, the breweries gobbled up the licenses. A man went out of business and they said some got out in a creditable way and some some other way. A man may want to run a saloon and he gives $500 to some agent. He has to sign his name. The agent puts that money in his pocket. Before you know it he has assigned the license over to a brewery and he has to make a big fight to get it in his own name again. The breweries get many licenses in that way. I know one man they charged $250 a year for using the license. A license at the present time is not worth anything. The saloon business has improved since I was in it first. I started in 1877. At that time you could walk into a saloon and there was a bar and a gambling table and in the back there were girls, and it was open at that time. It has improved a great deal. It takes more money now to go into the saloon business than it did at that time. A better class of people are engaged in the saloon business at the present time. If I had the say about the giving of licenses, I would take the licensing power the power to issue licenses away from the Mayor. I think there ought to be a commission appointed to issue licenses, and every saloonkeeper ought to submit to an examination as to whether he is fit to run a saloon; the same thing in regard to revoking licenses. Now I may run a square saloon, but the policeman on the beat does not like my face, and if I run a minute over the closing time he will report me, and my property or my money, all invested, is taken away without due process of law. I cannot bring in witnesses; I have no chance to defend myself. All I can do is to bother an alderman from my ward and get them to try to get the license back, but there is no trial. If a man's license is revoked he should have a trial so he could get witnesses. I would have both the issuing of licenses and the revocation of a license done by a commission. In this way we would soon get rid of the objectionable men in the saloon business. The features that make a saloon a bad saloon are: the first thing is a .. saloonkeeper wants to make his expenses and his wages. If he is not in a 'position where he can do that he allows his customers to do this and that. The customers may gamble. He may bring girls in. They may use indecent Ian guage just to hold the crowd, the customers he has. I had a conversation with old man Harrison regarding this matter. He says "now you have a saloon and a couple of blocks west of you there are other saloons that are not desirable, and if we close those places up they will come to your place and 53 they will drive away your good customers. If you have a bad crowd the decent customers that you have will stay away." He says, "a certain amount of saloons of that kind should exist so the police when they want to find a man they can get him right away." I traveled in the old country five years ago and I investigated the saloons and I found in pretty near every big city they had certain locations where the questionable crowds hang out and every week, once or twice, the police would make a raid and pick them all up; maybe not all, but some of them were dangerous crooks, and they arrested them and found out where they came from and what they were doing. In nearly every city they have such a place as that. The saloonkeeper was not a bad saloonkeeper but he was allowed to have that kind of a place. Mr. R. L. Hill. City Supervisor, Brotherhood of American Yeomen. Those engaged in the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, as well as the vast horde of those who drink to excess, are prohibited by our medical department from participating in the benefits of life insurance. I desire to sub- mit, for your consideration, the facts as gathered by Dr. Chas. P. Smith, of Des Moines, Iowa, who is the chief medical director of the Brotherhood of American Yeomen, a beneficiary insurance organization, with headquarters at Des Moines, Iowa. A committee composed of medical directors and actuaries of a number of insurance companies are working, almost continually, making investigations as to the effect of occupations, habits, family history, height and weight and, in fact, almost all matters which influence life insurance risks. On consulting this report we have the result of the actual experience of a number of the large insurance companies doing business in this country, on occupations pertaining to the liquor business. Notwithstanding the fact that all insurance companies have been exceedingly careful in the selection of risks, where they were en- gaged in any branch of the liquor business, or where there was a history in the use of intoxicants, this experience shows conclusively the effect of intoxi- cants upon the mortality rate of those engaged in the business. The principal reason the mortality rate is increased in this class of cases is the fact that they are addicted to the excessive use of liquors. On page 12 of this report we find under the group "hotels where there is a bar," class 19. This class includes proprietors, superintendents and managers, who do not tend bar. In the entire number of deaths in this group we find there were 529, and the expected deaths under the American Table of Mortality were 391.66; in other words, the mortality rate was 135. In class 20, including proprietors, superintendents and managers, who tend bar occasionally or regu- larly, the actual deaths in this class were 519, while 291.94 were expected; thus giving a mortality rate of 178. In class 20 of this group, on a careful examina- tion of the cause of death, we find deaths from cirrhosis of the liver, six times the standard; diabetes, three times the standard; cerebral hemorrhage, or apoplexy, nearly twice the standard; organic disease of the heart, nearly twice the standard; Bright's disease, nearly three times the standard, and pneumonia twice the standard. In class 19, the causes of death compare very closely to those given in class 20. Page 13 of this report, includes occupations of saloons, pool halls, and bowling alleys, with a bar, class 21. In this group of occupa- tions, includes proprietors and managers who do not tend bar, the actual deaths in this class were 222; the expected deaths were 122.23. In other words, there was a mortality rate of 182 per cent. In class 22 of the same group of occupations, including proprietors and managers who tend bar occasionally or regularly, there were 830 actual deaths while 478.75 were expected giving a mortality rate of 173. On the same page we find breweries listed under three classes. In class 23 proprietors, superintendents and' managers there were 483 actual deaths, while 358.99 were expected, the mortality rate being 135. In class 24, including clerks of breweries, there were 112 actual deaths, while 86.35 were expected, the mortality rate being 130 in this class. In class 25, in- cluding foremen, malsters, beer-pump repairers and journeymen, there were 145 actual deaths, while but 95.13 were expected, or a mortality rate of 152. Among proprietors, etc., between the ages of 15 and 29 years, the mortality rate was 197. Between the ages of 30 and 49 years, the mortality rate was 133. Of clerks between the ages of 15 and 29 years, the mortality rate was only 90 per cent, of the expected and between 30 and 49 years, the rate was 176. 