[_Concluded._]
X. QUALITY INSPECTION.--In my paper in these pages, in 1894, I
remarked, "If there is any such thing as a salutary liquor law, not
derived from excise or police jurisdiction, it would be, perhaps, a
statute insuring the purity of liquor; reviving that old English
functionary, the 'ale-taster,' with his care over all drinkables
exposed for sale." And surely this would be a legitimate and a
constitutional law, as providing for the public safety (which is,
after all is said, the origin and summit of all law). To kill a
rattlesnake the rattlesnake must first be recognized as alive, and the
old cry of the Podsnap that nothing improper exists is fast
disappearing. It seems to me that at present, and in view of the fact
that Mr. Reed's plan would involve a social and economical plant which
could only be accumulated by long and deliberate legislative action,
and admitting that the drink evil not only calls for legislative
action but has received it for sixty-two years, and so accustomed our
communities to expect it; admitting also Mr. Bellamy's and Mr. Reed's
basic proposition that there is no reason why any human being should
starve, and that it is not public policy that any creature of the
State (even if a criminal confined for crime in a State penitentiary)
should starve--admitting all these, it seems as if this plan really
might be the best and most immediately practicable plan yet. Every
State, without any criticism or clamor of constitutionalists against
paternal government, appoints its official tester of illuminating
fluids, that conflagration may not ensue and the public safety be
imperiled by the destruction of the citizens' homes. Why not a State
"tester" of the stimulant which may inflame the vital forces of the
citizen himself, and so imperil the public peace, which, by all laws,
is the public safety? Municipal corporations appoint inspectors of
meat, of milk, of fruits, of confectionery, precisely under this
constitutional duty of preserving the public health, upon which, most
largely of all, the public safety depends. Why not, then, inspectors
of the potables which the public drink?
By having liquors examined, and only pure liquors sold, and condemned
liquors destroyed, precisely as in the case of unclean or impure
meats, milk, fruit, and confectionery; much could be practicably, and
in a minimum lapse of time, accomplished to the decrease of the liquor
evil. The prohibitionists themselves, by placing and replacing and
abolishing and experimenting with all sorts of statutes upon the
statute-book, have accustomed us to State regulation of the sale of
intoxicants, and, least of all, can complain of yet one more
experiment toward the decrease of drunkenness.
Let the national or State government have liquors examined, and those
not up to the standard emptied into the sewers, precisely as in the
case of milk found filthy, dangerous, or questionable. The Government
might also supervise the distilleries and forbid the manufacture of
what are called "quick-aging" goods, or "continuous distillation,"
precisely as it controls the manufacture of oleomargarine. It is not
improbable that a commission appointed to this good work might, by
just, equitable, and easily-to-be-borne statutes, prescribe a time
limit or period after which no spirituous liquors should be sold less
than, say, five years old (the age of liquor being said to regulate
its irritant and insanitary and to conserve its really salutary and
sanitary qualities). I believe (not without consultation and a
deliberate exchange of opinion with experts) that the good effects of
such legislation would be almost instant; I believe that from pure
motives of self-interest alone the distillers and rectifiers of
liquors, instead of fighting such a law, would be eager to compete to
furnish pure brands of liquor for the State censors, in the certainty
that the State must adopt the best and the purest. To-day the public
is served with precisely what the publican finds it most to his profit
to sell. It may be only dirty water which he sells at a price at which
he could (to his own immense profit) sell pure liquor. In every
drinking place in the land, to which the public resorts, there are two
prices--one price for what you order, and the other for the same
"good." I believe that one of these days the world will remember, as
curiously as it now remembers the days of the stagecoach or the
tallow-dip, a time when a man desiring a dram of liquor was obliged to
drink whatever the dram-seller found it profitable to sell him.
