homes, but the percentages shown under this head. illustrate the tendency of the courts to greater severity toward offenders who have appeared before them. previously than in the case of those who are in court. for the first time.

TABLE 52.

Licensed traffic in intoxicating liquors.-Table 52, which presents data concerning the licensed liquor traffic, deals with the subject somewhat more in detail than did the corresponding table in the census report for 1905, especially in its differentiation between saloons and clubs, and between the two classes of saloon keepers-those who sell all kinds of liquors and those who sell wines and malt liquors only. A separate column has also been provided for hotels and restaurants, and for each class of dealer, so far as is possible, the license rate, as well as the number of dealers, is given. It is not always practicable to show the number of retail dealers coming under each head, owing to the fact that in many cities the same type of license is required for any one or all of the various classes described, but in such cases all dealers selling liquor by the drink are tabulated under the head of "saloon keepers," with a footnote indicating the impracticability of further segregation. The remaining columns of the table follow the lines of the 1905 report, with the exception that with "grocers" are included all other retail dealers not selling liquor by the drink, while an additional column shows, for each city, the number of inhabitants per dealer selling liquor

by the drink.

In drawing comparisons between the figures for 1907 and those for 1905, it should be borne in mind that only the data for the 141 cities reporting in both years are comparable, and the figures for these cities alone are used as a basis for generalization upon the subject. The fact that the number of saloons is in some cities limited by law also affects more or less the comparative standing of the several cities, the limit being in some cases proportionate to population—as in Massachusetts, where the state excise laws fix the proportion at one saloon per 1,000 inhabitants outside of Boston, and at one per 500 within that city—and in others, absolute, as in Minneapolis, Minn., Los Angeles, Cal., and Kansas City, Mo. Although the form of the inquiry in 1907 varies slightly from that used in 1905, the latter asking for the "number of licenses issued and the former the "number in force at the close of the

The most pronounced decrease, 8.4 per cent, is found in Group II, a condition due undoubtedly to the large individual decreases shown for the cities of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee reported in that group.

The changes in the case of individual cities are best illustrated by the following comparative statements, presenting some of the most striking changes in the number of retail liquor dealers. The cities included in these statements are those showing an increase or decrease, respectively, of 15 per cent or more, and are arranged according to the magnitude of the change.

TABLE XL.-Increase from 1905 to 1907 in the number of retail liquor dealers in specified cities.

[The cities are arranged in the order of their per cent of increase.]

The explanation for the marked decreases shown for the cities of Ohio lies in the increase in the license rate from $500 in 1905 to $1,000 in 1907. Similar causes were operative in the cities of Tennessee, where the state license rate was increased from $250 to $500 and the county rate from $85 to $150, but the decreases in these latter cities are also due in part to differences in methods of reporting in the two years, as are also those shown for Lowell and Haverhill, Mass. In San Francisco, Cal., the decrease in the number of retail liquor dealers was due not only to a: increase in the license rate from $84 to $500, but to a readjustment of local conditions following the earthquake in 1906. Because of the shifting of population across the bay, the latter cause produced the opposite effect in Oakland, Cal., where an increase of 30.6 per cent is shown. The increase of 19.3 per cent in Detroit, Mich., is due probably to the annexation of Delrey and Fairview, while that of 22.1 per cent in Seattle, Wash., is undoubtedly the result of conditions preceding the Alaska-Yukon Exposition. The pronounced increase shown for Omaha, Nebr., is due to an error in the 1905 report, as is also the decrease of 53 per cent shown for Waterbury, Conn. The apparently large increase shown in Dallas, Tex., is due partly to an incomplete report for 1905; the city's record of liquor licenses for that year having been destroyed, no accurate statement was obtainable, and the number given is an estimate furnished by one of the city officials. In all increases in the number of retail liquor dealers the growth of population is undoubtedly a factor, and in some of the Western cities this factor is almost wholly responsible for the increase. The reason for the decreases is, as a general rule, a change in the license rate, although in some cities, notably in St. Louis, Mo., and Buffalo, N. Y., the decreases were due largely to the rigid

North Central division..... Eastern North Central. Western North Central. South Central division.............

Western division.......

Rocky Mountain... Basin and Plateau. Pacific..

From this statement it will be seen that there was an almost universal decrease in the number of retail liquor dealers in all parts of the country, the only exceptions being the Western South Central states in the South Central division, which reported an increase of 2.8 per cent, and the Rocky Mountain and the Basin and Plateau states in the Western division, which show respective increases of 10 per cent and 4.9 per cent. The Western and South Central divisions as a whole, however, show decreases, the effect of the increases above noted being neutralized by the high percentages of decrease reported for the Pacific and Eastern South Central states-14.5 and 20.3, respectively. The latter is the highest percentage of decrease shown for any subdivision, and reflects the marked changes in Kentucky and Tennessee previously referred to.