96 Let us take Class 21 "Proprietors and managers of a saloon, pool hall or bowling alley with a bar, one who attends bar." Assume that the man be 30 years of age, engaged in one of the above named occupations. According to the actual experience of the insurance company, the young man so engaged, would live approximately 19.3 years. If he engaged in an ordinary occupation, according to the American Table of Mortality, he should live 35.33 years. Thus it will be seen that the person engaged in the liquor business, as above, would be giving 15.83 years of his life because of the hazard incident to his occupa- tion. It is not hard to understand why the life insurance companies should look unfavorably upon risks presenting such hazards. Mr. George F. Lohman, Cashier, City Collector's Office. The bar permits from May 11, 1912, to April 30, 1913, issued were about 5,249; between May 1, 1913, and April 30, 1914, 6,366; May 1, 1914, to April 30, 1915, 5,601; from May 1, to November 1, 1913, 2,884; May 1, 1914, to November 1, 1914, 2,849; May 1, 1915, to November 1, 1915, 1,760. The new bar permit ordinance was passed -May 13, 1915, and as a result 1,100 less permits were issued. Under the new bar permit ordinance it is necessary to file your appli- cation 15 days ahead and they must make their application in duplicate. You have got to have a notary's certificate attached to it and a lot of information that we did not get under the old application. I have a statement here of the number of saloon licenses issued since 1905, going back to the time when the fee was $500 for a saloon license, the year 1906 marking the beginning of the $1,000 license. The first license period is from November 1st to April 30th and the second period from May 1st to November 1st. 2nd period, 1905 8097 1st period, 1906 7353 2nd period, 1906. 7237 1st period, 1907 7226 2nd period, 1907 7211 1st period, 1908 7180 2nd period, 1908 7154 1st period, 1909 7152 2nd period, 1909 7152 1st period, 1910 7152 2nd period, 1910 7152 1st period, 1911 7152 2nd period, 1911 7152 1st period, 1912 7152 2nd period, 1912 7152 1st period, 1913 7152 2nd period, 1913 7152 1st period, 1914 7152 2nd period, 1914 7152 1st period, 1915 7150 The city collector received from license permits alone $8,628,663.91 during the year 1914. The revenue from liquor business more than covers the cost of maintaining the police department; the last named department being the most expensive department in the city. Mr. Martin McGraw. Executive Board, International Union of the United Brewery Workmen of America. In regard to the employment of men in the fifty-six establishments manu- facturing and dealing by wholesale in beer, located in the City of Chicago, our International Organization, composed of brewery workers, bottlers, bottle and keg drivers, and malsters, has a membership of about 4,800 men employed in the city. This does not include the mechanical departments of the breweries, or the office force, or the men engaged on the erection and repair work of build- ings and machinery. The earning capacity of these men at the present time is approximately $5,670,000 per year, and in case of prohibition being adopted by 55 the City of Chicago, these men will be idle, as it is impossible for anybody to secure employment in the already overcrowded labor market. All of the inside men employed in the breweries have taken up this work as their trade and calling;, and have spent almost a lifetime in this occupation, and consequently, to a great extent, are unfitted to be shifted into other occu- pations. Those who could find employment elsewhere, would naturally have to accept the same under greatly reduced wage scales, and a consequent reducing of the standard of life. The 1,800 bottle and keg drivers would, of necessity, depress the wages of the general teamsters of Chicago in the scramble for employment, and the chances of employment in every other trade and calling, including the printing trade, would be greatly reduced. Estimating the number of men directly and indirectly affected by the closing of the breweries and saloons, I do not hesitate to say that it will affect in the City of Chicago more than 150,000 men in their present employ- ment the result of which would be disastrous to labor, without a question. Aside from the men directly employed in the liquor industry, every line of business, manufacturing and mercantile, has suffered with the establishment of prohibition in the various states which have adopted the same. * In the States of Alabama and Tennessee the Union Cigar Makers have had to leave for other states in order to find employment, and the Cigar Makers' Organization is as completely eliminated as the men employed in the manufac- turing of beer. Mr. John W. Maskell. I think that before a man is permitted to put his name on a license his character should be investigated and have the approval of a commission. When it comes to a renewal or a revocation I do not believe that any commission or any public officer should have any power to say whether or not a man's license should be revoked. If a man has done something that justifies the re- voking of his license I think he ought to be tried by a jury and his property should be taken from him in a court of law. I think it is a cause of political blackmail, too much power. For instance, a license can be revoked if a man kept open one minute after one o'clock and sold to a minor. That may be a technical violation, but in reality the spirit of the law has not been broken, and I think a jury of men should give a decision. It will not destroy his investment. I introduced in the Legislature at Springfield, or instructed our attorney to introduce a bill providing that it be made a felony for a person convicted of a felony or a minor being in the saloon. Today an immoral woman might come into my saloon and behave herself, but