can be contended that this tax was
levied for the purpose of discour
aging illicit handling of liquor in
dry states. In view of the instances
in which bootleggers have been
permitted to pay the tax to the
government in installments. We
have been informed that there are
a number of people in the dry
counties of North Carolina who
have paid the Federal Government
the $1,000 tax and are engaged in
selling liquor unmolested by agents
of the Federal government.
Experience Elsewhere.
Speaking of problems and laws
of other states, the report says:
“The repeal of the Eighteenth A
mendment came with such sudden
ness that many of the states were
totally unprepared from the stand
point of legislation to meet the si
tuation. Some of the states have
never enacted state prohibition
laws, and it immediately became
necessary to enact control legisla
tion to meet their needs. Two prob
lems immediately confronted the
various legislatures, one was to
restrict the use of alcohol within
as narrow a limit as possible on
account of the well recognized
evils of the intemperate use of al
cohol as a beverage; and second,
to avoid excessive restrictions,
which, however sincere, would re
sult in defeating the desired ends.
It, therefore, became a problem not
so much of combatting evils which
had arisen during the prohibition
era, but of preventing a recurrence
of the evils which had made prohi
bition an advisable policy.
"Generally speaking, two types of
control were enacted. The first
was what is known as the State Li
censing System, and the second
was known as the State Monopoly
System.
Virginia-S. C. Studied.
Virginia is generally regarded as
typical of the State Monopoly Sys
tem and South Carolina of the
State License System. For this rea
son some of the members of the
commission visited each of these
states and conferred with the Vir
ginia Control Board and the South
Carolina Licensing Board.”
Under discussion of the State Li
cense System it is pointed out that
the State, for a varying considera
tion, grants a contract or license to
a private dealer to sell whiskey,
The report says: “The nature of
these contracts or licenses depend
upon the details of the legislation
enactment. License states might
authorize sale of liquor in the
package to be consumed on the
premises either without or with
the purchase of food. In South
Carolina there is a constitutional
provision prohibiting the sale of
liquor in amounts of less than one
half pint at the time. In most of
the monopoly states there is no
provision of the sale of whiskey by
the drink. In some of the License
States the licenses are handled ei
ther by a board or a single com
missioner or administrator. Most
of these boards appear to be ap
pointive rather than elective, and it
seems to be genenrally conceded
that a system of appointment is
usually followed by much better re
sults than a system under which
the administrative officer is elect
ed. Generally speaking, more com
petent men are secured under the
appointive system than under the
lective system.
‘The amount of salary paid the
members of the licensing board or
commission varies from $4,000 per
annum to each of the administra
tors in Nebraska to $6,500 to the
one administrator in New Jersey.
In the license states the number of
employees is, of course, much
smaller than the number in the
Monopoly States where the govern
ment controls and operates the
stores.
Advertising Controversy.
"Liquor advertising seems to have
been a source of controversy in all
the states and particularly in the
License States. It goes without
saying that if a state is to license
a dealer and permit him to make
such a profit as he sees fit, it will
have to permit him to advertise
his merchandise. Furthermore, the
basis of all advertising is to in
crease sales, and these sales are
made not only to those whose
drinking habits have been more or
less established, but to new drink
ers as well. The Federal Congress
has not, as many had hoped it
would, prohibit liquor advertise
ments. This means that many mag
azines, newspapers and periodicals
with nation-wide circulation are
distributed in states which would
not prefer to legalize such adver
tising.
“It has been argued that it would
be unfair to the North Carolina
publishers to refuse to permit them
to carry liquor advertisements
when their foreign competitors
were permitted to do so. Indeed,
North Carolina now has a law
which has been construed to per
mit liquor advertisements in this
State. Some of the other states
have had the same problem and
have met it by authorizing adver
tising, but with certain restrictions
and limitations which must be ob
served.”
The report says that a number of
the states, at the repeal of the
eighteenth amendment, and in an
honest effort to carry out the
pledge that the evils of the old
time saloon should not return, a
dopted the State Monopoly System.
The idea is based somewhat on the
Canadian system and has as its
basis a recognition of the evils a
rising from the use of alcohol.
Monopoly State System.
"In most of the monopoly states,”
says the report, “a commission of
three members administers the
state’s policy and manages the
stores. The members of the com
mission are appointed by the Gov
ernor and in some states the ap
pointments are required to be bi
partisan in order to keep liquor
out of politics. We doubt, howev
er, if it has met with much suc
cess. The monopoly systems have
worked better where there has
been the most independence and
freedom from political pressure.
An administrative board constant
ly harassed by pressure of this na
ture has seldom proven successful.
"A crucial test faces the monop
oly system in the larger cities
where there are substantial num
bers of places where liquor can be
illicitly bought by the drink. Al
ready in some of the larger cities
in the monopoly states this ques
tion has given trouble. In order to
meet this situation three of the
monopoly states, Pennsylvania, O
hio and Michigan, have legalized
the private sale of liquor by the
drink. This has been done in order
to meet the illicit retailer.
Speaking of conditions in the
State, the report says: “There are
two liquor control systems in North
Carolina. One is that of absolute
prohibition as set forth in the Tur
lington Act passed by the legisla
ture of 1923. This applies to all
the counties of the State except
those which were exempted by the
legislature of 1935.
