Liquor Laws and Liquor Control

The Committee advised (I) the establishment of State Liquor Control Authorities invested with broad administrative powers selected for ability, merit and integrity and not by political favouritism, with long terms and freedom from interference, and providing for effective Federal and State cooperation, especially in matters of taxation, transportation and advertising regulation; (2) the development of a Federal wholesale liquor monopoly as a revenue and control measure; and presented a model law for adoption by the States. (See Natl. Manic. Rev.—Suppl. Jan. 1934.) Dr. Luther Gulick, Secretary of the Committee, reported (Feb. 1934) that seven States had adopted liquor control laws providing for State sale of alcoholic beverages and that State Liquor Authority bills along the lines of the "model bill" were being considered in many other states. Dr. Gulick and Dr. Eliza beth Laine reported in the National Municipal Review (May : Twenty-one States in which the sale of beverage liquor was still illegal; pending referendums on repeal of constitutional prohibition in nine of the eleven with constitutional prohibition, and repeal of statutory prohibition in most of the others.

Congress set up a Federal Liquor Control Authority, and re pealed titles I and II of the National Prohibition Act (Volstead Act, 41 Stat. 305) and all amendments, by the Federal Alcohol Administrative Act (Public No. 401, 74th Cong.), approved August 29, 1935, and by the Liquor Law Repeal and Enforce ment Act (Public No. 347, 74th Cong.) approved August 27, 1935. These measures provided for the enforcement of the Webb Kenyon Act, as part of the new Prohibition of the 21st Amend ment (transportation or importation into any State intoxicating liquors in violation of the laws thereof). Professor D. E. Heck man of Ohio State University (State Government, Mo. Rev., American Legislators Ass'n, Dec. 1934) summarizes state laws

as follows : Twelve states have provided for State monopoly, some for wholesale trade only and some covering retail sales; nineteen States have new liquor commissions and three states have new liquor supervisors or directors; seven have added liquor con trol duties to the work of existing commissions and two have made use of ex-officio boards to deal with post-Prohibition problems.

State Government

(Nov. 1933) dealt exclusively with Liquor Control. At that time at least a dozen States had passed laws in anticipation of repeal of national prohibition; six States had no State law on the subject ; twelve States still had State constitu tional prohibition and nineteen (including some also with con stitutional prohibition) had not yet repealed statutory prohibition, though nearly all had legalized beer (3.2% or less), under the Act of Congress (Pub.-3-73rd Cong.) approved Mar. 22, 1933, authorizing such action before the repeal of Prohibition. By the end of 1934 thirty-seven States had voted to repeal statutory or constitutional prohibition or both, or had enacted liquor control legislation of the State or public monopoly type, or of the license type, in some cases with local option provisions; three had voted to reject such proposals; one repealed constitutional but not statutory prohibition ; one legalized sale by referendum vote but passed no validating statute.

Thus the problem of liquor control in the United States was back in the hands of the States, in most of its fundamental as pects, where it had been in the decade 1910-20. The Federal Government found enforcement of prohibition too difficult be cause of lack of State cooperation. The States will find regula tion and control too difficult without Federal cooperation. How and when both will work together and for what programme of liquor control remains to be seen.