We have tried about everything else. Why not try this? We have
conceded to our legislators the right and the jurisdiction. Since we
can not adopt Mr. Reed's proposition to feed everybody, why not enter
the wedge right here and do the next best or a next best thing--see
that the people not only eat proper meats and fruits, but that they
drink, if drink they will, pure liquors? And it need be added (however
it may appear to be a sop to Cerberus) that it would not antagonize
that most powerful class, whose organized and capitalized opposition
every other liquor-regulating law which has ever been suggested has at
once antagonized, and been obliged in the end to if not conciliate, at
least to recognize in the adjustment of equities. Fortunately, we have
not to begin our experiments out of whole cloth. Illinois, Michigan,
Ohio, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington have led the way, and
made the adulteration of liquor a misdemeanor. (New York, however, has
probably negatived the best results of the prohibition by adding that
the prohibited adulteration must only be "with any deleterious drug,
substance, or liquor which is poisonous or injurious to the health,"
which is shutting one door and opening another, and relegating to the
lawyers and their experts a tedious inquisition as to what the word
"poisonous" or the term "injurious to health" may mean, in the course
of which the offender would walk free.) The question as to whether it
would conserve the public peace as well as the public safety by
decreasing drunkenness can only be favorably conjectured. Experience
of such a law only can show. To begin with, it would increase the cost
of a dram. A glass of true whisky, for example, might be twenty cents
instead of ten, and (the law forbidding adulteration) this would
probably in itself lessen dram-drinking. In England, many years ago, a
similar law was found to eventuate in compelling that only the highest
grades of ale should be sold at a certain price. This led to the
offering of a second, and then of a third grade, and finally of what
was claimed to be a blending of all three grades or an "entire" (which
was the origin of the term ENTIRE, that later began to be the name of
an alehouse--a legend still seen on English alehouse signs). But the
law we now suggest, by preventing the blending of three grades of
spirits, might, while lessening the sales, increase the excise
revenues, and perhaps accomplish whatever may be left to be
accomplished in conserving at once the health, the peace, and the
income of the State.
That a system by which only pure liquors can be exposed for sale as
beverages is feasible, seems already assured, the States of Ohio,
Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Washington having already long
since adopted a partial statutory policy of the sort, and the State of
New York, in 1896, having followed. In order to demonstrate what these
have accomplished, and what improvements can be suggested, there were
addressed to the proper officers of each of these States the following
questions, viz.:
1. In your State what officer is charged with enforcement of the
provisions of its liquor statutes, forbidding adulteration of liquors
exposed for sale as beverages? And must such officer be examined as to
his experience or as to his competency only?
2. Is his standard of unadulterated liquors established by law, and if
so, what is it? Or is the officer's judgment as to what liquor may or
may not be sold discretionary according to the circumstances of each
case?
3. Is the examination to be conducted by taste or tasting (sampling),
the old English method, or by chemical analysis?
4. Is adulteration so defined as to include the mixing of liquor with
water, or only with substances or liquids in themselves toxicants?
5. Is the effect of this clause thought to be beneficial? Has it, for
example, decreased drunkenness?
To the first question Mr. Samuel P. Sharpless, State Assayer of
Massachusetts, reports as follows: "An assayer of liquor is appointed
under our public statutes, who is charged with performing such duties
as are referred to him. No particular examination prior to appointment
is laid down. The presumption is that an analytical chemist will
receive the appointment, as in the twenty years in which the law has
existed only analytical chemists have received the same."
As to Ohio, Mr. Joseph E. Blackburn, Dairy and Food Commissioner,
says: "The office of Dairy and Food Commissioner is charged with the
enforcement of all laws governing the sale of food, drink, and drugs.
He is not required to stand any examination, and his experience and
qualifications are not considered except as to his eligibility as a
candidate. It is distinctly a political position, and all the parties
nominate candidates for the place."
As to Michigan, Mr. Elliot O. Grosvenor, Dairy and Food Commissioner,
says, "The Dairy and Food Commissioner of the State is charged with
enforcement of the law relating to adulteration of liquors."
As to Illinois, Hon. E. C. Akin, Attorney-General, writes: "It is the
duty of the several State's attorneys to prosecute for violations of
this section, on complaint of any one, or by indictment. There is no
officer charged with the duty of making examinations or tests of
liquors."