if she was found in there waiting for an escort to come in. I might be charged with harboring an immoral woman and have my license revoked. I introduced this bill for the purpose of reversing the responsibility. If a minor or an immoral woman were there they were at their peril. Let the man running the police district be responsible for a man being in my saloon, and let the patrolman patrol my saloon the same as he patrols the beat and let him walk in the front door and out of the back door every time he travels his beat. The city council should have the right to determine whether an immoral man or woman or a person convicted of a felony should have the right to run a saloon. A man during the last administration had his license revoked for harboring criminals. He could have had his license revoked from the beginning, as far as that goes, for harboring criminals; but the same thing might be said of myself. I have seen my bar lined with men and every man had a prison record. A police officer might come in and say there were 10 criminals at the bar and say "you are harboring criminals." He might come in a minute later and not find a single one there. Instead of making the saloonkeeper responsible for the character of men and women who frequent these saloons, let the police department be made responsible for the character of the people in my place of business. Substantially, my contention is that there should be some responsibility in the police department as to the character of people found in any place. There skould be a commission, and there should be no revocation until a trial by a jury for that purpose. For instance suppose I am open on Sunday after one o'clock, 56 the fine is ordinarily $200; my money is invested and it represents $5,000. Why should my license be abolished? Licensing bartenders is a good idea. There are men behind saloon bars in Chicago that I do not think are there for the purpose of selling beer at all; they are there just for the purpose of finding out who can be easily robbed, who are the live ones. If they were subjected to some kind of an examination by an examining commission that would have the right to grant a license it would probably mean that a lot would not be employed. No alderman should be required to make a saloon canvass; I think it is an injustice. If he makes a statement of his position as to how he stands on the liquor question it ought to be sufficient and he should not be expected to make a canvass any more than he would be expected to buy drugs from a drug store or dry goods from a dry goods store or clothing from a clothing house. The saloonkeeper is greatly harmed by the sale of liquor from wagons. We sent a communication to the City Council two months ago protesting against the non-enforcement of this law, by pleading the injustice being done; that we are forced to close on Sunday and wagons are allowed to go around the neigh- borhood. The law ought to be fair, but I think we are given the worst of it apparently. You take the drug store, I suppose every drug store would fight against the saloon. They find Sunday closing has increased their receipts 50 per cent. The department stores and drug stores that sell liquor on State street have a saloon license; they are retail saloons, and they simply run a dry goods store in connection with the saloon. The saloonkeepers of Chicago have no kick on the department stores as long as they pay a license, because the department stores of Chicago have not done anything to interfere with our putting in a line of dry goods on the side, if we want to put it in. The trouble about the sale of liquor in department stores and drug stores has been recognized by the saloon people, because it gives girls and women an opportunity to get liquor, and an opportunity to drink it, without the odium that might attach to them if they entered the side door of a saloon. In regard to the undesirables, I want to say that at the convention at Spring- field was passed a resolution petitioning the Legislature of Illinois to pass a law making it unlawful for a person convicted of immorality, a person convicted of a felony, a person who is a minor, or a person who had been adjudged a drunkard, to be found in a place where liquor was sold. That would eliminate the habitual drunkards, the minors, and other undesirables, and would invest a policeman with the power to put a person of that kind under arrest if he found them in a saloon, and there would be no necessity for any other charge being put against them; and it would make the regulation of a saloon charge- able to the police captain in the district, instead of having to bring the saloon- keeper in on the charge of running a bum saloon. Instead of bringing the saloonkeeper in, you would bring the captain in for permitting a bum saloon to be conducted in his district. The bartenders' union had three scales of wages. The scales that they ask are $15.00 for bartenders who are employed in saloons where no drinks are mixed at all, but where they simply draw a glass of beer or serve whiskey. In saloons where the customers occasionally call for mixed drinks, the wages are $18.00 a week. In buffets, which would be the downtown saloons, where prob- ably seven or eight out of every ten drinks are mixed drinks of some kind, where the work would really require a professional bartender, the union scale is $20.00, with the understanding that more is to be paid to the man if he is worth it, and as a rule it is more than $20.00. As to income, I want to say that in my estimation the income of the average saloon is about $1,000 a month. That would be about $30.00 a day, because $3Q.OO a day makes about $1,000 a month. With 7,000 saloons, that would be $7,000,000 a month, and 12 months in a year would make it $84,000,000; so that if the workingmen spend 50 per cent, of that, $42,000,000 a year would be spent in the saloons. Mr. Theodore Oehne. It is fair to assume that the purpose of all prohibition agitation is to ultimately eliminate the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Will this be accomplished in Chicago by banishing the saloon and by forbidding the manu- 57 facture and sale of so-called intoxicants here? I dare say that even the most earnest advocate of prohibition will not be sanguine enough to claim any such result. What then is the purpose of this agitation? The assertion that prohibi- tion decreases crime is simply an assertion and in no instance substantiated by facts. The assertion that prohibition decreases insanity is simply an assertion and in no instance substantiated by facts. The