have been invested in licensed property, which has become part of the settled order of society; and to destroy it by some sudden innovation would cause a great shock. The position is entirely different in other countries where no such control has ever been exercised. It is possible to impose a new system where previously there was none, but not to replace suddenly an old and settled one for something entirely different. Only the most convincing proof of the need and the advantages of the change would justify it; and such proof has not been forthcoming. The British system has the great merit of combining adaptability to different circumstances and to changing customs with continuity and steadiness of administration. The advantages of abandoning it for some other are more than doubtful, the difficulties are real and serious. Over a very long period it has been repeatedly readjusted in conformity with the movement of public opinion and of national habits; while under it the executive have gradually got the traffic well in hand, and a great and progressive improvement in order and conduct has taken place. The process is gradual but sure, and the record will compare favourably with that of any other comparable country. Further readjustment will follow and is desirable. The great defect of the law is its extreme complexity; it needs recasting and simplification. There are too many kinds of licence, and the classification does not correspond with the actual conditions of the traffic. Some licences are obsolete and superfluous; others make no distinction between branches of the trade which fulfil entirely different functions and require different treatment. The full or publican’s licence, which is incomparably the most important, places on the same legal footing hotels, restaurants, village inns and mere drinking bars, and the lack of distinction is a great stumbling-block. In the attempt made in 1908 to introduce new legislation it was found necessary to incorporate distinctions between different classes of establishment, although that was not contemplated in the original bill. It will always be found necessary whenever the subject is seriously approached, because the law has to deal with things as they actually are. It does not fall within the scope of this article to discuss the numerous controversial questions which arise in connexion with various legislative proposals for dealing with the liquor traffic; but an account of the methods which it has been proposed to adopt from other countries will be found below.
The United States
The liquor legislation of the United States presents a great contrast to that of the United Kingdom, but it is not less interesting in an entirely different way. In place of a single homogeneous system gradually evolved in the course of centuries it embraces a whole series of different ones based on the most diverse principles and subject to sudden changes and frequent experiments. It is not sufficiently understood in Europe that the legislatures of the several states are sovereign in regard to internal affairs and make what laws they please subject to the proviso that they cannot over-ride the Federal law. There is therefore no uniformity in regard to such matters as liquor legislation, and it is a mistake to speak of any particular system as representing the whole country. The United States government only interferes with the traffic to tax it for revenue, and to regulate the sale of liquor to Indians, to soldiers, etc. The liquor traffic is subject—whether in the form of manufacture, wholesale or retail trade—to a uniform tax of 25 dollars (£5) per annum imposed on every one engaged in it. Congress, under the constitution, controls interstate commerce, and the Supreme Court has decided that without its consent no state can prevent a railway or other carrying agency from bringing liquor to any point within its borders from outside. Thus no state can keep out liquor or prevent its consumption, but any state legislature may make what internal regulations it pleases and may prohibit the manufacture and sale altogether within its own borders. It may go further. In 1887 a judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of the United States that it is within the discretionary power of a state to protect public health, safety and morals even by the destruction of property without compensation, and that the constitution of the United States is not thereby violated. Use has been made of this power in Kansas, and it appears therefore that persons who engage in the liquor trade do so at their own risk. There is in fact no stability at all except in a few states which have incorporated some principle in their constitutions, and even that does not ensure continuity of practice, as means are easily found for evading the law or substituting some other system which amounts to the same thing. As a whole the control of the liquor traffic oscillates violently between attempted suppression and great freedom combined with heavy taxation of licensed houses.
In the great majority of the states some form of licensing exists; it is the prevailing system and was adopted, no doubt from England, at an early period. It is exercised in various ways. The licensing authority may be the municipality or a specially constituted body or the police or a judicial body. The last, which is the method in Pennsylvania, seems to be exceptional. According to Mr Fanshawe there is a general tendency, due to the prevailing corruption, to withdraw from municipal authorities power over the licensing, and to place this function in the hands of commissioners, who may be elected or nominated. In New York state the licensing commissioners used to be nominated in cities by the mayors and elected elsewhere; but by the Raines law of 1896 the whole administration was placed under a state commissioner appointed by the governor with the consent of the Senate. A similar plan is in force in some important cities in other states. In Boston the licensing is in the hands of a police board appointed by the governor; in Baltimore and St Louis the authority is vested in commissioners similarly appointed; and in Washington the licensing commissioners are appointed by the president. In Pennsylvania, where the court of quarter sessions is the authority, the vesting of licensing in a judicial body dates back to 1676 and bears the stamp of English influence. It is noteworthy that in Philadelphia and Pittsburg (Allegheny county) the judicial court was for a time given up in favour of commissioners, but the change was a great failure and abandoned in 1888. The powers of the licensing authority vary widely; in some cases the only grounds of refusal are conduct and character, and licences are virtually granted to every applicant; in others the discretion to refuse is absolute. In Massachusetts the number of licences allowed bears a fixed ratio to the population, namely 1 to 1000, except in Boston, where it is 1 to 500, but as a rule where licences are given they are given freely. They are valid for a year and granted on conditions. The first and most general condition is the payment of a fee or tax, which varies in amount in different states. Under the “high licence” system (see below) it generally varies according to the size of the locality and the class of licence where different classes are recognized. In Massachusetts there are six licences; three for consumption on the premises—namely (1) full licence for all liquors, (2) beer, cider, and light wine, (3) beer and cider; two for consumption off the premises—namely (1) spirits, (2) other liquors; the sixth is for druggists. In New York state also there are six classes of licence, though they are not quite the same; but in many states there appears to be only one licence, and no distinction between on and off sale, wholesale or retail. Another condition generally imposed in addition to the tax is a heavy bond with sureties; it varies in amount but is usually not less than 2000 dollars (£400) and may be as high as 6000 dollars (£1200). A condition precedent to the granting of a licence imposed in some states is the deposit of a petition or application some time beforehand, which may have to be backed by a certain number of local residents or tax-payers. In Pennsylvania the required number is 12, and this is the common practice elsewhere; in Missouri a majority of tax-payers is required, and the licence may even then be refused, but if the petition is signed by two-thirds of the tax-payers the licensing authority is bound to grant it. This seems to be a sort of genuine local option. Provision is also generally made for hearing objectors. Another condition sometimes required (Massachusetts and Iowa) is the consent of owners of adjoining property. In some states no licences are permitted within a
