MESSAGE

VETOING AN ACT TO PROMOTE TEMPERANCE BY THE SUPPRESSION OF THE LIQUOR SALOON.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, BOSTON, June 16, 1892.

TO THE HONORABLE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I

RETURN herewith, with my objections, a bill entitled "An Act to promote temperance by the suppression of the liquor saloon and tippling shop," which originated in your body.

If I believed that this bill would promote the cause of temperance, I would gladly give it my approval. But I do not believe it will have or is expected to have this result; but, on the contrary, that it will lead to evasion, and to the unequal and imperfect application and enforcement of law, as was recently fully illustrated in reference to the public bar law.

This bill in substance merely prohibits the keeping or sale of liquor in any room, building, or place where the sale of liquor is the exclusive or principal business carried on. It therefore requires only that every licensee should provide himself with some other business in addition to the sale of liquors, such, for example, as the sale of food or of newspapers, providing billiards or some other amusement as a business, or the exhibition of pictures or delivery of lectures, etc., -to which he may claim to make the sale of liquors subordinate, and then leave it to a jury to determine this fact. It is perfectly clear to me that this is only

encouraging a repetition of an experience in this Commonwealth which proved to be so much of a farce and scandal as to lead the Legislature last year to repeal the cause of it. It was found then that the provision in reference to a public bar was enforced in only one or two places, that it had not advanced the cause of temperance, that it was not sustained by public sentiment, and that, by constant evasions and non-enforcement, it was an injury to the cause of law and order, and so the provision was repealed.

Under this bill the seller of liquor can go through the farce of establishing a "principal business," and again we shall have an experience with unequal and imperfect attempts at enforcement of law.

I believe it is an unwise policy to enact legislation which, it is almost certain, will open the way to make a farce of law by non-enforcement, when law ought to be thoroughly enforced, with the full support and approbation of the community.

I will gladly give my sanction and aid to every proper measure which will advance the cause of temperance, and to the full extent of my power will have the laws of this Commonwealth thoroughly enforced. Wherever in the past such enforcement has fallen within my official duty, I have sought to make it effective. But I do most earnestly urge on the consideration of the Legislature the mischief of making provisions of law which, in the light of experience, it is believed will lead only to evasions, non-enforcement, and a farce.

Under the wise and well-established policy of this Commonwealth, each locality has full power to determine for itself the question of the sale of liquor within its limits, and, if it desires, can absolutely prohibit such sale.

The annual discussion and decision of this question in our local communities have preserved fully their local rights, and have also been an educational influence of great importance in advancing the cause of temperance. Even if a community votes for license, the local authorities have now absolute power to determine how many licenses, if any, shall be granted, and to what persons and what places and for what purpose.

Everything sought to be accomplished by this bill can now be accomplished by the local authorities of any community. They can limit licenses, if they wish, to apothecaries, hotel-keepers, or grocers, or any other class within their discretion. They cannot now grant a license for sale of liquor to be drunk on the premises except to a common victualler, that is, to one who conducts also the business of furnishing food. If this provision, now existing in law, can be and is enforced, it covers the case sought to be reached by this bill; if it is not enforced, and cannot be, it is not more law, but more enforcement of law, which is needed.

In view of the full powers now given to local communities to establish prohibition or to restrict the persons or places to be licensed, or the purpose for which a license shall be used, and of the many other restrictions and limitations now existing. I do not believe. this proposed law is wise or necessary.

If this measure is directed especially to the city of Boston, it should be remembered that for every liquor saloon or tippling shop which now exists there, the responsibility rests directly upon the Board of Police created by the State, and that there is now and has been in their hands full power to prohibit the existence of any and every such saloon or shop.

The conditions and sentiment of different communities vary greatly upon the question of the sale of liquor.

It seems to me wiser to allow for such differences of condition, opinion, and sentiment, by giving discretion upon this question to each community and its properly constituted authorities, than to disregard such differences by general provisions of law; so the law enacted. by each community will have behind it the power and public sentiment of that community, and will be, as it ought to be and must be, thoroughly enforced. It is such a policy which has received the repeated approval and indorsement of the people of this Commonwealth. It is in thorough accord with our belief in local selfgovernment, and in my judgment it is constantly advancing the cause of temperance.

This bill does not in any way or form prohibit the sale of liquor or limit the number of places where it may be sold, or tend to promote prohibition. Such sale may be just as open as at present, and as easily accessible to any person desiring to purchase liquor; nor will he be required to order food therewith, or to patronize any other business of the seller.

This Legislature has shown that it does not believe in prohibition, by its refusal to establish it, or to limit further the number of licenses, or to enact any other measures in that direction.

The provision of this bill is solely that some other principal business must be carried on at the place of sale. This is certain to be difficult of construction and enforcement, and may well add to the admitted evils and temptations of the saloon. It certainly is of doubtful public policy to force the association of other business with the sale of liquor.

It is not at all likely that this business, which is notoriously profitable, would by this law be limited in extent or change hands, but only that it would disguise its conduct to meet the formal requirements of the law.

Instead of suppressing the saloon, in my judgment it would add to its evils, and instead of promoting temperance, it would lead to evasions and conditions which would tend to injure this most worthy cause.

As this bill comes to me with fifty or sixty others in the closing hours of your session, I am compelled to express in a hasty and imperfect way the reasons which lead me to believe that the measure is injudicious, and that it is more conservative and wise to withhold my approval of it than to allow it to become a law, especially as it is not to take effect until May 1, 1893, and there is, therefore, ample opportunity for another Legislature to give it consideration.