Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

its name was changed to "The Personal Liberty League of the United States." Branch leagues were at once organized in most of the leading cities and towns of the Union, which exerted a powerful influence in the State elections in November, 1882.

The Congress in session in the winter of 1882-3 was pressed beyond measure to yield to the liquor interest, but withstood their efforts. The Canadian authorities were then interviewed to allow spirits to be exported there free of duty that they might be re-exported to the United States, and avoid the heavy payment required under the Internal Revenue laws. But the Canadian government would not favor their wishes.

Congress assembled in December, 1883, with the liquor interest apparently ascendant, who elected Carlisle, supposed to be a representative of the Kentucky whisky manufacturers, as Speaker. An attempt was made to dispense with the Committee on the Alcoholic Liquor Traffic, but it was retained by a vote of 143 to 88. A strong movement seems to be forming to procure the abrogation of the tax on spirits altogether, but at the date of this writing the result is uncertain.

IN

CHAPTER VI.

LIQUOR LEGISLATION AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS.

N a previous chapter we sketched the history of liquor legislation in the United States down to 1860, culminating in the passage of laws, drafted substantially on model of the Maine Law, in fifteen States

[graphic]

and Territories. In Illinois the law, after being framed and carried through the vari

ous stages of legislation, was submitted to

PWINT

RS

the popular vote and failed, a majority of 1,460 votes being cast against it, out of a total vote of 167,336. The northern part of the State quite generally voted for it, and the southern against it. In Wisconsin, the law, after twice passing the Legislature, was twice vetoed. The Territorial Legislatures of Nebraska and Minnesota passed the law, but it failed to be enacted when they were organized as States. Connecticut enforced her Maine Law spasmodically and partially until 1872, when it was repealed, and a license law took its place. Rhode Island retained her Maine Law until 1863, when a license law was substituted, upon which, in 1865, local option was engrafted. In 1874 prohibition was re-established and repealed again in 1875. Massachusetts kept her Maine Law until 1875; and Michigan

STUPIDITY SUBMITTING TO LICENSE AND TAXATION.

until 1875; Ohio retains her Constitutional Amendment, prohibiting the sale of intoxicants, until the present severe contest; and Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Maine still retain their prohibitory statutes enacted 1851-5, except that in Iowa a free beer clause was enacted. Kansas, within four years, has joined the ranks.

The period from the close of the civil war in 1865 to 1878 was one of fluctuation and weakening in regard to the principle of prohibition. But since the latter date there has been a very decided advance in prohibitory sentiment. The years 1880, 1881, and 1882 were characterized by much activity in legislative action against the liquor traffic, more than in any other period in the history of the Temperance Reform, unless we except the years 1850-55.

In Massachusetts the prohibitory law was repealed in 1868, and a license law was substituted in its place. After one year the prohibitory law was restored. In 1870 a "free beer" clause was attached to the law, greatly embarrassing and weakening its operation. In 1875 a license law took the place of the prohibitory law. In 1877 an attempt was made to amend the law, by making the granting of license depend upon the local option of the towns and cities. It passed the Senate by a good majority; in the House the vote stood 130 for to 85 against. The liquor interest opposed the bill, and Governor A. H. Rice vetoed the measure, claiming that the license law had not had a fair trial. In 1881 the local option feature was adopted, and a civil damage clause also.

The civil damage law was first proposed in Massachusetts in 1847, but was first enacted in Indiana in 1853. Ohio followed in 1854. Since then it has been made more stringent and severe. It is now on the statute books of Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsyl vania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. In Nebraska the liquor seller is responsible to the cities and towns for the pauperism caused by selling liquor. In all but

three of these States-Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermontthe civil damage provisions are attached to license laws; and in ten of the States the responsibility is the same, whether the sales were legal or illegal. In nearly every State this law has been declared constitutional by the highest courts; and the term intoxicating liquors is held to include malt beverages. In Massachusetts the law defines liquors with three per cent. of alcohol intoxicating.

In 1877 Maine declared wine and cider, when used for tippling purposes, intoxicants, and prohibited the manufacture of all intoxicating liquors except cider, imposing heavy penalties. This law closed up four breweries in Portland, Me., leaving no breweries in the State.

In 1877 a novelty in the way of liquor legislation was discovered in Virginia. It required the use of a bell-punch for recording all the drinks taken at a bar, after the street-car fashion of

"The buff trip-slip for a six-cent fare,

Punch in the presence of a passenjare."

The State levied a tax of two and a half cents on each drink of ardent spirits, and of half a cent on each drink of beer. It was expected that the bell-punch would yield to the State a large revenue, and inaugurate an era of financial prosperity. Registers were furnished by the Commissioner of Revenue, who made a monthly inspection of the same, and locked and sealed them after each inspection.

The Legislatures of Louisiana and Texas also adopted this method, anticipating a large revenue from it. It was introduced into several other Legislatures. For a time it seemed destined to attract as much attention as the woman's crusade. "It raises a revenue, throws an increased tax on the drinker, does away with the credit system, acts as a check upon the barkeeper, relieves the liquor seller, discourages the business, and helps pay the public debt." Thus said its friends.

But the bell-punch register soon proved a fraud and failure;

the revenue derived from it decreased from month to month, and it was abandoned.

Ohio retains a prohibitory clause in her Constitution which reads: "No license to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be granted in the State; but the General Assembly may,

[graphic][merged small][merged small]

by law, provide against evils resulting therefrom." This they have done by passing the Adair Law, a civil damage bill, which renders the owners of property as well as the purveyors of liquor answerable for damages. More stringent provisions were added in 1866, 1867, and 1870. A radical change in the liquor law of the State is now pending.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »