網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

make money easily through illicit distillation will prove stronger than the fear of the law; that prohibition cannot thus remove the curse of alcoholism; and that prohibition unenforced inevitably breeds corruption and is a menace to government.

Both sides appeal to science in proof of their contentions and adduce other evidence in support from a great variety of sources. Meanwhile, the prohibition question has become firmly entrenched in politics; and where prohibition has been incorporated into the constitution or statutes of a State, the matter of enforcing the laws frequently plays an important part in local politics. Out of the generations of experience with prohibition the truth has emerged that sumptuary legislation cannot be vindicated unless it is backed by a strong public opinion unless a prohibition state of mind rallies to its support. The new theory that such a state of mind can be dispensed with provided a sufficient legal power can be invoked is yet to be tested.

To date, the effect of prohibition upon the consumption of liquor has been accepted as the most conclusive proof of the general efficacy of outlawing intoxicants. The latest official returns of the United States Internal Revenue Office do not point to a decrease in the consumption of distilled spirits in spite of the large accessions of dry territory in recent years; and what decline, if any, will follow from the further spread of prohibition and the enforcement of the newest legal devices, cannot safely be predicted in advance.

III. MONOPOLY CONTROL OF LIQUOR SELLING.

1. The South Carolina Dispensary System.

Except for isolated and brief experiments, this country has had to choose between the two forms of legislation concerning the liquor traffic which have already been discussed. The exceptions are the effort of South Carolina to make liquor selling a State monopoly under the so-called dispensary system, and the local applications of the same system in a few widely scattered communities. How ineffective the dispensary system proved to be in South Carolina may be seen from the fact that in 1901, while the laws of the State forbade the sale of liquor by individuals other than authorized dispensers, of 372 special li

cense stamps issued in that State by the United States internal revenue collector, only 112 were issued to dispensers, while 260 were issued to individuals who were selling contrary to law.1 The final failure of the South Carolina venture lay in its affiliation with State politics which at last undermined its usefulness when it became apparent that the power given the State to suppress the use of intoxicants was not properly exercised toward that end, but was to some extent employed in other interests. The principle underlying the dispensary system, namely, that drink-selling can be divorced from some of its gravest evils through the elimination of private profits and the utilization of a monopoly to counteract abuse in various ways, has by no means proven to be unsound.

The New Hampshire act of April 17, 1917, effective May 1, 1918, by which prohibition is established, provides that such liquors as are permitted to be sold for medicinal, sacramental, mechanical or scientific purposes shall be sold only by liquor agents appointed by the selectmen of towns and the mayors of cities, and such agents are required to purchase their stocks of liquor from State liquor agents appointed by the Governor. The prices at which liquors may be sold are to be fixed by the mayor and selectmen, and so far as possible they are to be so fixed as to pay the expenses of the agency and leave no profit." Such profits as may accrue are to be paid into the State treasury.

[ocr errors]

2. The Gothenburg System.

European experience, extending over a long period of time (the Gothenburg company system as exemplified in Sweden and Norway and on a limited scale in Great Britain), has demonstrated the great superiority of certain forms of liquor monopolies over ordinary license systems. Under the so-called company system, private organizations are awarded by law the monopoly sale of liquor under the proviso that all profits beyond a modest return on the capital invested shall be returned in some form to the public, and that the monopoly power shall be employed to restrict the consumption of intoxicants and in every way to prevent abuse. Coupled with this method have been, especially in Norway, liberal provisions for

1 South Carolina v. United States (1905), 199 U. S. 437; Evans, Leading Cases on American Constitutional Law, 229.

local option. Although this system of monopoly, which is applied solely to municipalities, has not taken in fermented liquors, their inclusion under it is simply a question of policy and not of the applicability of the fundamental principle. The stress of effort in Scandinavian countries has been directed against the abuse of distilled spirits, the sale of which by the drink has been eliminated on every hand under the company régime. In addition, it is now generally required that in order to purchase distilled liquors in larger quantities the applicant must possess a special license which under law may not be given to persons known to be intemperate or liable to abuse the privilege.

The advantages claimed for the company system are: (1) that it has brought about a steady and very marked decline in the consumption of distilled spirits which is unparalleled in other countries, while that of fermented liquors has not risen in proportion; (2) that by eliminating private profits it removes one of the most prolific sources of danger connected with the sale of drink; (3) that it divorces liquor selling from politics; (4) that it removes the obstacles which lie in the desire for private gain from progressive restrictions in the interests of temperance; (5) that it secures the profits from liquor for beneficent objects without affecting tax rates; (6) that it appeals to an enlightened public opinion, enlisting the co-operation of good citizens and paving the way for progressive temperance legislation.

The ground upon which the company system has proceeded is that distilled spirits are the most prolific source of alcoholism, and therefore effort has centered upon hedging in their sale with increasing restrictions. It is but the next step to include all alcoholic beverages under the same kind of monopoly. Meanwhile fermented liquors have been placed under the progressive system of taxation by which the most alcoholic are made to bear the heaviest burden and those under 2.25 per cent of alcohol are exempted from taxes. In contradistinction to this method of employing the taxing power, under our license laws the amount of the tax is not affected by the alcoholic contents of the beverage under consideration, while license fees are levied upon the place and not upon the amount and kind of alcoholic drinks sold.

APPENDIX A.

STATES CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THEIR METHODS OF REGULATION OF THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

I. States which have or have had Constitutional Prohibition, with the Years in which it was in Force.

[blocks in formation]

II. States which have or have had Statutory Prohibition, with the Years

[blocks in formation]

1 In Arizona and Oregon two amendments for the prohibition of the liquor traffic have been adopted and are in force.

2 The provision in the Ohio Constitution of 1851 seems to have been intended as a prohibition measure, but its peculiar phraseology permitted the sale of liquor to be carried on so long as it was not licensed.

3 This statute applied only to the retailing of liquors in quantities of less than one quart. This statute applied only to the sale of liquors in unorganized counties.

This is not a typographical error. The Vermont statute of 1915 establishes prohibition in 1927.

III. States which have Local Option, with the Year in which the Present

[blocks in formation]

IV. States having no Provision for Prohibition or Local Option.

Maryland.2

New Jersey.

Pennsylvania.

Delaware has county option; all the other States here enumerated have either municipal option or a combination of county and municipal option.

2 Maryland allows certain counties to exercise a local option as to the sale of intoxicants, but

in the rest of the State there is no provision for either prohibition or local option.

« 上一頁繼續 »