HOW PROHIBITION REPEAL WORKS IN UNITED STATES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20277, 11 April 1934, Page 6

HOW PROHIBITION REPEAL WORKS IN UNITED STATES.

To-day’s Special Article

Large Part of the Country Still Dry: Problem of Adjusting Liquor Taxes.

The Federal and many State Governments of the United States are struggling with the problems of liquor control, following the repeal of national prohibition. Their experience under the Twenty-first Amendment indicates that regulation may offer as great difficulties as prohibition, at least for some time. National prohibition under the Eighteenth Amendment applied, formally, if not actually, to all forty-eight States. Every State was officially “ dry.” Most of the States had their own enforcement laws as well as being governed by the Federal Volstead Act. The new amendment, repealing prohibition so far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, restored to the States their right to be “ wet ” or " dry ” as they might elect.

JJUT IT IMPOSED on the Federal Government a new constitutional duty to prevent “ the transportation and importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States of intoxicating liquors in violation of the laws thereof.” Before prohibition, when there were both “ wet ” and “ dry ” States, this responsibility of the Federal Government was statutory, instead of constitutional, and was imposed by the Webb-Kenvon Act, which became largely a “ dead letter ” Notwithstanding the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment Jhere are to-day almost as many “ dry ” States as “ wet.” Twenty-three States still retain their prohibition laws and in those States intoxicating liquor mav not legally be sold. A number of these States are preparing to become " wet.” Those “ dry ” merely by statute will change their status with little delay; those whose State Constitutions prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor will have to await the slow process of amendment Thus in Kansas the question cf retaining State constitutional prohibition will be submitted to a referendum next autumn The voters of Maine will make a similar decision in September In Texas no constitutional amendment to repeal State prohibition can be submitted until the next regular session of the Legislature in January, 1935. Liquor Taxation Laws. The Federal Government under the Twenty-first Amendment will not only have to protect “ dry ” States, but, according to a widely-accepted interpretation which still awaits judicial sanction, may have to defend certain “ wet ” States against violation of their liquor taxation laws and other regulations by citizens of other States. Pennsylvania, for instance, has imposed a tax of t-wo dollars a gallon on distilled spirits in addition to the two dollars Federal tax, All liquor supplies for consumption off the premises must be purchased at State stores. Liquor may be sold for consumption on the premises only by hotels, restaurants and clubs, and must be served at tables. Beer of 3.2 alcohol content may be dispensed at bars. The Pennsylvania law prohibits the private import of even a pint of intoxicating liquor, and a force of special police has been established to prevent illegal importations. Cost of Enforcement. Many difficulties have arisen from the dual system of liquor regulation which is inseparable from the American plan of government. It has been pointed out that the cost of Federal enforcement alone is likely to be as great for some time as it was before repeal. Congress has already laid a Federal tax of two dollars a gallon on spirits and corresponding internal revenue levies on wines. The Federal tax on beer of more than 3.2 per cent alcoholic content is five dollars a barrel. The estimated yield for the first year is 500 million dollars. It will be necessary to maintain a large force of inspectors and agents to ensure the collection of these taxes. If the popular conception of the Federal Government’s responsibility under the Twenty-first Amendment prevails, it will be necessary to increase the Federal

“ police force ” for the protection of “ dry ” States and of many “ w*et ” States in the enforcement of their new laws. Protection of Consumers. Much trouble has been caused in all the “ wet ” States by the misbranding and misrepresentation of the quality of liquors. New legislation for the protection of consumers is expected. In several States proposals have been made for establishing bureaux of liquor standards, which should guarantee both the quality and the purity of alcoholic beverages. While laws penalising both the bootlegger and the purchaser of illicit liquor exist in some States, the Volstead Act, under national prohibition, was rarely applied to purchasers, except where conspiracy for a serious violation of the law was proved. Montana remains the only state that requires purchasers of liquor to take out permits, and that -limits sales to two quarts at a time for each buyer. In Pennsylvania the amount of, a customer’s purchases is limited only by the size of his purse. , The Social Effects. Increases in the number of arrests of drunken drivers are reported by several large cities since prohibition was repealed. There have also been appreciable increases in the number of drunken persons seen on the streets. The predicted outbreak of crime and “ racketeering ” has not taken place. Kidnappings for ransom and holdups have continued at about the same rate as before repeal. The lifting of import restrictions on January 10 for a 30-dav period—permitting distillers to bring in liquor in bulk for rectifying rye and Bourbon blends; and importers to bring in American-type whisky by the bottle, without regard to previous quotas, by paying the regular duty—sent the ships of ” Rum Row ” scurrying to Caribbean ports, where 2,000,000 gallons were to be reshipped to the United States. Arrangements were made for shipping to New Orleans the cargoes of more than 160 rum-runners lying off New York, after the liquor had been transferred to regular commercial vessels. The Federal Government’s order was regarded as a direct move to checkmate bootlegging activities in the United States by enlarging liquor supplies and reducing prices. The chief difficulty of the postprohibition problem seems to be the adjustment of Federal and State liquor taxes so as to reduce the price to the consumer and defeat the bootlegger and racketeet For the first time States are imposing direct taxes on liquor instead of being content, as before prohibition, with the revenue derived from licensing wholesale and retail dealers. The Federal Government, also, through its N.R.A. codes for distillers and brewers, - has assumed a new and broader authority over the liquor traffic, which in many instances threatens to collide with State rights and powers. Altogether, liquor regulation, as shown by the experience of the first few months, still presents a problem with many awkward complications.