PARTIAL PROHIBITION 
41 
the retail sale of liquor within its limits. For instance, 
in the Province of Ontario in 1905, 607 of the munici- 
palities voted “ wet ”’ and only 187 voted ““ dry,” but 
in subsequent years the proportion of dry munici- 
palities steadily increased till in 1916 they numbered 
574, as against 277 with a wet vote. In Quebec the 
proportion of dry municipalities was even higher, 
being 603 out of 933 in 1898, whilst in 1922 nine-tenths 
of the municipalities were under local prohibition. It 
is to be remembered that under local option the dry 
localities in many instances were adjacent to wet 
localities, and this interfered to a considerable extent 
with the successful operation of the local prohibition. 
Hence the demand for Provincial prohibition again 
arose, and it received a considerable impetus from the 
outbreak of the war. This impetus culminated in 1918 
in the passage of National prohibition, and from 
April 1, 1918, till December 31, 1919, the manufacture, 
importation, and sale of liquor was prohibited through- 
out Canada. Its effects on convictions for drunkenness 
are not nearly so marked as would be expected, judging 
from the more striking results obtained in this country 
under a restricted liquor policy (cf. Chapter IV). 
Year. 
1912 
1913 
[914 
1915 
1916 
19:7 
Convictions for 
Drunkenness 
9 
— 
- 
~ 
Relative 
Number. 
Year. 
1918 
919 
[920 
1921 
1922 
Convictions for 
Drunkenness. 
21,026 
24,217 
39,769 
34,362 
25.048 
Relative 
Number. 
40 
45 
75 
64 
~ 
The data in the Table show that in 1918-19 the 
convictions fell only to about 40 per cent. their pre-war