i agree that high license was the overall strategy, and that saloons were
the principal targets, but if the question is "why were there fewer
licensed premises," the answer is not just high license but also the
enforcement of rules (applicable to restaurants, amusement parks, and other
settings, as well as to saloons) against serving minors or persons
obviously intoxicated, violating closing hours, catering to prostitution,
and even allowing narcotics sales.  in san francisco, at least, some degree
of attrition was produced by the insistence of neighborhood improvement
associations that such rules be observed -- at least outside of the city's
customary vice districts.  as i recall, a major period of such controversy
followed immediately upon mckinley's abolition of the military canteen,
thus sending hordes of soldiers from the presidio into nearby groceries to
buy whisky that they consumed on the neighborhood's corners and park
benches.  at the insistence of the military, the city pulled several
licenses from uncompliant groceries and saloons.  (i don't recall how long
it was before the canteen was reinstated.)

jim baumohl


At 01:49 PM 9/28/98 -0500, you wrote:
>The "high license" reforms in the southern states (and elsewhere) were
>efforts scale back the number of saloons.  Only the more profitable and
>reputable saloons could survive.  If I recall, Duis contrasts the number
>of saloons in Boston after a similar effort with Chicago's unregulated
>market.
>
>James Ivy
>
>On Sat, 26 Sep 1998, David M. Fahey wrote:
>
>> In late 19th and early 20th cent. England reduction in the number of
>> premises licensed for the sale of alcoholic drink for on-premises
>> consumption became popular as a method of temperance reform.  Was there any
>> similar enthusiasm for reduction in numbers in the USA or other
>> English-speaking countries?
>>
>
>