The Prohibition Ploy: Licensing Soft Drinks to Stop Bootlegging
A new city ordinance requires soft drink counters to purchase a license, not for revenue, but as a lever to shut down businesses caught selling liquor.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Unless the city council changes its mind, it will soon be a misdemeanor to sell fizz water, lemonade, grape juice, or other non-alcoholic drinks within city limits without a license. An ordinance given its first and second readings on Tuesday calls for an annual fee of $2.50. The intent is not to raise revenue, but to provide an effective method for dealing with illicit sales of intoxicants at soft drink counters. The essence of the ordinance is a provision that renders the license null and void if the licensee is found guilty of violating state or city prohibition laws. Enforcement will mean that instead of 'bootleggers' simply being fined, their licenses will be revoked and their places of business closed entirely.
“The real essence of the ordinance is in a provision which renders null and void the license where the licensee is found guilty of violating any of the provisions of the city or state prohibition laws.”
This reflects the creative and often heavy-handed methods used by local governments during the lead-up to national Prohibition. The use of 'licensing' as a tool for moral policing or industry suppression echoes in modern debates over business regulation.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.