assertion that prohibition increases the wealth of the people is simply an assertion and in no instance substantiated by facts. No sane well informed person will claim that Maine, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Oklahoma or Mississippi are among the wealthiest states, nor that they favorably compare with other states in reference to crime or insanity. What prohibition laws will do is to eliminate a large amount of revenue now paid to the government, state, city, town and school district. It will confiscate a large amount of property without compensation, property legitimately acquired and held under and by virtue of existing laws. It will deprive a large number of people of their occupation and their means of existence notwithstanding that the pursuance of such occupation and such existence has been guaranteed to them by now existing laws. Prohibition will transform every drug store which may sell alcohol for medical purposes, and every paint shop which may sell alcohol to be used in art, into a liquor distributing agency. The following facts will confirm this statement. Take, for instance, right here in Chicago today the district bounded by State street, 39th street, Lake Michigan and 63rd street, which district is almost exclusively prohibition. This district comprises one-fortieth of Chicago's total territory and contains within its boundary one-tenth of Chicago's total number of drug stores. These facts involuntarily raise in our mind the question is the health of the inhabitants of a prohibition district so far below the health of the average people of Chicago to make this abnormal number of drug stores a necessity, which under normal conditions could not eke out an existence, or have these stores other means of making a livelihood. With very little trouble you could ascertain that in this very district today are drug stores which maintain a distinct liquor department and some of them sell monthly from four to five barrels of whiskey besides all other malt tonics and bottled beer. While it might appear on the surface in small rural communities that prohibition laws could be successfully enforced this would be utterly impossible in Chicago, a cosmopolitan city of two and one-half million of inhabitants, provided the enforcement of prohibition does mean more than simply the banishment of the saloon, but means as it is claimed by its advocates the extermination of the use of alcoholic beverages. The passing of prohibition laws is class legislation pure and simple. These laws will not apply to the wealthy who can afford to either keep a cellar well stocked with intoxicants or maintain a membership in some club. While these laws cannot be made applicable to the rich they will be applied to the poorer classes, such as small shop keepers, clerks, mechanics and workingmen and will deprive them of privileges which the rich continue to exercise. I even claim that the wealthier classes under the pretense of morality favor prohibition not for the sake of prohibition, but for the purpose of enabling them not only to control the working hours of the wage worker which they do now, but also to control his hours of rest and recreation. Another effect of prohibition will be to throw the traffic in alcoholic beverages which now is controlled and regulated wide open. It will not only cause the springing up of so-called blind pigs all over the city, but it will establish a clandestine traffic in liquor under all conceivable disguises. The effect of prohibition will even go further. As science has taught us that alcohol can be manufactured at a nominal cost and by the use of very primitive ap- pliances such as a tin kettle and a rubber hose so-called moonshining would attain alarming proportion. The poorer classes would commence to make their own raw spirits contaminated with fusel oil for immediate consumption, not being able to obtain aged, matured whiskey as they do now, and prohibition thereby would become a curse to the city and its population. Do we need prohibition laws? It has always been a rather risky proceeding to try and regulate people's habits, not criminal in themselves, by law. A man who has 58 self control, and I claim nine-tenths of our citizens have that, will resent any such interferences with his personal habits and preferences. It appears absurd to every self-respecting man that on account of a few degenerates the habits of millions should be interfered with by law and they should be held up as criminals because somebody does not like their way of living. Punish a man that is found intoxicated the same as you punish anybody that is guilty of transgressing the laws. You today justly punish a murderer, but you would call it absurd if you should be asked to punish for the crime of murder the person who sold to the murderer the weapon with which the crime was committed or the person who manufactured this weapon. Instead of opening the doors wide to a promiscuous traffic in alcoholic beverages or take chances in having thousands produce their own raw spirits, the inevitable results of prohibition legislation in Chicago, keep control of the manufacture and sale of liquor and regulate it in such a manner that the decent law-abiding saloon keeper who conducts his place in a proper manner is protected, and weed out those saloon keepers who continuously come in conflict with the laws and spurn all demands to conduct their places properly and decently. You ask me the first question, do you know the revenue the Chicago saloons will produce? I will give you data upon one place I am familiar with, that is the corner of 39th and Cottage Grove avenue, the Drexel. The Drexel pays $2,039.34 taxes yearly; it pays $362.12 personal property taxes; it pays $764.44 water taxes; it pays $750 insurance and $8,220 rent. All of that would not be wiped out if the place was closed, because the premises could possibly be used for some other purpose, but more than 60 per cent, of these figures would be wiped out. Then they further pay to the City their saloon license of $1,000; cigarette license $100.00; billiard license $40.00; bowling alley license $30.00; amusement license $25.00; restaurant license $15.00; rental for canopy space over sidewalk $25.00; roof sign inspection $50.00; sign inspection $10.00; boiler inspection $8.00; canopy inspection $5.00; elevator inspection $2.00; hall inspection $2.00 and electric inspection $20.00, making a total of $1,332.00. Furthermore, this place makes its own electric light and employs a number of regular employes, to whom they pay $60.00, and a number of extra