PROHIBITION: Ready for Repeal

While the Federal Government was last week drafting a drastic industrial code to control distilleries until such time as Congress acts on the problem (see p. 53), State governments throughout the land were fussing and fiddling with their own regulations for local sale and consumption. Ten have already decided when & why & how drinks may be served (see box). Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri and Massachusetts had barely a week left before Repeal to make up their minds what to do.

Greatest trouble was in Pennsylvania where the liquor control bills of Dry Governor Pinchot met two-edged opposition. The Legislature, on the Governor’s recommendation, enacted a $2-per-gallon tax on all liquor stored within the State on Dec. 5. Distillers indignantly protested, claiming that the bill was unconstitutional, that they had not been given a hearing. Famed Schenley Distillers, the major part of whose stocks are stored in Pennsylvania, and National Distillers Products Corp., closed their plants, announced they would make their liquor elsewhere. Other manufacturers tried to ship liquor out of Pennsylvania, were prevented by armed troopers. Meanwhile in Harrisburg, a Pinchot control bill setting up a three-man liquor commission and a system of State liquor stores was passed by the House of Representatives.

Up before the New Jersey Legislature were three liquor control bills written by the State Alcoholic Beverage Commission. Not unlike the recommendations of the Rockefeller Report (TIME, Oct. 23), they provided for a State liquor commissioner appointed by the Governor, a graduated system of taxes, local option and local liquor boards appointed for six years. Bars and saloons were not banned.

Governor Ritchie of Maryland appeared personally before the Legislature to present his liquor control plan. High points included exemption of beer and light wines from taxation, legalization of “taverns” equipped with bars. “I see no practical difference between taking a drink sitting down and taking one standing up,” he declared, “and no particular efficacy in requiring one to eat a meal because he wants a drink.”

In Illinois the prospect of State liquor control before Repeal dimmed last week when a commission appointed to draft a bill failed to agree. Two widely divergent measures, one leaving the question of control to local communities, the other setting up a State commission, were sent to the floor for debate.

In Michigan the House of Representatives voted down Governor Comstock’s plan for state-owned liquor stores, passed a substitute measure allowing “every responsible hotel and merchant” to sell liquor by the package. The Massachusetts House broke a two-day deadlock to pass a measure allowing licensed “taverns” to sell drinks by the glass.