As to New York, Hon. Henry H. Lyman, Commissioner of Excise, replies:
"The district attorneys of the several counties in this State have
direct and exclusive control of all criminal prosecutions against
violators of the liquor-tax law, but indirectly the matter of
enforcing this section devolves upon the State Board of Health. By the
provisions of section 42, chapter 661, laws of 1893, the State Board
of Health shall take cognizance of the interests of the public health
as affected by the sale or use of foods and adulterations thereof, and
make all necessary inquiries and investigations relating thereto. It
shall appoint such public analysts, chemists, and inspectors as it may
deem necessary for that purpose, etc. Upon discovering any violations
of the provisions of the act relating to the adulteration of foods or
drugs, the State Board of Health shall immediately communicate the
facts to the district attorney of the county where the violation
occurred, who shall thereupon forthwith commence proceedings for the
indictment of the persons charged with such violations."
To the second question, as to what is held to be adulteration, in
Massachusetts the only standard fixed by law is that of the United
States Pharmacopoeia. Chapter 272, Acts of 1896, undertakes to provide
certain standards. But so far not a single case has been brought under
this act, since it has not been made the duty of any one in particular
to enforce it. The assayer and inspector can only examine such liquors
as are brought to him by the proper officers. He has no authority to
institute proceedings even if he finds the liquor to be badly
adulterated. Such action must be taken by the officers making the
seizure. But Mr. Sharpless writes that, in his opinion, the law
(section 31 of chapter 100 of the public statutes) providing for
taking samples of liquors for analysis contains in its last sentence a
clause which renders it inoperative: it requires such samples to be
paid for if they are found to be of good quality. Mr. Sharpless adds:
"Under this section I have received perhaps on an average twenty
samples a year for the past fifteen years. These samples have
generally been whisky, gin, brandy, and rum. The Legislature has been
repeatedly requested to give the assayer authority to take samples in
the same manner as they are taken by the milk inspector, but has as
uniformly refused to give him that power."
Ohio reports that the legal standard for liquors is the requirements
of the United States Pharmacopoeia.
In Michigan the law does not define any standard for adulteration or
unadulteration. Nor is it left to the mere judgment of any officer.
"In case of prosecution the fact of adulteration would have to be
proved to the satisfaction of the jury by any competent evidence."
This is the language of Mr. Samuel A. Kennedy, Deputy Secretary of
State. Mr. Elliot O. Grosvenor, the Dairy and Food Commissioner,
indicates the nature of the evidence, however, as follows: "If the
word 'standard' can be used in connection with the word
'adulteration,' our law does regulate this standard. We send you under
another cover a copy of the law concerning liquors, so far as within
the jurisdiction of this department, from which you will see we have
little or no discretion in the matter." The clause marked by Mr.
Grosvenor is as follows: "The law relating to liquors seems to be
meant only to prohibit the sale of spirituous or fermented or malt
liquors containing drugs or poisons or substances or ingredients
deleterious or unhealthful; and provides that each barrel, cask, keg,
bottle, or other vessel containing the same shall be branded or
labeled with the words 'Pure and without drugs or poison,' together
with the name of the person or firm preparing the package. This
applies to every package of whatever size--it matters not whether they
are put up for immediate delivery or for stock purpose. This includes
all bottled ale, beer, rum, wine, or other malt or spirituous liquors,
also the bottles used for dispensing over the bar. The State has no
standard of proof, but liquors in packages where proof is indicated
must test to that proof. Compounds containing nothing deleterious or
unhealthful may be sold as cordials. The blending of liquors will be
permitted, if spirits or other ingredients are not added. Dealers
purchasing and receiving goods not properly branded or labeled are not
relieved from any responsibility, if they sell the same without
branding or labeling."
In Illinois the standard is not mentioned, but the articles forbidden
are plainly set forth by the criminal code of the State, which
provides that "whoever adulterates, for the purpose of sale, any
liquor used for drink, with cocculus indicus, vitriol, grains of
paradise, opium, alum, capsicum, copperas, laurel water, logwood,
Brazilwood, cochineal, sugar of lead, or any other substance which is
poisonous or injurious to health; and whoever sells or offers, or
keeps for sale any such liquor so adulterated, shall be confined in
the county jail not exceeding one year, or fined not exceeding one
thousand dollars, or both."
In New York there is a standard fixed for wines, and sections 46, 47,
and 48 of the laws of 1893 are devoted to the definition of pure wine,
half wine, made wine, and the adulteration of wines generally. But
there is no standard of purity enacted for spirituous or malt liquors,
and it is left to the discretion of the inspecting officers whether
any liquors inspected and analyzed by them contain any deleterious
substances.