employes, two days a week, to whom they pay $20.00, making $80.00. They pay a total amount of wages per year of $5,523. These things would be wiped out. This is only one place out of 7,150. Of course in these wages I include engineers' wages, the men that run the engines. In my judgment, it may be true that in some few locations the elimination of a saloon might be beneficial to the sur- rounding property, perhaps in residence districts, but in a large majority of the locations it certainly would not be, and if I am correctly informed, today pretty near four-sevenths of the territory of the city is prohibition. That part of it is certainly protected against saloon, if you want to say so, but my judgment is that of course I have been connected with a brewery for many years, about 30 years, these institutions consume a lot of material and employ a lot of labor and own a large amount of real estate, machinery, coal, and everything, which naturally would be wiped out. How you want to replace that is a mystery to me. In my judgment the prohibition of liquor, or you may say a Dry Chicago, while it may elminate a few things that ought to be eliminated, will create conditions which we cannot realize now. It is a fact, that liquor today can be produced at a very small expense and with very little paraphernalia. You cannot change a man's nature by law, and if a man is used to using intoxicants, I always speak in moderation, a law will not change his nature or habits; he will try to get it, if he cannot get it one way he will try and get it another way. The question is whether this clandestine way may not be a good deal worse than the way he can get it now tinder proper restrictions and regulations. I believe in a strictly regulated and conducted saloon. Of course there are today features connected with some saloons which should not exist, which should be eliminated, but the authorities can do that if they want to; they have the power. You see the city authorities and the mayor have absolute power. The mayor can close a saloon or let it run, or do as he pleases. He has the power to regulate that. I have had the question of objectionable saloons up with the former mayor, Mr. Harrison, and we both agreed that about 10 per cent, of them were objec- 59 tionable about 700 or 800. You take a large number of the outlying saloons, where a man and a woman attend to the business, the woman scrubs up the place; she cooks the lunch; she serves while the men are eating; there are no objections to these saloons. There is no crime committed in these saloons. I think gambling should be eliminated from saloons, and by gambling I do not mean that a party sitting down and playing penochle or 66 for a glass of beer, is gambling, but a saloon that provides for taking bets on horse races should be cut out. I do not think, for instance, the so-called cabaret business, which has of late been widespread, should be permitted in saloons. You find places, say a saloon 25 by 50 with a cabaret show. That cabaret show costs money; it is expensive, and to be carried on in a legitimate way the place must have space enough to accommodate enough people to make the thing pay, and where they cannot do it in a legitimate way I cannot see how they can exist in a legitimate way. The objectionable saloons are those catering to thieves, acting as a fence for thieves and where the lawless element congregates. It has been demonstrated in other parts of the country, that prohibition will increase the consumption of ardent spirits. It will diminish the consump- tion of beer and it will diminish the consumption of still wine, but it will increase the consumption of ardent spirits, becatise they are easier transported. You can have a bottle in your pocket you know, and it does not have to be cold, while beer must be cold; you must have facilities to make it cold, and ardent spirits are easier shipped. Ninety-five per cent, of the outlying saloons serve in the capacity of a "poor man's club." A man is working all the week around: lives in cramped quarters, and on a Sunday meets his friends in the only place where he can meet them. He has no club at his disposal where he can go and play billiards or ten pins, but he goes to a saloon, and probably takes a glass of beer and plays cards and goes home. In 95 per cent, of the outlying saloons that is the modus operandi. Each brewery has its proportionate share of objectionable saloons. I do not think there is any particular brewery that caters to that class of trade. If a saloon license is controlled by a brewery, which is more or less of a tangible thing to reach, they are more careful, I should judge, at least I know it used to be, to whom they gave such a license, just for fear of losing it, while an individual that owned a license and he gets in bad, don't care. A brewery does not want anything else than any other wholesale house wants. If it furnished certain accommodations to a man it wants a man to pay for that, and that is all they expect a man to do. If he does what he should do he has got clear sailing, but if he does not they do like anybody else does. If a man owns his own lease, owns his fixtures and pays for his own license he is expected to pay to the brewery the price of the beer. If the brewery advances the license and other things, instead of paying a regular price for the beer he has to pay so much more per barrel and that additional is credited against his indebtedness. He does not pay that as an additional price, but he pays that in order to pay off that indebtedness to the brewery. In the case of the brewery owned license the saloons are operated not by the breweries, but by an individual, and the license reads in the name of the man who operates the saloon. The brewery receives a reassignment of the license, at least that was the custom years ago, which is filed with the City Collector, and any renewal of that license can only be given to the man that license is reassigned to, unless it is again reassigned to the man that had it. In other words, if a license term expires and he wants a renewal he has to go to the brewer and get a reassignment, of the license and the City Collector is notified to that effect. If I want to start a saloon, for instance, today, and I have not any license I can go to a brewer and say "Can you accommodate me with a license," and they say "Yes." I make application for that license and the police have to investigate my record just the same as that of anybody else, whether the license is secured by the brewer, because the license has to be issued in my name. The real