WHAT PROHIBITION COSTS

Evening Star, Issue 14186, 11 October 1909, Page 1

WHAT PROHIBITION COSTS

• EFFECT ON THE UNITED STATES REVENUE. The Washington correspondent of the ‘New York Evening Poet,’ in discussing the effect of Prohibition on. the revenue, states that the efforts of the internal revenue officials to calculate what this movement has cost the United States Government in annual revanree give small indication of success. He writes : The revenue collected on liquors and spirits of all kinds shows a deficit of j £1,058,154 for the last fiscal year, according to the preliminary report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The deficit is not, however, wholly ascribed to the Prohibition wave, and, inasmuch as Prohibition territory is still growing, while the revenue for the last month shows signs of cutting away the deficit of last year, it is at onco apparent that there are other causes affecting the internal revenue liquor revenues besides Prohibition. The panic of 1907 marked the beginning of the downfall of the liquor revenues of the Government, and not the Prohibition movement, which, even then, was well under way. In fact, the liquor dealers themselves have steadfastly refused to ascribe this falling off of revenue to the Prohibition wave, except for political purposes. Nevertheless, Prohibition has admittedly been a factor, whether the liquor dealers choose to admit it or not. —Revenues Increasing Again.— On July 1, 1908, the deficit in internal revenue from liquor sources was only £252,512. By last September it had risen to £1,400,000, and in November it was £2.100,000. The fiscal year closed on June 30 this year, and in the succeeding thirty days the revenues for this year j exceeded those of the same period Inst j year by nearly £200,000, indicating that the internal revenue for liquors, if con- ! tinned at the same rate of proportion for j the rest of the year, will show an increase rather than a decrease for the present fiscal year. The Treasury officials are inclined to be somewhat sceptical ns to the proportion in which various factors have entered into the situation to bring about this radical change. It is surmised by them that tariff legislation had had ] ts effect, the tariff rates on all kinds of liquors having been raised higher than any other schedule in_ the whole Tariff mil; that the natural increase in population in tho “ wot ” States has done something toward offsetting the Prohibition w-ave, and it is even suggested that consumption of “.wet” goods per capita has increased in the “ wet ” Mates. Therefore- they do not care to say just what proportion of this combined effect is the result of the Prohibition movement. The reason for this official reticence is obvious. Already the Commissioner of Internal Re- )’ enue has been besieged by both the ivets and the " drys ” to furnish argilsnouts'for the liquor controversy. The Commissioner and hie assistants, as well as their predecessors, have never felt that the controversial side of the liquor question was any of their business, and they ha\e readily foreseen the traps and pitfalls which would make of their bureau a storm-oentre' argument, crimination, and recrimination, if they entered into it 111 a ,P y Way- Uleir sole duty, according to the law, and as they see it, is to collect an internal revenue tax on liquor wherever and by whomsoever made, and there it ends. Stimulant to “ Moorish in ing.” The Treasury Department, however is cognisant of the fact that the Prohibition wave has given an impetus to “wild-cat” or “moonshine” liquor. Throughout tho i mountain States of the South, where wild-cat distilling is a heritage of generations in the mountain districts, , ? re . das been a marked increase noticeable in the manufacture of illicit whiskv. It is yet too early to estimate the extent to which this illegal business has grown as a result of Prohibition, and, furthermore, the internal revenue agents never know the exactextent of it at any time. 1 f they did. it would not long prosper. However, the records show that tho revenue agents in the South are mostly engaged in continuous raids, first in cue section and then another, a record which has not been equalled in recent years. Georgia furnishes one of tho most strikin'* examples of. this increase. Although “ moon--6.11 mng ’ prospers most in the'carlv fall, when grains and fruits are ripe. Mr J. H. Surber, the internal revenue agent, stationed at Atlanta, with twelve men under him, has been making almost dailv raids for several weeks. Georgia is one of the late arrivals in the Prohibition camp at that. The growth of the Prohibition movement was recently shown from an authoritative source in' a sumraary of the exact situation in the various States. In connection with tho fall--9* iniaroa] revenue receipts of the Government, it is an interesting contribution. The status is as follows ; I —Prohibition Situation. Alabama.—Majority of the counties dry parto of obliers also. A county option law has just been passed moving for State Prohibition in the next two or three years. Arkansas.—Sixty out of 78 counties dry. -Much dry _territory in other counties, j California.—Poor dry counties and much ; dry’ territory in other counties. Colorado.'—Local Option bar, 1907. ! -xt —Town Local Option-; 96 j No-license to 72 License towns. I Delaware.—Half tlhe State dry. ■ Florida.—Thirty dry counties out of 45. Few saloons in the State. Move for State 1 rohibit km, led by Governor Broward. Idaho.—License. Sunday Jaw only passed in 1907. " * ’ Illinois.—Probably 200 dry towns. Local Option law recently passed. Two dry counties. Indiana—Three drv counties; 710 drv townships out of 1,016. Half of population in drv territory. lowa.—Sixty-five out of 99 oonntiee dry; eleven other counties have only one saloon town. Move for State Prohibition again under way. Kentucky.—Ninety-seven out of 110-coun-ties dryj only four counties entirely wet. Saloons doeo on Sundays. Louisiana.—Seven-eighths of State dry. Orders may not be solicited or received m dry territory. Maryland.—Ten out of 23 counties drv 2 nearly dry, and 2 others where liquor 'is sold in only one place. , Massachusetts—Local Option by dries and towns, 250 being dry and 100 wet. Laws strict and well enforced. Michigan.—County Option, with a few dry counties. If county votes wet it reverses dry vote in small mrit. Minnesota.—License; with village Local - Option; 1,125 dry municipalities. Sunday closing ki entire State. : . Mississippi.—Sixty-eight out of 75 counties dry. State PmhibdJioa cumapj™ ac . ! lively under way. i Missouri.—Forty counties dry. Sunday closing rigidly enforced by Governor Folk. Montana.—License. Nebraska.—Village amd C ; ty Option; 400 drv and 600 wet towns. Nevada.—License, with little restriction. No chance to vote on question of Prohibition. New Hampshire.—Nominally Prohibition, modified by_ local sentiment, Trend is toward .Prohibition; 62 per cent, of population in dry territory. Near Jersey.—-Local Option law. New York.—Town aii<fTownahfpOption-, 500 dry towns. North Carkaiia.—Few saloons; campaign