As to question third, all the States seem to agree that chemical
analysis is the safer, but adulteration seems to be considered by them
all as a fact, to be proved by any competent process, even the taster
not being barred, as he certainly is not by the clause as to
inspection in the State of New York. Mr. Grosvenor, Food Commissioner
of Michigan, however, says that the only test recognized by his
department would be that made in its own laboratory by its own two
chemists.
As to whether the adulteration could be by water only, all our
courteous informants refer us to their answer to the question as to
standards but Ohio, whose Food Commissioner (Blackburn) replies, "Yes,
if the proofage is reduced to less than one hundred degrees." In
Massachusetts, Mr. Sharpless says, "In a case brought a number of
years ago the court refused to consider water as an adulteration; no
recent case has been brought."
As to the fifth and vital question, whether the clause against
adulteration tends to decrease drunkenness, Mr. Sharpless adds the
following valuable record of his experiences as State assayer in a
State which, in thirty years, has experimented with about every known
form of liquor statute: "So far as I have observed, the quality of the
liquor has but little to do with the question of drunkenness. In some
localities where prohibition has been strictly enforced we find that
the class who will have liquor is obtaining it in other than the
well-known commercial forms. Frequently we find that large quantities
of extract of ginger are being consumed. A number of cases have been
brought against the venders of this article, as an alcoholic beverage
containing more than one per cent of alcohol. These cases have
generally proved successful in stopping its sale. Essence of
peppermint and of checkerberry, for example, are favorite tipples.
During the past summer a case was found in which 'So-and-so's Drops,'
a nostrum, a mixture of ether and alcohol, was being used as an
intoxicant. The so-called 'native wines' have given us some trouble.
These are essentially a fermented solution of sugar and water, with
sufficient juice of some fruit for flavoring and color. When made
without the addition of spirits they contain about fourteen per cent
of alcohol. They are generally pretty poor stuff. About two years ago
we had an epidemic of so-called 'malt extracts.' These, with very few
exceptions, were found to be essentially porter. The alcohol in them
averaged about six per cent, and they were quite palatable beverages.
They contained about seven or eight per cent of solid extract.
"It has been several times proposed here that no liquors should be
sold unless their purity was certified to by the State assayer. This I
have uniformly opposed, for the reason that, while the State may well
prohibit the sale of adulterated liquors, it is no part of its
business to certify to the purity of any man's goods; and, unless the
State becomes the sole vender of liquors, it has no means of keeping
track of them.
"It has been my practice during my term of office never to give a
certificate in regard to a liquor to any one but the officers
authorized to ask such a certificate. In other words, the only way a
private person can get an analysis of liquor made by the State assayer
is to take it to the chief of police of his town or city and make a
complaint in regard to it; as the assayer is paid by the State for his
work, it would obviously be wrong for him to do work which he might,
have to revise in his official capacity.... I may perhaps be allowed
to add a few words as to what is defined in this State as an
intoxicating liquor. When the State assayer of liquors was first
appointed he soon became convinced that some limit must be fixed to
the allowable amount of alcohol contained in a liquor. After
consultation this amount was fixed at three per cent by volume at 60°
F. This law remained in force several years. Soon after it was found
that a large amount of beer was being made which contained about 3.5
per cent of alcohol. This was a palatable beer, and the venders gave
the officers much trouble. The regular trade, who were selling lager
beer and ale, and paying for the privilege, were also much opposed to
its sale, and the Legislature was asked to reduce the limit to one per
cent by volume. This at one stroke destroyed a large amount of
illegitimate trade. The Massachusetts law, as it now stands, is that
ale, porter, strong beer, lager beer, cider, all wines, and any
beverage containing more than one per cent of alcohol, by volume, at
60° F., as well as distilled spirits, shall be deemed to be
intoxicating liquor, within the meaning of the license provisions, and
this section of the law has been decided by the Supreme Court of the
Commonwealth to be constitutional.[A] The question is never raised now
in the court as to whether a liquor is actually intoxicating; the only
question being, Does it contain more than one per cent of alcohol? If
it does (and as a matter of fact cases are very rarely brought in
which the sample does not contain at least two per cent of alcohol),
the court has no power except to convict, if it be proved that the
article was kept for sale. The result of this law has been that the
sale of beer, with the idea that it is possible to convince the court
that it is not intoxicating, has entirely stopped. Some few attempts
are made to produce a beverage that shall contain less than one per
cent of alcohol. And several brands are on the market which, when
cold, taste very well, but which contain only about 0.85 per cent of
alcohol. Generally the only test made in regard to liquors is as to
the amount of alcohol that they contain; or, rather, whether the
amount of alcohol exceeds one per cent, that being the maximum amount
that can be sold without a license. Such examination is generally
made by distilling the liquor and determining the alcohol in the
distillate.