ownership of.the license does not make any difference, because that 60 is simply a matter of trade. This man wants a license and the brewer has one, and he probably is not able to pay for it. The brewery advances him the money, but the man himself who wants it is investigated by the police, and if the police find that the man is not a proper person to have a license it is not issued. If a brewery fits out a man with a saloon license the first thing they do is to take a chattel mortgage upon the fixtures of that man, and they take an assignment of the license from this man. He obligates himself to the brewery to pay a certain amount of money which is to cover the beer and the license, and if he wants to of the fixtures. As long as he does that, you know, as long as he does business enough to enable him to do that there is no trouble and if he cannot then the brewery takes hold of the place naturally. Of course it might sound a little bit self-lauding, but I will say that while I was with the Seipp Brewing Company I never sold to a place that I did not think was right, and I never in my life went to the City Hall and asked for the restoration of a revoked license, never. Mr. Horace Secrist. Department of Economics, Northwestern University. I might say that the loss of city revenue from this source would be so inconsiderable, as compared with the enormous gains direct and indirect to be realized by a sober, law-abiding people, that to my mind its presents scarcely a problem. I have no sympathy with the view which maintains that the disadvantages associated with an economic adjustment as a result of in- stalling prohibition are so serious that we must tolerate present conditions because of them. From the standpoint of business organization the principles of which are clearly applicable to public affairs a city's trading upon the weak- nesses and depravity of its people is so inconsistent with the development of approved standard in modern enterprise that there is absolutely no case for its toleration. It seems to me inconsistent for a modern state or city to acknowledge a vested right in the conditions of a thing which even the most short-sighted can see is inexcusably bad for the group as a whole. Parasitism is never to be condoned even though its uprooting would tem- porarily occasion a rather serious readjustment. If the end is legitimate the means to that end are likewise legitimate, if carried out with due consideration of all the interests involved. So far as other revenue to displace .those arising now from the liquor business are concerned, there are any number of sources which could be tapped, and with propriety, to more than compensate for the losses involved. The problem in all its aspects reduces itself to one of public courage. Whether the liquor traffic will go, and with it the revenues now accruing to the city, will depend upon the expressed wish of the electorate. The disturbing thing to one who desires this wish to be forcibly expressed is that the electorate are so unresponsive to the demands of the time and are so poorly organized that their best wishes are easily frustrated and their minds confused by an appeal to such a flimsy thing as the loss of some city revenue, the fear of unemploy- ment, etc. Experience has proved, however, that the people are coming to see the problem in all its aspects and to dismiss the minor and inconsequential consideration for those which are of real value. If your commission can do something to clarify the issue and to put the larger aspects of this problem in their true light and to reduce to their proper place such immediate and in- consequential items as the ones which you enumerate in your questionnaire, it will have served a real purpose. Mr. John A. Shields. Prohibition National Committee. In your questionnaire, you say, "It has been stated that the breweries and saloons give direct employment here to 36,070 persons. Can you state whether this number is approximately correct?" I am willing to assume that it is correct, although I think it is a little bit high, for the reason that you will find in the United States Statistical Abstract, that there were in the City of Chicago in 1910 5,489 male bartenders; 57 female bartenders; 5,652 male saloon keepers, and 129 female saloon keepers. We looked to see how much 61 taxes the saloons of Chicago paid and we find that they pay all the way from 50 cents to $7.00 taxes in the city. The average saloon keeper paid $3.57 taxes. If \ve would follow that up we would find conditions regarding taxes like the conditions here. I am willing to assume, of course, that 36,070 is right. The next question states that the payroll is $33,133,760. That is the thing that I want to get at. I find in another place that the rent is $11,724,000; and that the saloons of this town paid $42,000,000 into other lines of business, and we find that the licenses amounted to something over $7,000,000. We have a total expense here of something over $94,000,000. Now that does not account for any profit at all. They would have to sell $94,000,000 worth of liquor then in order to get the money to pay for these things to pay the payroll and the rent and for these other things. It is reasonable that the liquor business turns its goods over three times a year. I presume it would be quite reasonable that they do so three times a week. If we assume that they turn the stock over three times a year and earn 10 per cent, each time they would have made then 30 per cent, profit. There would have to be a sale of $300,000,000 worth of liquor in this city annually in order to give enough profit to cover the overhead, over the cost of the liquor. It would have to be that if we allowed only 30 per cent, in order to make a sufficient profit to pay the total expenses that we have found. I am trying to get at, how much is expended for liquor in Chicago. It is reasonable to assume that it is something like $300,000,000, and I assume that from no standpoint of profit. Professor Irving Fisher of Yale, says that the total liquor bill of the country is $4,000,000,000, and Chicago's share would be about $400,000,000. The prohibitionist who wants to be conservative upon the thing says it will be nearer $2,500,000,000. At the rate of $2,500,000,000 Chi- cago's share would be in the neighborhood of $300,000,000, and it would have to be that to give you this overhead and a little profit. Every bit of revenue, no matter through what source it is collected, has to come ultimately out of the pockets of the people whether it is in the form of taxes, whether in the form of licenses