Contents

The new law distinguished between two categories of alcoholics. The first was that of «drunks», who create public «scandals» or were otherwise considered to be «dangerous»; the second was reserved for those defined as «habitual drinkers». The law imposed different correctional measures for the two categories. Those defined by the law as «drunks» were first to be prohibited from entering «public houses». Anyone who violated the prohibition and entered a place where alcohol was served, or anyone for whom the responsible Prefect (district officer of the canton) held that such a prohibition was not sufficient, could be administratively detained in a correctional labour facility for a term of from one to three years. Under the same law, «habitual drinkers» who – in the words of the source – «endanger their health or social responsibilities, their own financial situation or that of their family» could be interned in an alcoholic rehabilitation facility for a term of from six months to two years. The law further established that authorities could also order additional measures in such cases, including declaring the individual concerned to be incapacitated under rules of the Civil Code or transferring him or her to a correctional labour facility.

The vagueness of the terms used in the text of the law made it possible for the competent authorities, that is, the local prefects, to exercise wide discretion in the application of the law. For example, at what point could a person's conduct be considered «scandalous», or what constituted an endangerment of the individual’s «social responsibilities»? These and other issues were determined by the authorities at their own discretion. Because of this, it was difficult to predict which of the measures provided for by the law would be imposed by a given authority, and what consequences it would have for the individual in question.

Laws under which it was possible to order the administrative detention of alcoholics existed not only in the Canton of Fribourg, but also in most other cantons.

Use of the source

A study of the applicable laws makes it possible, among other things, to establish the amount of leeway that was granted to the local authorities. The text of the laws also indicates the categories of individuals who could be subjected to administrative detention, when this was possible, and under what conditions. In addition, it provides answers to various questions concerning the legal procedure for ordering administrative detention: Who was permitted to seek an administrative detention order? Who was liable for the costs (e.g., the local municipality or the cantonal government)? Was a medical opinion required? What was the time limit for appealing such orders, if indeed an appeal was possible? Were the authorities permitted to impose other measures besides detention?

On the other hand, the texts of the law do not supply any information as to which of the different provisions contained therein were applied, when, or how frequently. Study of the legal texts also does not permit any conclusions as to whether the authorities always adhered to the statutory requirements for ordering administrative detention. In order to establish how the relevant laws were applied in practice, additional sources must also be consulted – for example, administrative detention orders that were actually issued, or records maintained by the authorities on the individuals concerned.

E. Neuhaus/Translation

Source

Loi du 20 mai 1919 sur les auberges, la fabrication et la vente de boissons alcooliques et la répression de l’alcoolisme.

Signature: Staatsarchiv Freiburg (StAF/AEF): Le Grand Conseil du Canton de Fribourg, Bulletins des lois, 1919, pp. 107–137.

Particularities of the source 

• Connections with other sources:
  At the beginning of the 20^th century, alcoholism was considered a health and social «evil». Against this backdrop, various Cantons laid down regulations setting forth how to deal with the issue of alcohol. They included repressive measures against people who were often defined by the lawmaker as «drunkards» and «habitual drinkers». In his text about Auguste Forel, L. Maugué explains the role played by the views of science in justifying these regulations.
  The law passed by the Canton of Fribourg «on public houses, the production and sale of alcoholic beverages and the fight against alcohol abuse» set forth also the conditions according to which a detainee could be released from a labour facility. This source by M. Häsler Kristmann shows how inmates applied for release under this law.
• A bilingual canton:
  Because Fribourg is a bilingual canton, all cantonal laws are published in both French and German. For official purposes, the French version is always considered decisive, because the laws are drafted in French and then translated into German. For that reason, mistakes in the translation could sometimes have serious consequences. Such a case occurred many decades later in connection with the «Law of 7 May 1965 on the Prevention of Alcoholism» [Loi du 7 mai 1965 sur la lutte contre l’alcoolisme]. The German version of the law omitted mention of the maximum term for administrative detention, which in the French version was fixed at two years. This mistake went unnoticed for five years, with the result that a number of individuals were placed in administrative detention for an indefinite period (cf. AEF, DSPa 2697, «Mitteilung an die Oberamtmänner des Sensebezirks und des Seebezirks, 17. September 1970»).