[Footnote A: _Vide_ Commonwealth _vs._ Brelsford, 161 Mass., 61.]
"The whiskies examined have in Massachusetts, as a rule, been free
from any substance more injurious than the alcohol they contain. They
have generally (as well as the other distilled liquors examined) been
of standard strength--that is, they have contained about fifty per
cent of alcohol, and as a rule have not given much over the amount of
residue allowed by the Pharmacopoeia. As you will see by the foregoing
remarks, the provisions of the Massachusetts liquor law, so far as
adulteration is concerned, are practically a dead letter. I have been
repeatedly before the Legislature asking for such modifications of the
law as would enable me to make an intelligent study of the subject;
but it seems satisfied to allow the matter to stand as it now is.
Several difficulties arise in regard to any enforcement of the law.
One of these--that samples must be paid for, and there is no
appropriation to pay for them--I have already pointed out. In the
second place, the State Board of Health (which has full power to
inspect liquors under the food act) has discovered that the chief
adulteration is water in distilled liquors, and that this, together
with a little burned sugar and sirup, is practically the only
adulteration. Large amounts of rectified spirits are used in the
preparation of whiskies for the market, where the whisky is used only
as a flavoring material. But such manufactured whiskies meet the
requirements of the Pharmacopoeia better than the genuine article,
being more free from the higher alcohols and ethers than a pure
whisky. The only point in which they do not agree is that they are not
three years old. But the only method for determining the age of a
liquor that I am acquainted with, is the brand on the barrel. It
certainly can not be determined by any chemical means."
But, with the exception of Massachusetts, where Mr. Sharpless points
out clearly the reason why the law against adulteration is a dead
letter, all the reports speak encouragingly. Michigan, Illinois, and
Ohio believe that the operation of the provision will do genuine good.
Says Food Commissioner Blackburn, of Michigan, "It is my opinion that
this law has and will decrease drunkenness, for the reason that pure
liquor will not create the unnatural appetite that compounded,
adulterated, or artificially prepared liquors do."
The State of Washington sends no report. There is a provision in the
South Carolina law providing that liquors shall be "pure"; but, as the
State is the dispenser of liquors, the operation of this clause has
not been considered exemplary for the purposes of this article. Mr.
Lyman, in New York, thinks that sufficient time has not elapsed to
fully pronounce as to the benefits of the law.
XI and XII. HIGH LICENSE AND LOCAL OPTION.--Certainly the examination
of these statutes and reports of their results in forty-nine States
and Territories leaves it beyond question that so far the very best
results have accompanied the combination of these two provisions.
Perhaps the best example is in the largest of the communities to be
affected--viz., in the State and city of New York. Here, by separating
the plebiscitum or referendum into four local options--viz., (1)
selling liquor to be drunk upon the premises where sold, (2) selling
liquor not to be drunk upon the premises where sold, (3) selling
liquor by apothecaries only on physician's prescription, (4) selling
liquor by license granted to "hotel keepers" only--the result obtained
has been, I think, precisely what I contended for in the paper of five
years age, namely, the value of liquor has been recognized, and its
sale provided for without denying its dangers as a temptation, or the
disastrous effects of drunkenness. To use the exact words of the
commissioner's report: "The tendency is to recognize the propriety of
the sale of liquors by hotels and pharmacists in many communities
where they will not, by their votes, approve the sale by saloons and
groceries; and while there are now twenty less absolutely 'no-license'
towns than when the law took effect, there are very many less saloons
and groceries where liquors are dispensed." And this while not in any
way compromising or dallying with the proposition which the
prohibitionists and temperance societies insist upon (and which is all
they have as a basis for their claims), viz., the consequences of
intoxication and the public policy of its prevention. To show that, as
a fact, an equivalent result has been reached in every State in the
Union where high license and local option are united, would unduly tax
these pages. But one or two prominent examples are of the paradoxical
results--as gratifying as they are paradoxical--that the fewer the
places where liquor is sold the larger the revenue to the State, and
the less the drunkenness, may be cited. In the State of New York in
two years of high license the reduction in selling places was 5,484;
the increase of revenue to the State was $9,094,646.01; the decrease
in the number of arrests was 22,689. In the city of New York alone the
reduction in places was 1,204; the increase of revenue was
$3,549,851.90; the decrease in the arrests for drunkenness was 3,044.