In this connection it is a striking fact that, while the aggregate number of retail liquor dealers shows a pronounced decrease, both for each geographic division and for each group according to population, when the 141 cities for which statistics are available for both years are individually considered, it is found that 52.5 per cent show increases, as do a majority of the cities in the individual groups with the exception of those in Group I, where more cities report decreases than increases. The cause for this condition lies in the fact

that the individual increases are so small and the individual decreases so large that the net effect is a decided decrease.

The final column of Table 52, which gives for each city the number of inhabitants per dealer selling liquor by the drink, presents material for comparisons of the number of liquor dealers in proportion to population. The most striking change in this respect between 1905 and 1907 is that in the relative rank of the several groups. Their order in 1905 was I, II, IV, and III, while in 1907 it was IV, I, III, and II. The smallest numbers of saloons in proportion to population are shown for the cities of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts; the largest for those of Texas, Ohio, and Wisconsin; while the large numbers shown for the cities of Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Kentucky, and New York are also worthy of note. The extremes between cities in the same group are as follows, the figure following the name of the city indicating in each case the number of inhabitants. to each dealer selling liquor by the drink:

Group I.-Milwaukee, Wis., 142, and Philadelphia, Pa., 761. Group II.-Newark, N. J., 217, and Worcester, Mass., 1,222. Group III.-Houston, Tex., 158, and Springfield, Mass., 1,347. Group IV.-Galveston, Tex., 134, and Newcastle, Pa., 2,137.

In addition to the regular license rates charged the different classes of dealers, manufacturers, and bottlers, tabulated in Table 52, in many cities payments are made for additional privileges, such as the sale of liquor in bottles or permission to keep the place of business open for a greater number of hours than are authorized by the ordinary license. Where two or more rates are shown for any one class of retail dealers in the same city, the smallest rate represents the regular rate for that class, and the difference between this regular rate and the higher rate represents additional payments such as those mentioned above. In Boston, Mass., 28 hotel keepers paid an additional license fee of $500 each for the privilege of selling liquor from 11 to 12 p. m.; 671 retail dealers selling by the drink paid an additional fee of $300 for the privilege of selling liquor in bottles; and 70 wholesale dealers paid an additional fee of $500 for the privilege of bottling liquors; while 6 druggists, who paid a license fee of $500 each, are included in the table with wholesale dealers. In New Bedford, Mass., 2 hotel keepers paid an additional fee of $300 each for the privilege of selling liquors from 11 to 12 p. m. In Fall River, Mass., 13 dealers paid an additional fee of $1,400 each for the privilege of selling at wholesale; and in Lowell, Mass., 77 dealers paid an additional fee of $500 each for selling liquor in bottles. In Lynn, Mass., 4 dealers selling by the drink paid an additional fee of $800 each for the privilege of bottling liquors; 1 dealer, selling only malt liquors by the drink, paid an additional fee of $1,000 for the privilege of bottling; and 8 dealers paid an additional fee of $1,200 each for the

privilege of selling liquors at wholesale. In Washington, D. C., 4 dealers selling by the drink paid an additional fee of $300 each for the privilege of selling at wholesale; and in Sacramento, Cal., 104 dealers paid an additional fee of $40 each for the privilege of selling from midnight to 5 a. m. In New York, N. Y., 3 dealers, not selling by the drink, paid an additional rate of $150 each for the privilege of delivery from wagon. In Montgomery, Ala., 38 dealers selling by the drink paid $200 additional for permission to locate within certain fire limits.

In Philadelphia 49 brewers and brewers' agents paid additional yearly rates, based on the number of barrels brewed, which ranged from $250 to $5,000, as follows:

In New Orleans 11 distillers and brewers paid rates determined by the amount of their gross annual receipts, varying from $87.50 to $2,675, the average being $747.16; wholesale dealers paid rates ranging from $70 to $350 yearly, according to the amount of their gross annual sales, 33 paying $70, 3 paying $140, and 1 paying $350; and retail dealers selling by the drink paid rates in proportion to the amount of their annual sales, varying from $350, paid by 1,560 dealers, to $2,100, paid by 2 dealers.

Among the cities showing variations in the rates paid by different classes of dealers or manufacturers are Chicago, Ill., where the wholesale dealers who deal in all kinds of liquors are charged $100, while those who sell malt liquors only are charged $50; Nashville, Tenn., where 1 distiller paid $300, while 6 brewers paid $1,500 each; Knoxville, Tenn., where 1 distiller had a rate of $10, while 1 brewer paid $250; and York, Pa., where 1 brewer paid for his license $750, 1 paid $1,000, and another paid $1,250.

