stated distance of certain institutions; e.g. public parks (Missouri) and schools (Massachusetts). Regulations imposed on the licensed trade nearly always include prohibition of sale to minors under 18 and to drunkards, on Sundays, public holidays and election days, and prohibition of the employment of barmaids. Sunday closing, which is universal, dates at least from 1816 (Indiana) and is probably much older. The hours of closing on week days vary considerably but are usually 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. Other things are often prohibited including indecent pictures, games and music.
State Prohibition.—In a few states no licences are allowed. State prohibition was first introduced in 1846 under the influence of a strong agitation in Maine, and within a few years the example was followed by the other New England states; by Vermont in 1852, Connecticut in 1854, New Hampshire in 1855 and later by Massachusetts and Rhode Island. They have all now after a more or less prolonged trial given it up except Maine. Other states which have tried and abandoned it are Illinois (1851–1853), Indiana (1855–1858), Michigan, Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota. The great Middle states have either never tried it, as in the case of New York (where it was enacted in 1855 but declared unconstitutional), Pennsylvania and New Jersey, or only gave it a nominal trial, as with Illinois and Indiana. A curious position came about in Ohio,[1] one of the great industrial states. It did not adopt prohibition, which forbids the manufacture and sale of liquor; but in 1851 it abandoned licensing, which had been in force since 1792, and incorporated a provision in the constitution declaring that no licence should thereafter be granted in the state. The position then was that retail sale without a licence was illegal and that no licence could be granted. This singular state of things was changed in 1886 by the “Dow law,” which authorized a tax on the trade and rendered it legal without expressly sanctioning or licensing it. There were therefore no licences and no licensing machinery, but the traffic was taxed and conditions imposed. In effect the Dow law amounted to repeal of prohibition and its replacement by the freest possible form of licensing. In Iowa, which early adopted a prohibitory law, still nominally in force, a law, known as the “mulct law,” was passed in 1894 for taxing the trade and practically legalizing it under conditions. The story of the forty years’ struggle in this state between the prohibition agitation and the natural appetites of mankind is exceedingly instructive; it is an extraordinary revelation of political intrigue and tortuous proceedings, and an impressive warning against the folly of trying to coerce the personal habits of a large section of the population against their will. It ended in a sort of compromise, in which the coercive principle is preserved in one law and personal liberty vindicated by another contradictory one. The result may be satisfactory, but it might be attained in a less expensive manner. What suffers is the principle of law itself, which is brought into disrepute.
State prohibition, abandoned by the populous New England and central states, has in recent years found a home in more remote regions. In 1907 it was in force in five states—Maine, Kansas, North Dakota, Georgia and Oklahoma; in January, 1909, it came into operation in Alabama, Mississippi, and North Carolina; and in July 1909 in Tennessee.
Local Prohibition.—The limited form of prohibition known as local veto is much more extensively applied. It is an older plan than state prohibition, having been adopted by the legislature of Indiana in 1832. Georgia followed in the next year, and then other states took it up for several years until the rise of state prohibition in the middle of the century caused it to fall into neglect for a time. But the states which adopted and then abandoned general prohibition fell back on the local form, and a great many others have also adopted it. In 1907 it was in force in over 30 states, including all the most populous and important, with one or two exceptions. But the extent to which it is applied varies very widely and is constantly changing, as different places take it up and drop it again. Some alternate in an almost regular manner every two or three years, or even every year; and periodical oscillations of a general character occur in favour of the plan or against it as the result of organized agitation followed by reaction. The wide discrepancies between the practice of different states are shown by some statistics collected in 1907, when the movement was running favourably to the adoption of no licence. In Tennessee the whole state was under prohibition with the exception of 5 municipalities; Arkansas, 56 out of 75 counties; Florida, 35 out of 46 counties; Mississippi, 56 out of 77 counties; North Carolina, 70 out of 97 counties; Vermont, 3 out of 6 cities and 208 out of 241 towns. These appear to be the most prohibitive states, and they are all of a rural character. At the other end of the scale were Pennsylvania with 1 county and a few towns (“town” in America is generally equivalent to “village” in England); Michigan, 1 county and a few towns; California, parts of 8 or 10 counties. New York had 308 out of 933 towns, Ohio, 480 out of 768 towns, Massachusetts, 19 out of 33 cities and 249 out of 321 towns. At the end of 1909 a strong reaction against the prohibition policy set in, notably in Massachusetts.
There is no more uniformity in the mode of procedure than in the extent of application. At least five methods are distinguished. In the most complete and regular form a vote is taken every year in all localities whether there shall be licences or not in the ensuing year and is decided by a bare majority. A second method of applying the general vote is to take it at any time, but not oftener than once in four years, on the demand of one-tenth of the electorate. A third plan is to apply this principle locally and put the question to the vote, when demanded, in any locality. A fourth and entirely different system is to invest the local authority with powers to decide whether there shall be licences or not; and a fifth is to give residents power to prevent licences by means of protest or petition. The first two methods are those most widely in force; but the third plan of taking a local vote by itself is adopted in some important states, including New York, Ohio and Illinois. Opinions differ widely with regard to the success of local veto, but all independent observers agree that it is more successful than state prohibition, and the preference accorded to it by so many states after prolonged experience proves that public opinion broadly endorses that view. Its advantage lies in its adaptability to local circumstances and local opinion. It prevails mainly in rural districts and small towns; in the larger towns it is best tolerated where they are in close proximity to “safety valves” or licensed areas in which liquor can be obtained; the large cities do not adopt it. On the other hand, it has some serious disadvantages. The perpetually renewed struggle between the advocates and opponents of prohibition is a constant cause of social and political strife; and the alternate shutting up and opening of public houses in many places makes continuity of administration impossible, prevents the executive from getting the traffic properly in hand, upsets the habits of the people, demoralizes the trade and stands in the way of steady improvement.
Public Dispensaries.—This entirely different system of controlling the traffic has been in general operation in one state only, South Carolina; but it was also applied to certain areas in the neighbouring states of North Carolina, Georgia and Alabama. The coloured element is very strong in these states, especially in South Carolina, where the coloured far exceeds the white population. The dispensary system was inaugurated there in 1893. It had been preceded by a licensing system with local veto (adopted in 1882), but a strong agitation for state prohibition brought matters to a crisis in 1891. The usual violent political struggle, which is the only constant feature of liquor legislation in the United States, took place, partly on temperance and partly on economic grounds; and a way out was found by adopting an idea from the town of Athens in Georgia, where the liquor trade was run by the municipality through a public dispensary. A law was passed in 1892 embodying this principle but applying it to the whole state. The measure was fiercely contested in the courts and the legislature for years and it underwent numerous amendments, but it survived. Under it the state became the sole purveyor of liquor, buying wholesale from the manufacturers
- ↑ In 1908 local option was adopted in Ohio.