Similar results are reported invariably as the fruit of high license
elsewhere in the United States. In the city of Chicago, under an
exceedingly high license, the reduction in one year was 200 in the
number of saloons, while the increase of revenue was $1,250,000; and
yet the decrease in the number of arrests was 1,217. Contrast this
result with the condition of affairs in the triple-steel-barred
prohibition State of Maine! Says an ex-Mayor of Portland: "I went into
office perfectly free; I think I enforced the law impartially with
all the vigor I could control.... I looked it all over to see what I
had accomplished; I found that I had driven out of the business one
set of men, and another had come in worse than the first. I found that
the young men were establishing club rooms. Not only did they become
drinking places, but they brought in gambling and other vice. While I
was driving liquor out of the ordinary shops I was driving it into
houses and kitchens, where even children dealt in it.... I am sorry to
say it, but the law makes perjury alarmingly common; it opens up ...
an avenue for bribes.[B]
[Footnote B: Annual Report of the New York State Commissioner of
Excise, 1897-1898, p. 716, Id.]
"The local authorities could not be trusted to enforce the law. The
price of liquors has been lessened and the quality is worse.... To
those who shunned the open bars the apothecary shops supplied liquor
by the bottle as often as desired.... Then arose pocket peddlers,
young men who loiter about the street supplying customers from the
bottle with a drink known as splits--a concoction of the cheapest
alcohol mixed with a dash of rum and coloring matter, which produces a
dangerous form of intoxication.... At the city agency the question
'Medicine?' and the answer 'Yes,' was quite sufficient, and throngs of
people were constantly waiting with flasks to be filled.... 'Bars,'
'Eating Houses' (so called because protected by the police), 'Kitchen
Bars,' 'Pocket Peddlers,' 'Hotel Bars,' 'Apothecary Shops,' 'Bottling
Houses,' 'Express Companies,' 'Clubs,' and the 'City Agency.'"
But all these, under the very eye of the late Hon. Neal Dow, were
powerless to convince the Hon. Neal Dow that his policy was not a
massive and monumental success, and to the end of his days the good
old man delivered glowing eulogiums upon its exalted benefits to a
suffering and liquor-ridden world!
Among the novel devices among the statutes of States classed as
licensing sales of liquor (or which have rejected prohibition) may be
mentioned the following: Apothecaries may sell without a license if
they keep records of sales. Purchasers of liquor must make affidavit
of the purpose for which they require the liquor. Physicians
prescribing liquors must make affidavit that they are required by the
case they are attending. Public officers who tolerate or refuse to
prosecute are fined. Name of owner of premises where liquors are sold
must be painted in large letters on outside window with the word
"owner" added. A provision that any one may sell liquor, but that the
Legislature may provide in any way it sees fit against "the evils
resulting therefrom." No barmaids, or dancing, gambling, or oil
paintings on premises where liquor is sold. The provisions that
eatables must or must not be sold where liquor is retailed are about
numerically even. (It will be remembered that the New York ["Raines"]
law at first abolished free lunches, but insisted that while one must
not have food with his liquor on week days, he could not on Sundays
have it without--the last provision still being enforced). Similarly,
in some States, liquor dealers must not keep lodging houses, while in
others they must. West Virginia says that a tavern or hotel must not
be used as a liquor-selling establishment only, and that a refusal to
give diet or lodging to any one demanding it will forfeit its license
to sell liquor. One State (Colorado) recognizes the so-called
"gold-cure," and authorizes "the person most interested," or the
county, to send habitual drunkards at county expense to "any
respectable gold-cure institute." In Illinois a drunkard is by law a
vagrant, and drunkenness is a cause for divorce. In Louisiana the
excise man who makes an erroneous estimate of the amount of business
done (Louisiana regulates the liquor business according to sales only,
disclaiming any preventive or reformatory object) is removable from
office. In Tennessee applicants for license must state the amount of
business they intend to do. Kentucky regulates the price of liquors
sold, being the only American State so doing (except that South
Carolina says that the price of a potion shall not be "more than fifty
per cent above," or if used as a medicine "more than ten per cent
above," the cost thereof to the seller--rather a difficult matter to
approximate). Arkansas prohibits sales within three miles of a church,
schoolhouse, or academy. The sales of liquor to Indians is prohibited,
and the exclusive right of army officers to purchase it is conserved,
at the proper frontiers. Texas inserts in her statutes a fine for
keeping a "blind tiger" (defined to be a place "where intoxicating
liquors are sold by any device whereby the party selling or delivering
the same is concealed from the person buying or to whom the same is
delivered"). And, in Kansas, twenty-five reputable women must unite
with twenty-five reputable men in applying for a license to sell
liquor. No State or Territory mentions the size or quantity of liquor
to be sold at any price, as is the European custom.