The following summary of the variations in Massachusetts is given to show the classes and minimum cost of liquor licenses prevailing in that state:

First class: To sell liquors of any kind to be drunk on the premises, not less than $1,000.

Second class: To sell malt liquors, cider, and light wines containing not more than 15 per cent of alcohol to be drunk on the premises, not less than $250.

Third class: To sell malt liquors and cider to be drunk on the premises, not less than $250.

Fourth class: To sell liquors of any kind not to be drunk on the premises, not less than $300.

Fifth class: To sell malt liquors, cider, and light wines containing not more than 15 per cent of alcohol, not to be drunk on the premises, not less than $150.

Sixth class: Retail druggists and apothecaries to sell liquors of any kind for medicinal, mechanical, or chemical purposes only, $1.

Seventh class: Dealers in paints or chemicals to sell alcohol for mechanical, manufacturing, or chemical purposes only, $1.

Club licenses: Bona fide clubs, not less than $50 nor more than $500. (Sec. 88, R. S., 1902.)

Of temporary licenses granted for a brief period, as a day or a week, Chicago, Ill., reported 5,032 at $6 per day; New Orleans, La., 661 at $5 per day; Albany, N. Y., 7 at $10 per day; and Camden, N. J., 8 at $10 per day.

The annual rates for licenses which are shown in Table 52 represent the total rate paid. For many cities this amount includes fixed fees for licenses granted directly by the state or county, as well as for the license granted by the city, while in the case of some cities a certain percentage of the license rate is for the benefit of the state or county, or both.

The following summary gives a list of the cities in which state or county licenses, or both, are required of the various classes of liquor dealers in addition to the fees paid the cities, together with the license rates: TABLE XLIII.-Rates of state and county licenses required in specified cities: 1907.

The cities of Virginia, and Knoxville, Tenn., reported no data for the above table. Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Fort Worth, Tex., reported that a license fee of $375 was collected for state and county purposes, but did not report the basis of distribution. In Alabama the cities collected the following rates, 75 per cent for the state and 25 per cent for the county: In Birmingham, from all classes of dealers, $525.75; in Mobile and Montgomery, from retail and wholesale dealers in all kinds of liquors, $350, from

90196-10-8

dealers in beer only, $87.50, and from brewers, $150; and in Mobile, from clubs, $125.

In the cities of certain states, the state or county, or both, share with the city in the license collected, at the following rates per cent, the distribution being on a uniform basis in all cities reported for each state: New York, state, 50 per cent; Maryland, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, state, 25 per cent; Washington, state, 10 per cent; Minnesota, state, 2 per cent; Ohio, state, 30 per cent and county 20 per cent; New Hampshire and Michigan, county, 50 per cent; and Connecticut, county, 10 per cent.

For the cities reporting in California, Illinois, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, the rates given are collected for city purposes only, neither state nor county participating.

Since the data presented in Table 52 were collected, Alabama, Georgia, and Oklahoma have adopted constitutional provisions prohibiting the sale or manufacture of intoxicating liquors. Worcester, Mass., became a "no license" city on May 1, 1908; Knoxville, Tenn., on November 1, 1907; and Rockford, Ill., on May 7, 1908. Three states-Iowa, Kansas, and Maine-have constitutional amendments prohibiting the sale or manufacture of intoxicating liquors; but the cities and counties of Iowa, through the operation of the "Mulct Tax" law, derive revenue from this class of business. Charleston, S. C., reported no liquor dealers, the business being operated by the state under the dispensary law.

In some cities liquor licenses for city purposes are granted by the city councils. There are also 9 other principal licensing agencies, as follows:

(1) City excise or license board, or commission, in Denver, Colo., Washington, D. C., Lincoln, Nebr., Newark, Jersey City, Trenton, Camden, and Elizabeth, N. J., Chattanooga, Tenn., Norfolk and Richmond, Va., Louisville, Ky., New Orleans, La., all cities in Massachusetts (except Boston, Fall River, and Lowell), Pawtucket and Woonsocket, R. I., and Memphis, Tenn. (registrar of licenses).

(2) State excise authority in St. Louis, Mo., Boston, Mass., Baltimore, Md., Manchester, N. H., and all cities in New York. In St. Louis, Boston, and Baltimore, however, the jurisdiction of the excise authorities is limited to the city, while in Boston and Baltimore they are paid from the city treasury.

(3) County authority, in all cities in Connecticut (county commissioners), all cities in Ohio (county auditors).

(4) Courts of quarter sessions for the county in all cities in Pennsylvania.

(5) City clerk, in Chicago, Peoria, and Quincy, Ill., Oklahoma City, Okla., and San Antonio, Tex.

(6) Police, or police and fire boards or commissions in San Francisco and Los Angeles, Cal., Kansas City,