for State Prohibition, with the Governor leading the fight. Ohio.—Out of 1,376 townships 1,140 are dry, 60 per cent, of municipalities dry, and 350,000 persons living in dry residence districts in wet cities. County Prohibition assurjd—probably at next session. Oregon.—Twelve dry counties and 170 dry municipalities in other counties. Oklahoma.' —Five hundred and thirty-five ps loons in the State. Part formerly in Indian territory has had- Prohibition twentyone yeans, and constitutional convention adopted, similar provision to apply to entire- State if so declared by popular vote. ■ t'onrjsykvaaia.—License, with privilege of ■ .nonstranoe. Rhode Inland.—Sixteen dry municipalities out of 38. South Carolina.—Recently passed a County Local Option, and repealed dispensary law; move for State Prohibition following Georgia’s victory. South Dakota.—Large section of the State dry. Tennessee.—Saloons excluded from’ all but three municipalities' in the State; State Prohibition predicted in three yeais. Texas. —Two-thirds of State dry by Local Option; State Prohibition campaign under way. Utah.—License. Yertnont.—Dry save 24 municipalities; entire State and cveiy county in State show majority against licenses; State Prohibition expected shortly. Virginia.—Much dry territory. West Virginia.—Thirty dry counties out of 55; Governor publicly opposes liquor traffic. V^isconsirL. —Local Option, with 650 dry communities. Arizona,—License. District of Columbia.—Ratio of saloon to population reduced more than half during ; the last fifteen years. New Mexico.—License, j By the end of the present fiscal year, proj vidcxl normal business conditions return | throughout the country, the effect of the Prohibition movement can be better cetini.iti>. In the meantime, of course, it will bo affected, as in the past, by changes in the geographical extent of “wet” and “ dry ” territory.