It would seem, therefore, that, with the exception of the State of
Maine alone, all the American Commonwealths are gradually harking back
to the standpoint of the earliest liquor laws. Moderation (temperance)
in drinking was the public policy. Leaving out the act of the British
Parliament, in the year 1735 (which gave Governor Oglethorpe the right
to prohibit the importation of ardent spirits into Georgia, which was
not a measure to prevent intoxication, but to give a monopoly to
Governor Oglethorpe), the first temperance association was that
founded by Dr. Rush; and it is related that the venerable president,
upon being elected, rose with a glass of brandy in his hand and gave
the toast: "Gentlemen, fill your glasses. Let us show the world that
we know how to drink in moderation."
To sum it all up. Why, since we can not set out with a club or a
headsman's axe to reform mankind; since there are substantial rights
to adjust and innocent parties to protect, why is not the proposition
to prevent by law the exposure of adulterated liquors for sale as
beverages the best so far suggested? Is there another which at the
same time is constitutional, equitable, peaceable, and so conservative
of the public safety, which creates no law-breaking class out of
honest citizens, sheds no blood (as blood was shed in South Carolina
in 1875 because men of Anglo-Saxon breed could not be readily made to
concede that a man's house was not his castle), and which imports no
new doctrine into American policy?
I, for one, believe that, with it, the solution of the drink problem
would be in sight. High license and personal damage laws are two
thirds of it. If a man desires to sell liquor let him pay one or two
thousand dollars, or other substantial sum of money, to the school or
the police or the poor fund of his neighborhood. Let him be liable in
damages, as are common carriers or any others who deal in conveniences
or commodities in which there is possible risk to the community, for
what is injured by his operations. As to the remaining third of the
remedy: the sole objections to local option (viz., that it may be
abused at the polls, where the total-abstinence interest might be as
capable of a wrong use of money or of other undue influence as the
liquor interest, or that it might be inconvenient to the public) are
fully met by making adulteration impossible and providing for a
compulsory, rigid, and universal inspection of liquors exposed for
sale as beverages. And then, besides, it will be unnecessary to burn
down our village to roast our pig.
* * * * *
A curious experiment, at Carnot, in the Congo, is described in
the journal _Le Chasseur Français_ in the shape of the collection
and raising of the animals which the natives bring in from the
bush. Large numbers have been taken in. Some of the animals die,
some escape. Among those that have stayed are two wild hogs,
which roam at liberty, eat from the hand, and follow like dogs.
There are a jackal, mangoustes, small rodents, a company of
monkeys, and a young tiger cat, "which is the lawgiver to the
others." None of the animals is confined, except that the jackal
is tied, though he follows; but it has been necessary to separate
the guinea-pigs from the rest. A large monkey has assumed the
office of shepherd's dog, and takes care of the sheep. There are
also dogs--"good company, but not of much value"--eight horses,
with a colt that will eat at the table if allowed to; forty
horned cattle, which are multiplying; and asses, which are also
increasing.