or special taxes, it has to come out of the pocket ultimately of the consumer. Now if the people of this city expend $300,000,000 for liquor, and that is a conservative estimate, and this city gets $7,000,000 licenses out of it, that means that the people of this town pay a commission of 97% per cent, for the collection of this revenue. There was a time 2,000 years ago when taxes were farmed out. That is the way Cicero used to do it. He used to allow a man up in Gaul that would pay him the most money to take over the taxes of a town and collect what he could. So far as this $7,000,000 is concerned from the saloon keepers out of every $100 th'at comes out of the pockets of the people then by a simple process of division we find that 97% per cent, of it is paid out in overhead and 2.33 goes into the treasury of the city. That would be a poor form of revenue at the very best. The prohibitionist approaches the question from the standpoint that the saloon is not a producer of wealth. From the standpoint of a producer of wealth, from an economic standpoint, it does not give a man any return for his money anything that makes him a better citizen or a better man or a more valuable member of the community, or a better husband or father. It does not make him a better producer; it does not make him a better economic factor. The whole liquor business is not a wealth producer, but a waste producer from the economic standpoint. From this stand- point the liquor traffic is simply robbery and it is worse than robbery from an economic standpoint. I am speaking from that standpoint. A man spends a dollar in a saloon and he not only gets nothing, economically speaking, for his dollar, but he is less able to earn another dollar because he spent his dollar there. If $300,000,000 is spent over the counter of the saloons in Chicago in a year, it would be better, estimated from an economical standpoint, if we would just take these $300,000,000 and take that money out of their pockets and give them nothing in return for it. The town would be better off and they would be better off, and they would be better citizens, because if they got no return for their money it does not make them any better. Now you see from that standpoint out of the $300,000,000 this city is getting $7,000,000. For every $100 expended in the saloons the saloon keeper gets $97-% and the city gets $2.33 and they are no better off. Where does that money come from, the two-thirds? I will quote from Mr. Fisher again. He says that 75 per cent. II of that money comes from the pockets of the man who is least able to afford it. If we could get this $300,000,000 from the man who is able to afford it it would not be a big economic factor, but the professor says 75 per cent, comes from people least able to afford it. We can assume that a large percentage of it comes from poor people. If we would hold up these working people and take this $7,000,000 out of their pockets they would be saving several millions of dollars. It would be better for these men and better for this community and better for us from an economic standpoint, if we would take that $300,000,000 and pound it into a rathole or take it out into the middle of the Atlantic and drop it off, because they would not get anything in return for it; they would do no injury economically it would not hurt anybody economically. The city could better afford to pay the saloon keeper the $7,000,000 rather than to permit them to make a profit in the way they do and do damage to the community the way they do. I am trying to show that the saloon business is a bad means of collecting revenue. A business man came to me in the City of New York a short time ago. He said "I am against prohibition because I think the saloons are a good thing for the town; I would let them alone." I said "Are they?" I then told him this little story. I met a man a little while ago walking down the street In an intoxicated condition. He had on a tattered coat and I said to myself, "The man's clothing business is suffering because that man is drunk." His hat was stove in, and I said to myself "the hat business is suffering because that man is drunk." He had on a dirty collar and I said to myself "the laundry business is suffering on account of that man being drunk." He had holes in his socks, and in looking over that man I could see that almost every line of industry in this country was suffering because that man was in an intoxicated condition. If I had followed that man home I probably would have found on looking Into his pantry that the grocery business was suffering because of his being drunk, and if I had looked around his premises I might have found that the carpenter business was suffering on account of his being drunk, and practically every line of industry you might mention was suffering on that account. We come to the proposition that prohibition will put $300,000,000 now spent for liquor in the saloons into useful industries. Saloon revenue should be judged, not by the amount of money returned to the city treasury or by what that money does, under present circumstances, in providing for city expenses, but by the effect produced upon the people by the collection of that revenue. Chicago gets substantially $7,000,000 per year from the liquor business. Leaving out of sight the production of crime, mental and physical disease and pauperism which, to the knowledge of all men, must be charged against the liquor business, there stands the fact that the liquor business takes from the people of Chicago, in order to be able to pay that revenue, not less than $70,000,000 every year. In other words, in taking revenue from the liquor business, Chicago is employing a tax collector who is charging 900 per cent, for collecting the revenue. Chicago has assessed taxable property in excess of $950,000,000 and probably at least half as much more property that ought to be assessed for taxation that escapes assessment. A tax rate of 7.4 mills upon the property actually assessed would pay the revenue now paid by the saloon, whereas the people now pay out, through the traffic as collector, what amounts to 74 mills upon every dollar of the city's assessed property every year. But that fact is heaven-high above the comprehension of license advocates who are willing to go on in their present folly of letting the liquor traffic steal 97.66 every time it turns 2.33 into the public treasury. The value of the total output of agricultural implements is $146,329,000; the raw material cost $60,307,000, which is 41.21 per cent, of the value of the manufactured articles; labor