SWEDEN’S VOTE ON PROHIBITION.

Dunstan Times, Issue 3146, 4 December 1922, Page 2

SWEDEN’S VOTE ON PROHIBITION.

A good deal has been sought to he made of the fact that Sweden rejected Prohibition on a national poll a few weeks ago. and that the result was due to the women’s voles. There is not much satisfaction to lie derived from any aspect of the result. The aggregate voting was very close, having regard to the size of the poll. The complete official figures show that the total votes east were 1 .SHI .708, of which JWO.Goo were against Prohibition and HOI,OdG for Prohibition. It was the first plebiscite in Swedish history and brought out Gl per cent, of the country’s' total votes. In the cities of Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Mahno the women gave a heavy preponderance of votes against Prohibition, hut the only significance about that fact is that the women of Sweden have not hitter experience of those of other countries, for there is no such thing as free sale of liquor, the whole business being subjected to stringent restriction. The system in operation is that of Dr Ivan Bratt, who is called the “liquor dictator of Sweden.” Before the Bratt system was put into effect there had existed the so-called “Gothenburg system.” which abolished the Swedish saloon and established certain hours when liquor could he sold. This system of regulation is thus briefly described by Mr E. .1. Cahill in flic New York Herald :—“Briefly, the Bratt system is this: All wine and spirits in Sweden containing over G.G per cent, alcohol are sold through the Wine and Spirits Central, the only organisation in Sweden having the right to manufacture and to sell liquor wholesale. This organisation sells to 120 local companies in as many local districts throughout Sweden, and these in turn supply individuals as well as hotels and restaurants. Individual Inlying is controlled by the ‘motliok.’ The ‘motliok’ is a booklet with detachable slips on which Its owner must sign his name every time he buys strong liquor. Tho ‘motliok’ entitles its owner to four liters of spirits a month, although in some parts of Sweden, such as the northern provinces, where the prohibition forces’ are strong, the quantity is two liters. Applying for a ‘motbok is like applying for a passport, t sdaily only one member of a family may have one oi these highly prized little hooks, exception being made in the case of sons who have reached the discreet age of 20.

“In public places, such as hotels and cafes, the amount of spirits to he sold is based on the amount of food consumed. with a certain maximum, quantity permitted. Waiters become experts in knowing just bow much hard liquor a diner is entitled to. On the night of the Prohibition plebiscite I dined at the ‘Opera Kallaren,’ and. as is the Swedish custom, went up on the terrace for coffee after the meal. Our waiter in the main dining hall gave us a dip with the exact number of centilitres to which we were still entitled marked upon it. There are numerous exceptions to the rules of Sweden’s liquor system. One is allowed extra quantities for occasions, such as weddings and funerals.

“Sales of liquor to hotels mid public places lire made on the basis of yearly contracts. Wiiou these places buy in excess ol these contracts they must pay a higher price, a price exactly equal to that which they charge their customers. I lie idea is to do away as much as possible with private profits' from the liquor traffic. The Wine and Spirit' Central has bought out all the private wine merchants in Sweden, and the shareholders of it and the local comwhich it serves arc entitled to only .5 per cent, on their money. The balance o>f the profits go to the Govcmment. Three main ideas run through the llratt system: Reduction of tTi « general ration of distilled and spirituous liquors through a central control, denial of liquor to alcoholics and persons who are known to abuse drink, and elimination of all private interest in the liquor traffic. Mr Cahill says that “most people inSweden think that the Ifratt system is a bulwark against Prohibition.” The vote against prohibition was regarded in many quarters as something of a personal triumph for Dr Ifratt. The writer quotes Dr Ifratt as saying; —• “I do not know what the general sentiment is in America, hut I saw somefiling the other day which impressed me very much. Two hundred American! travellers who came here with a travel bureau to see Sweden were riming at the Grand Hotel. Only one *nt of the 200 drank wine with his meal. The rest drank water.