“During the five months in which
the Commission has been in exis
tence, it has obviously been impos
sible and perhaps unnecessary to
visit every section of the State in
order to determine the conditions
with reference to the use and han
dling of liquor.
Dry County Conditions.
“When we come to the consider
ation of conditions in the 82 coun
ties of the State in which ardent
spirits are not sold legally, we find
difficulty in describing those con
ditions. These conditions are not
uniform throughout the several
counties. There are almost as many
opinions as to how bad these con
ditions are, and whether or not
they could be improved by the le
galized sale of whiskey, as there
are persons to give evidenc in re
gard to the same.
Outside Influence.
“We think it immediatey appar
ent that conditions beyond which
North Caroina has no control have
greatly affected conditions in the
so-called prohibition counties. Aft
er the repeal of the Federal Pro
hibition Act, Virginia, bordering on
North Carolina for 312 miles and
South Carolina, bordering on North
Carolina for approximately 324
miles, have both legalized the sale
of liquor. If North Carolina had
no liquor stores, South Carolina
and Virginia would provide or al
ready have provided such stores
within 50 miles of approximately
two-thirds of the population of N.
Carolina. During 1935, Virginia sold
approximately 2,100,000 gallons of
liquor and during the past 12
months period South Carolina has
sold approximately 1,400,000 gal
lons. Unquestionably a part of this
crossed the state boundary lines
for consumption in prohibition
counties.
Liquor County Business.
From the best information avail
able, for the 12 months period end
ing October 31, 1936, the stores of
the 17 counties sold $3,213,351.72 of
liquor. Based on the last census
the population of these counties is
approximately 592,697, representing
about one-sixth of the State's pop
ulation. Therefore, the average per
capita, per annum expenditure for
ilquor for all persons in these
counties was $5.42 for the last 12
months. Of course, in considering
this figure, it should be understood
that not all the liquor was pur
chased by inhabitants of those
counties. If we were to estimate
that 75 percent of it was purchased
by the inhabitants of the county, it
would still mean that the liquor
bill for one-sixth of the population
of the State for the last 12 months
was approximately $2,410,000. Upon
such a basis the liquor bill for the
remaining five-sixths of the State
in the prohibition counties would
amount to approximately $12,000,
000. During the last 12 months pe
riod the gross sales in Virginia a
TOWN
TALK
Mr. and Mrs. Clyde Liske spent
the Christmas holidays with rela
tives in Mt. Gilead.
Miss Odell Smith of China Grove
is spending the Christmas holidays
with her parents, Mr. and Mrs.
R. T. Smith.
Cecil Pendleton of State is
spending the Christmas holidays
with Mr. and Mrs. A. O. Pendle
ton.
Miss Nita Turner was the week
end guest of Mrs. Cebron Jordan
near Garysburg.
Allen Webb of Fortress Monroe,
Va. spent the Christmas holidays
with his parents, Mr. and Mrs. C.
A. Webb.
Ervin Pearson, Thomas Pearson
of Washington, D. C. visited rela
tives here Friday night.
mounted to $13,145,972.50.
Says Boys, Girls Drinking.
"One sheriff in one of the pro
hibition counties estimated that 65
per cent, of the boys and girls of
high school age are drinking regu
larly.
“Sheriffs in the 17 counties hav
ing stores who answered said that
law enforcement was an easier
matter since the opening of the
stores.
“All the information leads us to
the conclusion that conditions in
many of the dry counties are bad.
Large quantities of illicit liquors
are both manufactured and sold in
many of these counties. There is
evidence that in practically every
county in the State whiskey may
be readily obtained by those who
frequently use the same if they de
sire to obtain it . . . Without going
into detail we can say that condi
tions are bad, and in some of the
counties apparently little effort is
made to enforce prohibitionary
laws.
“So long as there remains a con
dition under which the bootlegger
can make a profit and flourish, as
he is now doing in many of the dry
counties of North Carolina, such
conditions as these may be expect
ed to continue. It is impossible for
the commission to determine
wether the opening of stores has
increased or decreased the use of
whiskey.
"It is obvious to the commission
that the best results have been ob
tained from the operation of the
control stores in those counties
where sentiment has been the
strongest for legalizing of whiskey,
and in those counties which have
selected the best control boards.
Problem of Revenue.
“It is easy to suggest that prof
its deriyed from the sale of liquor
should be used for education, and
particularly temperance education,
law enforcement, hospitals, pen
sions, charitable institutions, moth
ers’ aid and social security appro
priations. No social activity of the
government should be financed by
liquor revenue. To do so would
lead to an irresistible tendency to
promote merchandising or to in
crease the volume of sales in order
that funds might be raised for the
accomplishment of a particular
purpose. That is not sound pub
lic finance. We believe that prof
its should go into general public
funds.
Would Change Hours.
“There are also other changes.
Much of the bootlegging is done
after the stores have closed at S
o’clock. If the county boards are
given more discretion as to the o
pening and closing of stores under
State supervision, many of these Il
licit operations could be eliminated.
“In the appended bill we have
not made any provision legalizing
the manufacture of whiskey in.
North Carolina. We have felt that
the policy of the State in this
respect was a matter which should
be left to the determination of the
General Assembly. Many of those
who answered the questionnaires
thought that manufacturing should
be prohibited, while others thought
that if the sale of whiskey were to
be legalized there could be no valid
argument against permitting man
ufacture under strict government
supervision.”