in manufacturing was paid $28,609, which is 19.67 per cent, of the value of the manufactured article. The value of the raw material above stated was increased 142.64 per cent, by manufacture that is, the finished product was worth two and two-fifths times as much as the raw material. Of this increase labor gets 33.25 per cent., leaving for rents, trans- portation, commission, interest, etc., 66.75 per cent. Note that the 33.25 per cent, bears no relation to the 142.64 per cent. Two hundred and fifty-six millions two hundred and eighty-two thousand dollars represents the capital 63 invested, 50,551 men being employed, all told, in the implement industry. This averages 1.97 men for each $10,000 capital, and $1,112 is annually paid to labor for every $10,000 invested. The consumer who spends $100 for implements receives a product requiring employment of 10.39 men for one day, or the em- ployment of one man 10.39 days, in the making. Of the $100 $19.67 ultimately goes to labor, $41.21 to raw material and the remainder, 39.12, is divided up among rent, transportation, profit, interest, breakage and other costs. The same amount spent for liquor would have employed 3.19 men for one day, or 7.2 less men than if spent for implements; of the $100 spent for liquor labor would receive only $7.63, a loss of $12.64, and the producer would lose $17.72. Thus, $2,360,000,000 annually spent for liquor, if put into the average of all American industries, would employ all now engaged in liquor making, and about 487,125 more; it would return to labor over $210,000,000 more, and to the pro- ducer of the raw material almost a billion dollars more. This does not consider the enormous saving of court, asylum, hospital, poorhouse and like costs that would be very greatly reduced, which are in the end borne by the People. We come to the business world with the proposition that prohibition will put the four hundred million dollars now spent for liquor in Chicago into the useful industries of this city, creating a demand for goods and labor never known heretofore. But the money is spent now, what difference will it make if it is expended in some other way. The answer is, the money spent for liquor returns less to the purchaser for value received, and less to labor than money spent in any other way. According to the last United States Census official figures we learn that the eight leading industries, cotton goods, furniture, knit goods, lumber and building material, vehicles, boots and shoes, agricultural implements, and printing, return to labor an average of twenty-four and one-half cents for every dollar's worth of product turned out, while the liquor industry returns only seven and two-thirds cents on the dollar to labor. The value, at the factory, of the cotton goods and the liquors produced in this country are approximately equal, yet the cotton goods industries employed 379,000 men while the liquor industries employed only 63,700, or more than six times as many. The invest- ment of less than twenty-two hundred dollars will employ one man in the cotton goods industry while it requires an investment of more than twelve thousand dollars to give employment to one man in the liquor industry. This census report shows that labor gets sixteen and one-half cents of every dollar's worth of the product of the average of all of the industries in the United States including liquor, whereas he gets only seven and two-thirds cents out of every dollar's worth of liquor. This same report shows that the average industry employs three and six-tenths men for each $10,000 invested, whereas liquor employs only eight-tenths of a man per $10,000 investment. Hence, if the money invested in the liquor business in Chicago were re- invested in the cotton goods, furniture, knit goods, lumber and building material, vehicles, boots and shoes, agricultural implements and printing in- dustries, it would employ six times as many men as it now employs; if the figures is now 36,000 men, under the new regime it would give employment to 216,000, at better wages. If the money now invested in liquor were reinvested in the average of all the industries in the United States it would in its new capacity give employment not only to the 36,000 now said to be employed by the liquor traffic in this city, but to more than 120,000 others. All this calcula- tion is on the wholesale basis; on a retail basis the figures would be more than tripled. If we had the money that is now invested in the liquor business just spread out in all these other businesses there would not be any unemployment problem. If it was spread out it would not only employ all the men now in the liquor business but it would employ an average of five or six times as many men. That is the argument we want to make. Mr. Geo. H. Wischman. \Vhat, really, is a saloon? A saloon is nothing more or less, gentlemen, than a small workingmen's social club, established in our little communities in which we reside; and there are a great many of those little communities in the entire City of Chicago. A saloon is not a money making proposition; no 64 honorable saloonkeeper in the City of Chicago looks upon it as such. He looks upon it as a social club, and the only reason that it is tolerated is because we are too poor and uneducated to join the Chicago Athletic Club, the Iroquois Club, the Hamilton Club, or any other club. That is the only reason we tolerate it. It has a great place in our community when it is properly conducted. Let us see just what benefit it really is to the community. A little saloon is estab- lished, or maybe one, two, or three, in the little community in which we reside. The people who come into that saloon are the industrial workers, the small tradesman, and every common, ordinary man who lives in that community. A man goes in there for what purpose? Not to spend his money, not to get drunk, not to consume all that the saloonkeeper has in stock. On the contrary, he goes in there for the purpose of sociability, mostly. He goes in there to talk over his troubles, the problem of the day, his family, his little business, and his little politics; and he sits down, and, perhaps, plays a game of cards. He drinks a social glass of beer with his friends, or a glass of wine, or whatever he desires. The man who is engaged in that business does not want him to do anything else. He simply wants him to be a respectable man, and he is a re- spectable man. Then what harm could such a place be in this community? None at all. BARNARD MILLER LIBRARY PUBLIC AFFAIRS SFRVIC SEP 091980 UNIVERSITY OF LOS ANGELES